Pájaro River Watershed Flood Protection Plan - The Pajaro River ...
Pájaro River Watershed Flood Protection Plan - The Pajaro River ...
Pájaro River Watershed Flood Protection Plan - The Pajaro River ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
California State University<br />
Robert Curry, Research Director<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Institute<br />
Earth Systems Science & Policy<br />
CSU Monterey Bay<br />
Seaside, CALIF. 93955<br />
Bob_curry@csumb.edu<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Restoration Class – Spring, 2003<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
<strong>Flood</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Wm Bodensteiner<br />
Lani Clough<br />
Suzanne Gilmore<br />
Paul Huntington<br />
Joy Larson<br />
April McMillan<br />
Steve Mack<br />
C. Andrew Mauck<br />
Serena Pring<br />
Emily Roth<br />
Amy Thistle<br />
Melanie Vincent<br />
DRAFT OF July 22, 2003 A1 Public Copy
Executive Summary<br />
Because of the unique geologic and hydrologic setting of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> in<br />
its dynamic watershed, traditional approaches to flood control may not be<br />
effective and will require constant expensive maintenance. <strong>The</strong> river that<br />
now flows through it did not create the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley and it is not<br />
possible to “restore” such a system to stability because there is no evidence<br />
of any past stable <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> channel in the lower valley. An artificial flood<br />
control channel was constructed by early residents and was upgraded by the<br />
U.S. Army, and later by the Corps’ of Engineers to try to minimize property<br />
losses associated with large floods in this watershed of about 1300 square<br />
miles. Historically the <strong>Pájaro</strong> watershed system has carried runoff from<br />
Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey counties into Monterey<br />
Bay through various channels in Monterey County. <strong>The</strong> river is now<br />
artificially confined to join Corralitos Creek to enter the ocean along the Santa<br />
Cruz/Monterey County border.<br />
We find that a substantial area of on-channel storage of floodwater has been<br />
lost in the upper watershed areas of San Benito and Santa Clara counties.<br />
Some of this lost storage can be recovered for little or no public cost to<br />
reduce flood heights (on the order of 4 feet) in the artificial floodway channel<br />
of the lower river. Redesign of that lower channel may accommodate added<br />
flood capacity to provide a working flood channel that carries a generously<br />
estimated 100-year flood volume. Such redesign, coupled with upstream<br />
channel restoration that is part of a flood storage enhancement project, will<br />
have very substantial wildlife and water quality habitat benefits.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
2<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Table of Contents<br />
Executive Summary<br />
Table of Contents<br />
Chapter 1<br />
Introductory Context<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> System Dynamics<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
Lower <strong>Watershed</strong> – Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties<br />
Upper <strong>Watershed</strong> – San Benito and Santa Clara Counties<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>River</strong> System<br />
Stable Channel Alternatives<br />
This Project Report<br />
Coordination with other<br />
Raines, Melton, Carella<br />
Philip William Associates<br />
U. S. Army, Corps of Engineers<br />
i<br />
ii<br />
Chapter 2<br />
Design <strong>Flood</strong> Analyses<br />
Purpose<br />
Methods<br />
Data Collection<br />
Data Analysis<br />
Results<br />
Regional Analyses<br />
Discussion<br />
Storm Patterns and History<br />
Chapter 3<br />
Upper Basin In-channel <strong>Flood</strong> Storage and Restoration Opportunities<br />
Basic Conclusions<br />
<strong>The</strong>ory<br />
Methods<br />
Findings<br />
Channel Incision<br />
Channel Diversions<br />
Restoration of Channel Functions<br />
Suggested Restoration Options for the San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
Aggregate Mining Company Opportunities<br />
Suggested Enhancement Options for the Upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
Conclusions<br />
References Cited and Historical Materials Consulted<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
3<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
FIGURES AND PLATES<br />
Fig 1 Map of Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and Elkhorn areas showing historical changes<br />
Fig 2 Historical aerial photo of <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley showing landslides<br />
Map A Rancho Vega del Rio <strong>Pájaro</strong> and Northern Monterey County 1875<br />
Map B Land Ownership in Vega area about 1910<br />
Fig 3 Historical (1938) aerial photo showing past breakout areas<br />
Fig 4 Historical (1938) aerial photo showing meander wavelength in lower valley<br />
Fig 5 Map of Pleistocene Lake San Benito (from Jenkins)<br />
Fig 6 Calculated flood discharge frequency/magnitude plot at Chittenden<br />
Fig 7 Monterey Herald photograph of 1938 Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> flooding<br />
Map C FEMA 100-year flood map and map of areas considered for flood storage<br />
augmentation in this report<br />
Fig 8 Soil profile in active overbank storage areas<br />
Fig 9 Lake San Benito soil profile<br />
Fig 10 Example of area that can be restored to flood storage<br />
Fig 11 Effects of channel incision on channel stability and habitat<br />
Fig 12 Cienega Road House<br />
Fig 13 Llagas Creek Channel photos<br />
Fig 14 Gabion Basket representation<br />
Fig 15 Stream Barb representation with Gabion Baskets<br />
Fig 16 Detailed topography of a portion of Lower San Benito <strong>River</strong> near Highway 101<br />
Fig 17 San Benito <strong>River</strong> Channel topography near Mitchell Road<br />
APPENDICES<br />
App 1. Note on higher recorded 1998 flow at Highway 156 than downstream at<br />
Chittenden gauge from L. Freeman, USGS<br />
App 2. Analysis of 1998 and 1995 storm conditions with map of precipitation stations<br />
used in the analysis<br />
App 3. Streambank property owners in San Benito County (separate file)<br />
App 4. In preparation<br />
App 5. Example of Historical Changes in Lower San Benito <strong>River</strong> (Figs 18-21)<br />
App 6. Topographic detail for a cross section in the App 5. Historical Change area<br />
App 7. Mines in the San Benito County permit files (separate file)<br />
App 8. Economics and Socioeconomic Settings<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
4<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong><br />
Management Alternatives<br />
A study by the CSUMB <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
Restoration Class, Spring 2003<br />
CHAPTER 1<br />
Introductory Context<br />
This report is a group effort of 12 upper level students who have focused much of their<br />
education on <strong>Watershed</strong> Science through the Earth Systems Science and Policy<br />
Program at California State University Monterey Bay. Some participants had already<br />
graduated from CSUMB or UC Santa Cruz; while most were finishing seniors with<br />
educations that included advanced hydrology, water law, and riparian ecology. CSU<br />
Monterey Bay stresses an “outcomes-based” education with active, applied learning.<br />
This work is not financially supported, but a small anonymous donation of $500<br />
helped with copying and telephone costs. <strong>The</strong> Santa Clara Valley group “People for<br />
Livable and Affordable Neighborhoods” supported a detailed watershed map made<br />
especially for this effort by Eureka Cartography in Berkeley. San Benito County and<br />
the Graniterock Company contributed map and data resources.<br />
This report follows the theme of our educational program and treats the <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> as a physical and biological system. We take the position that it is not<br />
possible to isolate the processes and problems in the lower watershed from the<br />
causal mechanisms in the upper watershed. We look at the watershed as a complete<br />
system with material and energy flows that support living ecosystems and organisms.<br />
We assess the causes of dysfunction, which in this particular case focuses on<br />
responses of humans to flooding and sediment transport, and evaluate potential<br />
solutions utilizing fundamentals of fluvial geomorphology and restoration ecology.<br />
This particular study was undertaken in the context of significant fundamental<br />
disagreements between residents, agencies, and government entities. Following the<br />
California Supreme Court finding that upheld lower court’s rulings against County<br />
governments for causing flooding in 1995 through lack of required maintenance,<br />
Monterey and Santa Cruz counties requested that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers<br />
consider a new flood control project to protect the downstream areas from 100-year<br />
return-period floods. This class effort focused on the opportunities to reduce<br />
downstream flood hazards through upstream flood detention and through design of a<br />
stable channel alternative in the artificially constrained lower reaches of what is called<br />
the <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
5<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
<strong>The</strong> Corps’ had been requested to evaluate protection options for only the lower river<br />
system working with only the lower county governments, and further constrained by<br />
limited budgets and the necessity to work with a set of “stakeholders” who<br />
represented diverse and often contradictory viewpoints. With this impossible set of<br />
constraints, landowner, environmental, and agency views that had seemed in conflict<br />
with each other soon refocused on conflict with the Corps’ themselves, who ultimately<br />
were left to represent only the county governments who had brought them into the<br />
project.<br />
This report is now presented simultaneously with the Corps of Engineers flood control<br />
proposals and with a citizens’ sponsored and funded set of alternative flood protection<br />
solutions produced by the renown hydrologic consulting firm of Philip Williams<br />
Associates. It is hoped that this university effort can help to expand the very limited<br />
scope of the many other ongoing and recent studies to create viable alternatives in<br />
this very complex watershed system.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> System Dynamics<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong>: At present the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> watershed drains an area of<br />
approximately 1300 square miles. <strong>The</strong> watershed primarily drains the counties of San<br />
Benito, and Santa Clara, with some added contribution from Santa Cruz County. Very<br />
small areas of Fresno and Monterey counties are also within the watershed but<br />
contribute very little to the runoff. About 91 percent of the watershed is in North<br />
America while the outlet in the Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley and the Corralitos and<br />
Watsonville Slough tributaries are on the Pacific Plate. Due to active faulting within the<br />
watershed boundaries, the rivers’ coarse is continuously changing and has not<br />
stabilized in a valley of its own construction. <strong>The</strong> San Benito <strong>River</strong> is now 51% of the<br />
entire <strong>Pájaro</strong> drainage area but contributes only about 25% of the runoff at Chittenden<br />
(an average of 49 ac-ft/an/sq.mi.) <strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> above the San Benito junction (at<br />
Sargent) contributes about 180 ac-ft/an/sq.mi from 39% of the basin.<br />
Corralitos/Salsipuedes tributary is only about 3% of the watershed but contributes on<br />
the order of 435 ac-ft/sq.mi, or nearly 10% of the total discharge of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> system.<br />
Constructed reservoirs have a maximum capacity of 42,680 ac-ft (Hernandez:18,500;<br />
Uvas:9950; Chesbro:8090; and Pacheco:6140). We estimate that about 60,000 ac-ft<br />
of near-channel flood storage also exists in areas that are subject to overbank or inchannel<br />
flood storage or were 50 years ago. About 24,000 ac-ft of lost storage can be<br />
readily restored at little or no public cost.<br />
A map of the watershed that incorporates the detailed findings of this report is<br />
available on-line in a medium-resolution 10 MB and low resolution 700 KB version at<br />
http://home.csumb.edu/c/currybob/world/<strong>Pajaro</strong>/ where this report itself and some of<br />
its graphics is also available. This watershed map utilizes the existing left-bank levee<br />
of the lower river as the watershed divide between Elkhorn Slough and the <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
watersheds.<br />
Lower <strong>Watershed</strong>, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties: <strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> is<br />
unusual. Traditional engineering solutions must accommodate the unique geology and<br />
hydrologic character of the basin. <strong>The</strong> headwaters of the basin are in North America<br />
but the primary plate boundary represented by the Calavaras and San Andreas Fault<br />
zones separates the mouth of the present river from its historic source areas. Active<br />
transform faulting has repeatedly and progressively modified the course of the river<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
6<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
that today bears the name <strong>Pájaro</strong>. <strong>The</strong> unusual shape of the watershed itself, with a<br />
long source area far south of the outlet is the result of continual stretching of the<br />
watershed by active faulting that pulls the lower river northwestward, farther and<br />
farther from its headwaters.<br />
Much of the lower river, west of the San Andreas Fault Zone, does not flow in a valley<br />
of its own making. <strong>The</strong> original course of Corralitos Creek in Santa Cruz County (see<br />
Fig. 1) and its alluvial aquifer have now been taken over by the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> system.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ancestral <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> has been repeatedly offset northward by right-lateral fault<br />
offset, sometimes emptying to the coast through Elkhorn Slough at Moss Landing,<br />
and other times commingling with Corralitos Creek as it does today. California’s State<br />
Geologist, Olaf Jenkins (1973) postulated that landslides near Chittenden Gap,<br />
forming Lake San Benito and later Lake San Juan that repeatedly spilled and scoured<br />
overflow channels in the Carneros Creek/Elkhorn Slough area, might have repeatedly<br />
dammed the main river. Even today, during flood stage, the lower river flows to the<br />
sea at Moss Landing. Jenkins reasoned that these changes are geologically<br />
contemporary, having occurred in the last few thousand to 20,000 years at the most.<br />
Fundamental evidence for the very young character of this lake and its overflow is the<br />
fact that the lake shorelines are evidently not evidently tilted or deformed, despite<br />
being astride two active faults, and finding that the lake sediments contain a fully<br />
contemporary local flora and fauna.<br />
Fig 1<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
7<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure 1 represents a slight modification of the original Jenkins map (Curry, 1996) with<br />
a series of name changes to better reflect the geologic evolution of the present lower<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> as it spilled through Chittenden Gap to overwhelm any preexisting local<br />
watercourses. It is critical to appreciate that Corralitos Creek and its presumed<br />
tributary Aromas Creek did not capture the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, but instead a great lake<br />
dammed by faulting and/or landslides spilled catastrophically into what we now call<br />
the <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley. This explains the lack of terraces and floodplain deposits in the<br />
lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley, and the massive Lake San Benito silts that now blanket the lower<br />
valley to support its agriculture.<br />
Because the river that now flows through it did not form the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley, the<br />
watercourse is inherently unstable. Fluvial geomorphology recognizes this condition<br />
as “overfit”, with the natural watercourse being too big for its channel. Coupled to this<br />
inherent instability is the fact that the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley is traversed by the San<br />
Andreas Fault and the subsidiary Zayante-Vergeles fault system (R. Anderson, 1990).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se are all among the most active terrestrial fault systems on the North American<br />
continent. <strong>The</strong> 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake apparently deformed the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
levee system (personal survey notes). Today the lowest point in the <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley is<br />
not the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> but is a small overflow watercourse along the extreme south side<br />
of the lower valley. Based on undercutting of the hillsides at the south edge of the<br />
present <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley and preserved cutoff meanders there, the southernmost edge of<br />
the valley has been the lowest point for at least several hundred to several thousand<br />
years (see Fig. 2).<br />
It is thus perplexing that the present river course and levee system coincide with the<br />
lower Corralitos Creek channel. Based on the early maps made shortly after<br />
statehood in 1850 and local place names, a grazing wetland commons existed in the<br />
Mexican Ranchero period in the area still known as the Vega (see Map A, Rancho<br />
Vega del Rio <strong>Pájaro</strong>, Map B). <strong>The</strong> vega meadows here were apparently flood irrigated<br />
regularly to constrain land use and thus provided a grazing Mexican land grant until<br />
Statehood and private (Porter) ownership. <strong>The</strong> Vega is adjacent to a spot on the<br />
original river (see Map A) where the river was straightened after the boundary<br />
between Santa Cruz and Monterey counties was established (California Historical<br />
Survey, 1923). An alluvial thalweg (central river channel) is now buried beneath the<br />
levee system and has been the locus of flood outbreaks from at least the 1930s<br />
through 1995 (see Fig 3). All of the positions of today’s levees crossing the 1854<br />
channel position are sites of piping and passage of river water under the levees during<br />
high water as seen in 1995 and 1998 (personal observation, R. Curry and landowner<br />
discussions).<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
8<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Map B. 1908 Parcel Map of a portion of the Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley showing the historic<br />
Vega area and dot-dashed County boundary as it exists today.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
9<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure 2 -- 1939 Photo of Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley. Watsonville in lower right. <strong>The</strong><br />
landslides are readily seen at the position of Highway 1 today, near the center left of<br />
the photo. Also visible are the flow lines from past floods that impinge against the left<br />
(south) side of the valley.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
10<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Map A 1875 based on 1854 land survey<br />
It may be that in the Ranchero and early statehood period, the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> was<br />
channelized to try to restrict regular overbank flow in distributary channels so that land<br />
use could be made more efficient. Looking at the 1939 and earlier aerial photos, we<br />
still see clear evidence of those distributaries (cf Fig. 3). <strong>The</strong> earliest detailed<br />
topographic map (Capitola Quadrangle, 1912) shows “Watsonville Creek” that flows<br />
from the left bank of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> across that river from Salsipuedes Creek in<br />
Watsonville, directly south near Salinas Road and into Elkhorn Slough. That channel<br />
is still there and still carries rainfall and flood overflow runoff to Moss Landing. Runoff<br />
from a major part of the townsite of <strong>Pájaro</strong> does not enter the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> today but<br />
flows via “Watsonville Creek” to Elkhorn Slough. <strong>The</strong> confusing topography was<br />
commented on by William Brewer in his diary in 1864 that noted that the flat valley<br />
looked like "an old lake filled in as is shown by the terraces around its sides."<br />
(Farquhar, 1930). Olaf Jenkins identifies a “Lake <strong>Pájaro</strong>” and “Lake Aromitas” in the<br />
old lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley (1973).<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
11<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure 3 - 1938 Image of Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> showing natural meander patterns<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
12<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Upper <strong>Watershed</strong>, San Benito and Santa Clara Counties: <strong>The</strong> upper watershed of the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> system is at least as complex as that of the portion west of the San Andreas Fault.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is indirect geologic evidence that Santa Clara Valley from San Jose southward<br />
through Morgan Hill and Gilroy may have been the course of a major river carrying coarse<br />
gravels southward toward the present <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and that a lake in San Benito County<br />
later spilled northward along Coyote Valley into San Francisco Bay (Iwamura, 1995). An<br />
open and porous alluvial gravel characterizes the near surface substrate beneath both the<br />
north-flowing Coyote Creek and the south-flowing Llagas and Uvas Creek valleys. A very<br />
low gradient “watershed divide” near Morgan Hill has southward flow in a shallow<br />
subsurface aquifer, presumably recharged by Santa Clara Water District facilities from<br />
California Water Project sources (Anderson Reservoir) and from locally captured and<br />
diverted watercourses. Where this shallow gravel aquifer is exposed in the bank of the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, along the westernmost Santa Clara -- San Benito County border, many<br />
cubic feet per second of water flow continuously into the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>. <strong>The</strong>se high water<br />
tables were recognized long before the San Luis Project brought Mt. Shasta water into<br />
southern Santa Clara and northern San Benito counties. <strong>The</strong> high groundwater levels are<br />
recognized as a particular agricultural problem in San Benito County (Jones & Stokes,<br />
1998) where some are saline.<br />
<strong>The</strong> thick uniform silt deposits of Northern San Benito and Southern Santa Clara<br />
counties are themselves enigmatic (see Fig 5 from Jenkins). Jenkins refers to them<br />
as “Pleistocene” meaning of Pleistocene age (greater than 10,000 years ago) and<br />
draws parallels with glacial age origin silts. Indeed, the surface deposits of lakebed<br />
silts are remarkably uniform fine sandy silt similar to glacial origin rock flour in both<br />
texture and lack of chemical weathering. But calling upon an ancestral San Joaquin<br />
<strong>River</strong> system to deposit these silts from the Sierra Nevada is, at present, not<br />
demonstrated. Jenkins hypothesizes that the silts may be derived locally from the<br />
older Purisima Formation (locally now called the Etchegoin Formation east of the San<br />
Andreas Fault). Subsurface deposits of northern San Benito County are characterized<br />
by localized sands and gravels that appear to be river deposits embedded in silts<br />
formed in shallow ephemeral lakes (Stanley, et al, 2002; Jones & Stokes, 1998).<br />
<strong>The</strong>se are then buried by the more uniform overlying silt lakebeds. It is these surface<br />
lake silt unit(s) that have been transported downstream to blanket the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>River</strong> Valley. It is not clear that they are being eroded from agricultural fields<br />
upstream, and may simply be carried in flood flows from upstream bank erosion.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
13<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure 5 Jenkin’s map Lake San Benito with its tectonic setting<br />
<strong>The</strong> Calavaras, San Andreas, and Sargent fault zones define much of the course of<br />
the present tributaries of the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> system. <strong>The</strong>se right-lateral strike-slip<br />
plate-bounding fault systems essentially lengthen the headwaters of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>,<br />
repeatedly moving the upper river system southward 10’s of kilometers relative to the<br />
Pacific Plate. <strong>The</strong> Old San Juan Stage Road between Salinas and San Juan Bautista<br />
appears to follow an abandoned course of what is now called the San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
after that river was pulled northward on the west side of the faults to join the upper<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>. All of this may have happened during as little as a few hundred or<br />
thousand year period of lakes being dammed and spilling before the river ultimately<br />
broke through the Chittenden water gap to spill westward rather than southward. It is<br />
interesting to note that this rare example of a true water gap in western United States<br />
is actually called “Chittenden Pass”. A water gap is a pass through a mountain range<br />
or ridge cut by water. <strong>The</strong>se are generally found in places like the Appalachians<br />
where a very old river is able to keep flowing while mountains are arched upward<br />
beneath it or while erosion lowers the river across a buried bedrock feature.<br />
Chittenden Pass is indeed a narrow part of the new river valley but cut by<br />
catastrophically spilling water.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>River</strong> System: No other reasonably large North American river drains a<br />
watershed that is as complex or as geologically active as the <strong>Pájaro</strong> . Only in the<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
14<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Himalaya and Alaska are there possibly watersheds of greater than 1000 square<br />
miles with an equal level of active watercourse displacement and contemporary<br />
changes in drainage area, and those rely in part on glaciers to block and divert the<br />
faulted landscapes. <strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> is unique in that geologic activity must be factored in<br />
to an understanding of the dynamics of flood hazard evaluation in a populated area.<br />
Ongoing geologic deformation renders constructed features like levees and channels<br />
very impermanent. Stream gradients and streambed elevations are changing by feet<br />
per century from non-anthropogenic causes (cf, 1906 earthquake and loss of<br />
navigability of Elkhorn Slough to the commercial steamer carrying Watsonville cargo<br />
to Moss Landing, Loma Prieta earthquake, creep on the Calavaras fault). Traditional<br />
approaches to flood hazard mitigation must accommodate this constant change.<br />
Stable Channel Alternatives: Stable channel concepts are almost a tautology in a<br />
constantly changing watershed system. But because we have 65 year-old or older<br />
aerial photos of almost the entire watershed, we can find evidences of the<br />
characteristics of river channels and flood patterns preserved from the time before<br />
laser leveling and powerful tractors. Many of the historic areas of lowland flooding<br />
and lake silts throughout the watershed were initially farmed as orchards. Uplands<br />
were used for hay and barley. <strong>The</strong> lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley was noted for its apples and<br />
the upper valleys for walnuts (Crosetti, 1993). <strong>The</strong>se seasonal crops were tolerant of<br />
winter flooding, seasonal root saturation, and some aggradation. Access to farmlands<br />
with mechanized equipment and safety of grazing animals led to efforts to straighten<br />
channels and, as elsewhere in the world, to shorten channels and cut off meander<br />
loops. <strong>The</strong> 1854 Coast and Geodetic Survey mapping, later expanded in the 1870’s<br />
to include more inland areas through the U.S. Lands Office, showed that the <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
had been altered by the time of statehood. <strong>The</strong> 1854 survey, at a scale of 1:10,000, is<br />
accompanied by survey notes (Wm. M. Johnson, 1854) that state: “Extending from the<br />
mouth of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> to the Salinas <strong>River</strong> is a range of low sand hills between<br />
which and the older formation lay several ponds. <strong>The</strong>se mark the former bed of the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong>, it having evidently at one time, found its way to the ocean through this<br />
channel, but by an accumulation of its waters, during the winter months, it burst the<br />
narrow strip of beach which separates it from the sea, and thus formed itself a new<br />
more direct outlet”. By 1909, the Coast and Geodetic Survey report noted that the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> “has low but well-defined banks and there is no evidence of recent<br />
changes in its course” (1910 C&GS survey notes). Those coastal surveys generally<br />
extended only 2.5 miles inland.<br />
Maps of Santa Cruz and of Monterey Counties were prepared in the 1870’s and are<br />
on file in the University of California Santa Cruz map library (see list in References<br />
Cited). An example is shown as Map A. It is important to appreciate that the river<br />
plan form shown in these early commercial maps was based on earlier US Land<br />
Office plat maps and the Coast and Geodetic surveys. It is the County boundary<br />
maps that show accurately the changes in position of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and that must<br />
be used for the actual position of the river (California Historical Survey Commission,<br />
1923). Based on that definitive reference, the channel of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> had been<br />
straightened shortly after Statehood and continued to be altered through the late<br />
1800’s.<br />
Based on geomorphic understanding of the relationships between a river and its<br />
natural floodplain, one can establish a channel geometry that, for a given gradient and<br />
sediment load, can approximate the shape of a channel that is self-maintaining (Curry,<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
15<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
1981; Riley, 2003). Of course, the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> does not have a floodplain in<br />
the normal sense of a surface of deposition and transportation of sediment and water<br />
that exceeds the effective dominant discharge of the river system. <strong>The</strong> lower <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
Valley land surface is a flood-deposit, but not one formed through an equilibrium<br />
relationship between its river and its flood regime (see Whiting, 1998). Thus, use of<br />
standard hydrologic relationships between flood frequency and magnitude to estimate<br />
ideal channel dimensions and form may be limited in applicability. Not only is the river<br />
changing in length because of human channel shortening, but also the seaward limit<br />
of the river mouth has moved inland many 10’s of meters since the first 1854 survey<br />
(1910 C&GS survey notes). Further, tectonic deformation may be tilting the whole<br />
lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley and surroundings southward. Still further, changed drainage<br />
areas in the upper watershed and incision of watercourses are apparently increasing<br />
the ratios of runoff to rainfall.<br />
But use of historic aerial photos to interpret pre-channelization or flood-time flow<br />
patterns can provide clues to the “natural” channel form that the <strong>Pájaro</strong> would take if<br />
unconstrained. As pointed out by outside Corps of Engineers project review team<br />
members (USCofE, 1998), the current levee-constrained channel may not reflect a<br />
stable channel configuration. British work, funded through the US Army Corps of<br />
Engineers, has concluded that, as a general rule in sand-bed rivers, the mean annual<br />
discharge and the bankfull discharge form lower and upper bounds, respectively, to<br />
the range of effective discharge, while the 2-year flow is an upper bound to the range<br />
of bankfull discharge (Soares, cite).<br />
Ron Copeland provided a contribution to the Corps’ Project Review Team report for<br />
the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Project (USCoE, 1998). He suggested that use of a channel-forming<br />
dominant discharge with a probability of recurrence of 1.5 to 2.0 years could permit<br />
estimation of ideal bankfull width and meander wavelength for a given gradient,<br />
roughness, and sediment load regime. That is the same approach as described by<br />
Rosgen in his Fig 1 (see next) (Rosgen, 1996). It has real merit. Copeland included<br />
Fig 4 from Akers and Charlton, 1970, in his contribution to the <strong>Pájaro</strong> review team<br />
report (figure follows). Using a calculated (Fig 6) discharge for a 2.0-year return<br />
period at Chittenden, we calculate that the dominant channel-forming flow that should<br />
equate to bankfull discharge in a stable channel is about 3500 cfs. Using that value in<br />
the Ackers and Charlton figure yields a stable meander wavelength for a channel<br />
unconstrained laterally by levees with a value of 1000 to 1500 feet. That is what we<br />
see in the historic overflow channels on the old aerial photos (Fig 4), and in the early<br />
historic maps of the river platform. Thus there is a corroboration of theory and<br />
systems function in the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> channel, despite the unusual nature of the<br />
relationships between the watershed and the areas subject to flooding.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
16<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
17<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
99% = 1.010 yr<br />
95% = 1.053 yr<br />
50% = 2 yr<br />
5% = 20 yr<br />
1% = 100 yr<br />
0.2% = 500 yr<br />
100000<br />
10000<br />
Magnitude<br />
1000<br />
100<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Chittenden 1940-2000<br />
10<br />
1<br />
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3<br />
Standard normal deviate of probability of excedance<br />
Figure 6: Plot of actual peak floods (X‘s) versus LogPearson Type III calculated<br />
values (open Circles). This is not calculated using the required methodology, as done<br />
in Chapter 2.<br />
This Project Report<br />
When the original U.S. Army Engineers flood control project was begun in 1943 and<br />
completed in 1948, all 4 counties in the watershed signed off on an agreement to<br />
accept responsibility for maintenance of the flood control works in accord with a<br />
detailed maintenance plan prepared by the Army (Secretary of War, 1944). In the<br />
1960’s the upstream counties, under the organization of Santa Clara County,<br />
requested a Congressional exemption from the earlier agreement (Secretary of the<br />
Army, 1965), and it was granted. This political context prevented several efforts to<br />
develop a watershed-based joint powers authority to manage the watershed after the<br />
March, 1995 floods that took one life in <strong>Pájaro</strong> and caused many millions of dollars of<br />
losses in the Lower Valley.<br />
Congressional efforts in response to landowner concerns following the 1995 and 1998<br />
floods lead to appropriations for, and efforts by the Corps’ to review and revise the<br />
flood control project. Because of the failures of prior efforts to solicit cooperation from<br />
upstream counties, it was deemed politically necessary to restrict the scope of flood<br />
control efforts to a downstream project that simply rebuilt the original 1948 project<br />
within the same reaches of the Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> that had been the subject of<br />
structural efforts in the past (Congressman Sam Farr, personal communication).<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
18<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
<strong>The</strong> current project attempts to rectify the inability of the government efforts to<br />
consider solutions that most effectively and economically deal with the river system<br />
rather than only the lower river reach. While this is a suitable context for investigation<br />
by an academic institution, it also provides a public service outside the context of<br />
political limitations of elected and regional persons and bodies. Because the Corps’<br />
must complete an environmental impact statement and analysis for their proposed<br />
lower river project, the opportunity to think outside of the artificial box can be required<br />
through § 102.2.c of the National Environmental Policy Act. This project document<br />
seeks to provide some bases for that required analysis.<br />
We approach this task through the following primary foci:<br />
1. An analysis of the design flood magnitude and duration that must be<br />
accommodated by any lower river protective works.<br />
2. An assessment of potential opportunities for reducing those flood flows through<br />
enhanced upstream flood storage using natural or small-scale structural<br />
enhancements that will increase wildlife habitat and amenities for upstream<br />
landowners and governments in order to encourage their implementation.<br />
3. Analysis of the unique geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the present<br />
configuration of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> as they control and limit options for flood<br />
hazard reduction.<br />
4. Compilation and preparation of a comprehensive database on the watershed in<br />
digital format that can be shared by the 4 counties and the interested public.<br />
Additional analyses for the economic feasibility of combinations of upstream and<br />
downstream flood mitigation efforts, the political economic driving forces that need to<br />
be acknowledged and accommodated to make a watershed-wide flood control<br />
solution work, the roles of federal and state agencies in permitting and regulating<br />
effective solutions, and the environmental constraints and restoration opportunities<br />
afforded by a watershed-wide flood control project are also woven into the fabric of<br />
this report.<br />
Coordination with ongoing work<br />
Raines, Melton & Carella, Inc. (RMC) have been contracted through the <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Prevention Authority, formed through coordination of the<br />
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) to consider opportunities<br />
to increase upstream flood storage through modification of existing reservoirs or<br />
construction of new flood control dams. <strong>The</strong>ir first report is available through AMBAG<br />
and, for a limited time, on their website: http://www.rmcengr.com/Pages/prwfpa.htm<br />
(Phase I). RMC conducted standard hydrologic modeling of effects of urbanization in<br />
the largely rural upper watershed, and assessed costs of new or rebuilt conventional<br />
dams that could provide some flood control benefits. <strong>The</strong> findings basically<br />
demonstrate that build-out in San Benito County has little net effect on countywide<br />
and watershed-wide runoff volumes, and that costs for old-style flood control dams<br />
exceed benefits. One finding of the initial RMC study became the focus of a<br />
concurrent Phase III study looking at the ephemeral Soap Lake wetland area along<br />
the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and lower Llagas and Uvas creeks. RMC concluded that this<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
19<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
natural ephemeral basin provided on the order of 30,000 ac-ft of storage and that,<br />
without it, flood peaks at Chittenden would increase about 137% for the 100-year<br />
event. <strong>The</strong> RMC Phase II study, also available now, looks at alternatives in the lower<br />
valley for bypass and underground floodways and compares them to the various<br />
Corps’ proposals for levee modification.<br />
Our work also looked at Soap Lake and considered alternatives for enhancing flood<br />
storage in a portion of that feature. We did not assume that diminished development<br />
pressure or conservation-flood easements could preserve all of the existing<br />
occasionally flooded agricultural land, and thus looked at compensating alternatives to<br />
allow some levels of development and new highway construction. AMBAG and the<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Prevention Authority are exploring flood easements for the core<br />
7900 acres of the site.<br />
Philip Williams and Associates, Ltd. (PWA) were contracted in June of 2003 by the<br />
Sierra Club to investigate alternatives not considered by RMC or by the Corps’ as<br />
publicly revealed to that date. <strong>The</strong> PWA report, being released simultaneously with<br />
this report, considers a series of downstream flood mitigation scenarios and links<br />
some of them to opportunities for enhanced upstream flood detention to reduce<br />
downstream costs, environmental losses, and maintenance. <strong>The</strong> PWA studies<br />
consider stable channel alternatives as well as constricted high-maintenance<br />
channelization options to provide a wider range of alternatives than have been<br />
publicly discussed by any entities to date. Among the options considered by PWA is<br />
one proposed by state and federal regulatory agencies to regrade the channel to a<br />
“self-maintaining” form. It is designed to transport sediment through the system<br />
without mechanized assistance, and tries to meet stated goals and objectives of these<br />
public agencies that must review and approve any chosen alternative.<br />
U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers (Corps’) is the lead agency for the downstream flood<br />
control project. <strong>The</strong> Corps’ has been involved repeatedly following the initial project<br />
completion immediately after WW II. <strong>The</strong>ir charges include annual monitoring and<br />
oversight of levee and channel maintenance, repair and resurvey after the 1989 Loma<br />
Prieta Earthquake and the 1995 and 1998 floods, and design and construction<br />
oversight of any new flood control project that modifies or replaces their original<br />
project. City and County governments and citizens have nearly continuously<br />
requested intervention and design improvements for the Corps’ projects that protect<br />
the City of Watsonville and the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> flood channel. As was revealed in the<br />
1997 trial of CalTrans for ponding of flood waters associated with the 1995 floods, the<br />
State of California had always assumed that the Corps’ had responsibility for 100-year<br />
flood protection for the entire <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley and, thus, that highways crossing that<br />
valley at its lowest point need not accommodate any but local rainfall runoff beneath<br />
the highway berm. <strong>The</strong> Corps’ has held repeated public informational meeting and<br />
tried to use a “stakeholder” process to consider concerns of the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
communities. A very considerable effort was initiated in 1998 by the Corps’ to<br />
critically review past and anticipated future activities of the agency using a nationwide<br />
in-house professional team (United States Army, Corps of Engineers, 1998), but the public<br />
has not seem much response from the Corps’ to that foundation report. <strong>The</strong> agency<br />
will again attempt to provide a series of alternatives and choose one for final preferred<br />
evaluation during July 2003.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
20<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
California State University<br />
Robert Curry, Research Director<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Institute<br />
Earth Systems Science & Policy<br />
CSU Monterey Bay<br />
Seaside, CALIF. 93955<br />
Bob_curry@csumb.edu<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Restoration Class – Spring, 2003<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
<strong>Flood</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Wm Bodensteiner<br />
Lani Clough<br />
Suzanne Gilmore<br />
Paul Huntington<br />
Joy Larson<br />
April McMillan<br />
Steve Mack<br />
C. Andrew Mauck<br />
Serena Pring<br />
Emily Roth<br />
Amy Thistle<br />
Melanie Vincent<br />
APPENDICES<br />
A20
CHAPTER 2<br />
Design <strong>Flood</strong> Analysis<br />
Analysis of <strong>Flood</strong> Flow Frequency:<br />
San Benito <strong>River</strong>, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, and Tributaries<br />
Purpose<br />
<strong>The</strong> purpose of this analysis is to determine the discharge of the 100-year<br />
flow events for several gages on the San Benito <strong>River</strong>, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, Uvas Creek, and<br />
Pacheco Creek. <strong>The</strong> 100-year flow frequency events are compared both for all data<br />
available and at 10-year sub-sets of the flow data. <strong>The</strong>se estimates of discharge were<br />
calculated using the Log-Pearson Type III methodology as described in Bulletin 17B:<br />
Guidelines for Determining <strong>Flood</strong> Flow Frequency by the US Water Resources<br />
Council (1982).<br />
Methods<br />
Data Collection<br />
Peak annual flow discharge and stage heights at several gages in the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> system watershed. Each gage number, name, river system, and<br />
drainage area are summarized in Table 1. <strong>The</strong>se data were obtained online from the<br />
US Geological Survey.<br />
For the sites at Uvas Creek (11154200) and Pacheco Creek (11193000),<br />
years with zero flow in the peak record are adjusted to have a discharge of 0.01cfs.<br />
At the Hollister site (11158500), data for the water year 1957 is missing, and excluded<br />
from the analysis.<br />
Data Analysis<br />
For each gage, the peak annual flow data were ranked by peak discharge<br />
(Q), with the highest discharge of record with the rank of 1. <strong>The</strong> data does not have a<br />
normal distribution, requiring the log of the discharge to be taken for analysis. <strong>The</strong><br />
sample mean (Ŷ LT ), standard deviation (S yLT ), and standardized skew (g s ) are taken<br />
off the log-transformed discharge (Q LT ).<br />
Due to the nature of flood events, and the small sample size of extreme<br />
events, the accuracy of the sample skew is poor. An adjustment is made to the<br />
sample skew (g s ) for improved accuracy. <strong>The</strong> adjusted skew used in this analysis is<br />
adjusted by the following equation:<br />
g adj = g s * (1+(6/n))<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
21<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
where:<br />
g adj is the adjusted skew<br />
g s is the standardized skew<br />
n is the sample size<br />
For several exceedence probabilities (p) ranging from 0.99 (1.01-year<br />
recurrence interval) to 0.01 (100-year recurrence interval), the values of the<br />
standardized variate K were obtained using tables included in the Bulletin 17B report<br />
for the adjusted skew value. <strong>The</strong> Log-Pearson Type III estimates are determined from<br />
the following equation:<br />
K<br />
(g adj )<br />
Y LT = Ŷ LT + KS LT<br />
where:<br />
Y LT is the log of the estimated discharge for the exceedence probability at<br />
Y LT is the mean of the log-transformed sample<br />
K is the Log-Pearson Type III variate determined using the adjusted skew<br />
S LT is the standard deviation of the log-transformed sample<br />
<strong>The</strong> antilog of the Y LT values determined is the estimate of discharge at<br />
the specific exceedence probabilities or recurrence intervals. In addition, 90% upper<br />
confidence intervals were set for all stations at each exceedence probability.<br />
Smaller sub-sets of data from each station were analyzed for flood flow<br />
frequency at intervals of 10 years. <strong>The</strong> sub-set analysis of the 100-year flood was<br />
determined using the same methodology as the Log-Pearson Type III described<br />
above, including skew adjustment. No confidence intervals were estimated in this<br />
analysis.<br />
Results<br />
<strong>The</strong> results of the flood frequency analysis for the select gaging stations<br />
in the San Benito <strong>River</strong>, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and tributaries are summarized in Table 2, and<br />
confidence intervals are graphed as shown in Figure 1.<br />
Station Name<br />
Station<br />
Number<br />
Years of<br />
record<br />
Calculated<br />
100-year<br />
flood Q cfs<br />
Calculated 50-<br />
year flood Q cfs<br />
Calculated<br />
25-year<br />
flood Q cfs<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> at Chittenden 11159000 62 30172.03 26759.25 22654.49<br />
San Benito at 156 11158600 31 7157.91 7052.91 6813.80<br />
San Benito near Hollister 11158500 33* 30234.73 21948.87 15034.67<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
22<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Uvas Creek near Gilroy 11154200 35** 7009.29 6994.648 6942.47<br />
Pacheco Creek near Dunneville 11153000 43** 9187.33 9164.01 9063.46<br />
Table 2: Summary of flood flow frequency estimates<br />
* Water year 1957 missing data<br />
**Adjusted for zero flow years<br />
50000<br />
45000<br />
40000<br />
35000<br />
30000<br />
25000<br />
20000<br />
15000<br />
10000<br />
5000<br />
0<br />
Chittenden upper confidence interval<br />
upper conf.<br />
Q estimate<br />
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01<br />
exceedence probability<br />
16000<br />
14000<br />
12000<br />
10000<br />
8000<br />
6000<br />
4000<br />
2000<br />
San Benito at 156 upper confidence interval<br />
upper conf.<br />
Q estimate<br />
0<br />
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01<br />
exceedence probability<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
23<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
70000<br />
Hollister upper confidence interval<br />
upper conf.<br />
Q estimate<br />
60000<br />
50000<br />
40000<br />
30000<br />
20000<br />
10000<br />
0<br />
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01<br />
exceedence probability<br />
8000<br />
7000<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
1000<br />
Uvas Creek upper confidence interval<br />
upper conf.<br />
Q estimate<br />
0<br />
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01<br />
exceedence probability<br />
20000<br />
18000<br />
16000<br />
14000<br />
12000<br />
10000<br />
8000<br />
6000<br />
4000<br />
2000<br />
0<br />
Pacheco Creek upper confidence interval<br />
upper conf.<br />
Q estimate<br />
0.99 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.04 0.02 0.01<br />
exceedence probability<br />
Figure 1: Log Pearson Type III results with upper confidence intervals for all gages.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
24<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
<strong>The</strong> gages at Chittenden (11159000) and at Hollister (11158500) have<br />
similar 100-year peak floods, and have the highest maximum discharge of the gages<br />
analyzed. <strong>The</strong> gage at Chittenden (11159000) has the largest drainage area, but<br />
does not have the largest 100-year maximum discharge estimate, in part because its<br />
data set is longer and thus the confidence is better (lower interval).<br />
<strong>The</strong> results for the 100-year flow decadal analysis for each gaging station<br />
are listed in Figure 2.<br />
140000<br />
Decadal analysis<br />
100 year flood discharge cfs<br />
120000<br />
100000<br />
80000<br />
60000<br />
40000<br />
Chittenden<br />
Gage at 156<br />
Hollister<br />
Pacheco C.<br />
Uvas C.<br />
20000<br />
0<br />
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990<br />
Figure 2: 100 year flood estimates by decade<br />
All gages show a small increase in the estimate of the 100-year flood<br />
discharge from the time period of 1960 to 1990. A decrease is also seen in all gages<br />
from the 1950 estimate to the 1960 estimate.<br />
Discussion<br />
<strong>The</strong> above analysis was conducted using the standard reference as required of the<br />
Corps of Engineers. It requires a series of adjustments for extreme value rare events<br />
to account for their statistical rarity and for the non-symmetrical distribution of<br />
precipitation and runoff. An oversimplified way of looking at such data sets is that it is<br />
either raining or it is not raining. If it is not raining, the amount of rain is 0.0 and<br />
cannot get any less. But if it is raining it can almost always rain harder and get wetter.<br />
“Dry” is a fixed value but “wet” is not. <strong>The</strong> adjustments are made using a table to fit<br />
the data to a certain log-transform that Mr. Pearson called Type III and that fits a great<br />
many precipitation-related data sets.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Corps’ has chosen to design for a 40,100 cfs peak at Murphy’s Crossing, below<br />
Chittenden. That chosen value is subject to many caveats. <strong>The</strong> actual calculated<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
25<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
value for the maximum possible 100-year flood at Chittenden is closer to 43,500 cfs<br />
using the Corps’ methodology. But there is flood storage at Murphy’s Crossing, in the<br />
Aromas area (Aromitas Lake of Jenkins) and in the Soda Lake area just below the<br />
Chittenden gauge. USGS actually gauges the <strong>Pájaro</strong> during high flows at the bridge<br />
at Aromas, not at Chittenden several miles upstream. Earlier chosen design floods<br />
were higher, but the current value is not unreasonable. Because the lower river is<br />
formed by spillover from the upper watershed, drainage area does not increase in a<br />
linear fashion downstream. This is a unique watershed. As we shall show, the<br />
channel capacity at Soap Lake and in the San Benito <strong>River</strong> increases in a very nonlinear<br />
fashion for flows above about 22,000 cfs as gauged at Chittenden. Thus the log<br />
plot of flows versus return period above that discharge tends to “flatten” (see the X’s<br />
or actual values in Fig 6 above versus the calculated Log-Pearson III curve). That is,<br />
high flood flows tend to be smaller than would be predicted based on the full period of<br />
record because of the shape of the channels in the upper watershed and their faultdammed<br />
characteristics. <strong>The</strong> Corps’ design value is thus conservative in that it is<br />
above reasonably probable values.<br />
<strong>The</strong> flow record was disaggregated into separate decades and each was assessed<br />
individually to look for trends. In practice, one should not use a single gauging station<br />
to predict a flood magnitude beyond two-times the length of the actual record. That is,<br />
to estimate a 100-year flood, one needs at least 33 years of peak flow record. Thus,<br />
the predictions based on 10-year periods do not reflect actual 100-year flow<br />
predictions, but do give potential clues regarding changes in flood frequency through<br />
time. From this analysis we see that the 1955 Christmas storm at Chittenden in an<br />
otherwise non-remarkable decade would have forced prediction of a much larger 100-<br />
year event, but that the more frequent large events in later decades change that<br />
predicted value. <strong>The</strong> Christmas, 1995, flow at Chittenden was estimated at 24,000 cfs<br />
and was only exceeded there by the February 1998 event at 25,100 cfs. <strong>The</strong> March<br />
1995 event was estimated at 21,500 cfs. Thus, the 40,100 cfs figure being used by<br />
the Corps’ for a design value is 160% of the maximum historic peak in 62 years of<br />
instrumental record. <strong>The</strong> February 1938 storms caused the levees to break in the<br />
lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> (Monterey Herald, 2-12-38) and flooded the Watsonville area with a<br />
reported 3 feet of water. A newspaper photo of the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley below the<br />
town of <strong>Pájaro</strong> (Fig 7) at about the location of Highway 1 today looks very much like<br />
the 1995 conditions.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
26<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure 7 -- 1938 Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley flood. Photo point appears to be near present<br />
Highway One.<br />
<strong>The</strong> lack of gauge record for 100 years at Chittenden does not limit our analyses back<br />
only to its start in 1940. Study of precipitation records for the periods for which we<br />
have gauge record permit comparison with those same records for the 40 or more<br />
years before stream gauge record. Where we have 100-years of record for daily<br />
rainfall, such as at Hollister, we see that the 1955 event was by far the largest<br />
cumulative net storm rainfall. Although Hollister recorded 1.0 to 1.38 inches in single<br />
days in 1935, 1936, and 1937, and although Watsonville and Hollister recorded more<br />
than 1 inch per day for three consecutive days in 1937, it was the Christmas storm of<br />
1955 that set the standard for the <strong>Pájaro</strong> watershed. Beginning December 20 th , Santa<br />
Cruz mountain summit areas recorded more than 10-inches a day through the 23 rd .<br />
Hollister recorded 1.93 inches on the 22 nd , 3.75 on the 23 rd , and 1.01 on the 24 th . In<br />
the southern Santa Clara County area the February 2-4, 1945 storm, with over 10<br />
inches in a day at Morgan Hill, provided the maximum historical rainfall period, and<br />
that overlaps with Chittenden discharge record where flow was significantly less than<br />
in 1955, 1998, and 1995. It is thus reasonable to postulate that the Chittenden gage<br />
has recorded the largest <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> events of the past 100 years, and that sustained<br />
high flows must have been greatest in 1955, followed by 1998.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re is the anomaly of the 1998 flow record at on the San Benito <strong>River</strong> that merits<br />
further discussion. <strong>The</strong> official USGS gauge record indicates that the <strong>Pájaro</strong> tributary<br />
peak flow was greater than the downstream flow at Chittenden in 1998. According to<br />
the U.S. Geological Survey Field Office Supervisor, Larry Freeman, this may reflect a<br />
real difference where flood storage in the lower San Benito <strong>River</strong> below the Hollister<br />
gauging sites retains flow and diminishes the peak at Chittenden. However, the<br />
gauging station on the San Benito <strong>River</strong> was washed out in 1998 and the flow had to<br />
be estimated based on water backed up at the Highway 156 bridge, rendering the<br />
estimate good only to ± 25 percent (see Appendix 1). Indirect evidence, presented in<br />
the next chapter on flood storage, supports Freeman’s hypothesis that there is a large<br />
flood storage volume still available in the Lower San Benito <strong>River</strong>.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
27<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Regional Analysis<br />
<strong>The</strong> trend in percent contribution to lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> flow volumes from the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>River</strong> versus the San Benito tributary deserves some analysis. RMC pointed out the<br />
apparent shift away from Santa Clara County contributions from the north and<br />
increased San Benito County contributions from the south. <strong>The</strong> three major tributaries<br />
were all dammed for water supply reservoirs about the same time in the 1960’s, and<br />
all are full during major flood events so there should be no net effect of reservoirs on<br />
relative runoff from each of the three major <strong>Pájaro</strong> tributaries. <strong>The</strong> RMC analysis is<br />
valuable and included here (RMC, Tech Memo 1-2-1 of October 8, 2001)<br />
“Basis of Comparison<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> watershed is large and the land uses are varied from dense<br />
urban to intensive agricultural to grazing lands to unused acreage. Changes in land use<br />
and management plans can affect watershed behavior. To be sure the hydrologic model<br />
will address the needs of decision makers and planners, three questions must be<br />
addressed: what hydrologic parameters are necessary for comparison, where in the<br />
watershed should these parameters be predicted, and at what exceedence frequencies<br />
should these parameters be predicted.<br />
Parameters to be used<br />
<strong>The</strong> most widespread parameter used for comparing changes to watersheds is<br />
“the annual instantaneous maximum peak discharge.” This is the discharge (rate of<br />
flow) in a stream channel and adjoining overbanks that is the greatest value at any time<br />
during a water year no matter how long the discharge lasts. A water year is the year<br />
ending September 30 and beginning the previous October 1. It is assigned the calendar<br />
year corresponding to the September 30 date.<br />
<strong>The</strong> second most prevalent hydrologic parameter is the volume of flow in the<br />
stream.<br />
Generally the annual maximum 1-day average discharge value or 3-day average<br />
discharge is used in highlighting differences in runoff. For the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> watershed<br />
the annual maximum 3-day average discharge is recommended because the watersheds<br />
are generally large and the 1-day average discharge is often reflective of the<br />
instantaneous peak discharge.<br />
Two parameters are recommended – instantaneous peak discharge and 3-day<br />
average discharge. Both parameters are to be annual maximum values.<br />
Parameters to be predicted<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
28<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Shown in Table 1 are annual instantaneous maximum peak discharges from<br />
two longterm stream gages – one on the San Benito <strong>River</strong> near the City of Hollister<br />
and one on the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Chittenden just upstream of the end of the Corps of<br />
Engineers <strong>Flood</strong> Control project.<br />
<strong>The</strong> San Benito <strong>River</strong> near Hollister gage had a drainage area of 586 square<br />
miles, while<br />
the current gage located at Highway 156 has a drainage area of 607 square<br />
miles. <strong>The</strong> drainage areas at the two gage locations are within 3.5 percent of one<br />
another and the combined record can be considered as one continuous record since<br />
1950. <strong>The</strong> drainage area at the San Benito stream gage is approximately half of that at<br />
the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> at Chittenden gage. Data has been collected on the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
continuously since 1940. <strong>The</strong> four largest instantaneous peak events shown on the<br />
following table are in the 1956, 1958, 1995 and 1998 water years.<br />
<strong>The</strong> ratios for the peak discharges at the Chittenden gage divided by the peak<br />
discharges at the San Benito <strong>River</strong> gage for the four major flood years are:<br />
Water Year<br />
Ratio<br />
1956 3.217<br />
1958 2.026<br />
1995 1.287<br />
1998 0.728<br />
Because the ratio of the drainage areas at the gages is approximately 2.0, one<br />
might expect that the peak discharges maintain about that same ratio. However, the<br />
1956 event, the Christmas 1955 flood, shows much more of the peak discharge<br />
attributable to the Soap Lake portion of the Chittenden gage’s drainage area. <strong>The</strong> April<br />
1958 flood was fairly evenly distributed. <strong>The</strong> two most recent floods, the March 1995<br />
flood and the February 1998 flood, had much more of their peak discharge coming<br />
from the San Benito <strong>River</strong> portion of the overall watershed at the Chittenden gage site.<br />
<strong>The</strong> following table shows the average daily discharges on the two rivers for<br />
the four largest flood recorded at the Chittenden gage. <strong>The</strong> ratios of the sum of the<br />
average flows for the maximum three consecutive days are shown below:<br />
Date Chittenden San Benito Ratio<br />
12/1955 45,300 cfs-days 10,040 cfs-days 4.512<br />
4/1958 44,480 cfs-days 12,580 cfs-days 3.536<br />
3/1995 41,120 cfs-days 19,170 cfs-days 2.145<br />
2/1998 45,800 cfs-days 25,790 cfs-days 1.776<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
29<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Interestingly, the maximum consecutive 3-day flow volume was approximately<br />
the same for all four major floods on the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>. <strong>The</strong> amount of volume<br />
contributed by the San Benito <strong>River</strong> watershed, however, has grown from around a<br />
quarter in the 1950’s floods to around a half in the 1990’s floods. This means that the<br />
rest of the 1,186 square mile watershed at the Chittenden gage contributed less volume<br />
in the 1990’s floods than it did in the 1950’s floods.”<br />
Based on the RMC analysis, above, it would appear that something is changing in the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> system. To investigate further, we looked into storm tracks for the<br />
1995 and 1998 events based on precipitation and runoff at stations to the west and<br />
south of the center of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong>. Appendix 2 includes a map of the<br />
stations used and plots of precipitation and runoff.<br />
Storm Patterns: Appendix 2 (Storm Analysis) compares the 1995 and 1998 <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> events based on rainfall and runoff stations on both the west and south<br />
axes of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> (see map in that Appendix). <strong>The</strong> two flood periods<br />
were associated with fundamentally different storm patterns. <strong>The</strong> 1995 event was<br />
shorter and much less intense at Corralitos and Hollister than in 1998, but the 1995<br />
storm near in the middle San Benito <strong>River</strong> watershed at Pinnacles National Monument<br />
was more intense than in 1998. More fundamentally, all stations indicate that the<br />
1995 peak discharge was nearly synchronous with the rainfall peak; while in 1998 the<br />
first rainfall peak did not result in a synchronous flood peak, and the 1998 rainfall had<br />
a longer duration and second period of intensity compared to 1995. What this seems<br />
to mean is that the 1995 storm stalled right over the centroid of the watershed near<br />
Hollister and produced an intense 48-hour flood, while the 1998 floods were the result<br />
of more widespread rainfall for a longer time resulting in flood peaks that were<br />
possibly near simultaneous, derived from both the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> and San Benito<br />
subbasins. <strong>The</strong> 1945 and 1955 events were more like 1998 based on their<br />
widespread rainfall patterns. Standard probability analysis does not, unfortunately,<br />
differentiate among differing causal mechanisms for standard winter rainfall floods.<br />
<strong>The</strong> fact that the 1995 flooding in the Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley had a much steeper rising<br />
hydrograph limb may partly explain why piping (flow under the levees with erosion)<br />
appears to have contributed to the levee failures in 1995 but not in 1998 even though<br />
the flood stages below Murphy’s Crossing were similar. <strong>The</strong>se differences are<br />
reflected in the hydrographs at Chittenden:<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
30<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
31<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
California State University<br />
Robert Curry, Research Director<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Institute<br />
Earth Systems Science & Policy<br />
CSU Monterey Bay<br />
Seaside, CALIF. 93955<br />
Bob_curry@csumb.edu<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Restoration Class – Spring, 2003<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
<strong>Flood</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Wm Bodensteiner<br />
Lani Clough<br />
Suzanne Gilmore<br />
Paul Huntington<br />
Joy Larson<br />
April McMillan<br />
Steve Mack<br />
C. Andrew Mauck<br />
Serena Pring<br />
Emily Roth<br />
Amy Thistle<br />
Melanie Vincent<br />
Draft of July 22, 2003 Public Copy A31
CHAPTER 3<br />
Upper Basin In-channel <strong>Flood</strong> Storage and Restoration Opportunities<br />
Basic Conclusions:<br />
A very substantial volume of flood storage exists in the upper watershed. Focus to<br />
date has been on the Soap Lake subbasin of the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> and lower Llagas and<br />
Uvas tributaries. This area is part of the Lake San Benito basin and is very flat with<br />
poorly integrated drainage. Most of the basin is underlain by hydric soils and is in<br />
agriculture. <strong>The</strong> RMC reports have tentatively outlined 30,000 ac-ft of flood storage<br />
over 7900 acres at an average depth of over 3 feet. That is the area that is subject to<br />
flooding in the 100-year flood, and approximately corresponds to a portion of the<br />
FEMA flood delineation map (see Map C for a portion of that map). Our team has<br />
identified a larger upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> area subject to inundation to an average depth<br />
of 1.5 feet that gives about the same de-facto storage volume (see Map C). Our team<br />
has identified about 3000 acres of the RMC 7900 acres that could be excavated to<br />
enhance flood storage for an additional 7700 ac-ft of storage. <strong>The</strong> excavated material<br />
could be used for nearby protective berms and fill to allow some non-agricultural land<br />
uses in the areas subject to very shallow infrequent inundation of 1 foot or less. <strong>The</strong><br />
net result is about 7000 ac-ft of added storage above the passive 30,000 ac-ft that<br />
already exists.<br />
On the San Benito <strong>River</strong> and its tributary Tres Pinos Creek, about the same 30,000<br />
ac-ft of de-facto passive flood storage exists today, but it is located along in-channel<br />
and channel margin areas along the braided channel itself. This total 60,000 ac-ft of<br />
storage capacity modifies the runoff characteristics of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> today and all<br />
flood control designs assume that such storage is functional and in place. Diking of<br />
sewage lagoons and active in-channel mining operations subtract from that storage<br />
and increase downstream peak flows. Today’s San Benito <strong>River</strong> is diked and<br />
modified so that storm flow volumes and peaks derived from that tributary should be<br />
increasing. We find that those channel changes have occurred progressively after the<br />
late 1940’s and 1950’s. We estimate that opportunities exist to enhance flood storage<br />
on the lower San Benito <strong>River</strong> below Tres Pinos for an added 14,700 ac-ft without<br />
encroaching on areas outside of the current (1996) FEMA-defined 100-year active<br />
flood zone. An example of an area suitable for restoration of natural overbank flood<br />
storage is shown in Fig. 10.<br />
Thus the total potential augmentation of flood storage above Chittenden is on the<br />
order of 22,400 ac-ft. This added volume of in-channel and near-channel storage has<br />
a direct effect on flood peaks in the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> Valley, lowering the flood<br />
peaks by about 10,000 cfs and the stage below Murphy’s Crossing by about 4 feet for<br />
the 100-year design event (see PWA Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> report, 2003). We believe that<br />
there are incentives for costs of upstream flood storage augmentation to be borne by<br />
local landowners. We believe that a river parkway plan can be combined with such<br />
augmentation to protect, stabilize, and enhance biotic and cultural resources<br />
upstream in a win-win situation so that costs of downstream flood protection are<br />
reduced while biologic and water quality values are increased throughout the<br />
watershed system.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
32<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
We also find that on the order of 6000 ac-ft of flood storage on the San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
south of Hollister was lost before 1955, and that this cannot be recovered today<br />
because housing and other structures are now located on that portion of the<br />
floodplain.<br />
MAP C: Storage areas considered in this report. Inset: 1996 FEMA 100 year flood area<br />
<strong>The</strong>ory:<br />
A balance between a river and its floodplain is necessary for the system to function<br />
without continual artificial (human) input or damage from floods and/or bank erosion.<br />
Natural watershed systems are drained by waterways that store sediment and water<br />
both in the channel and on its floodplain. <strong>The</strong> floodplain is constructed by the river<br />
itself as a self-regulating feature for storage of floodwater that exceeds the volumes<br />
that can be carried in the natural stable channel. Sediment that cannot be carried by<br />
the system during short flood periods is stored as bars and other deposits in the<br />
channel and on the floodplain (Curry, 1981) awaiting the next flood flows.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
33<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
When the balance between the volumes of water and sediment that are supplied to a<br />
river from its tributaries and from its bed and banks is changed, the river system<br />
attempts to rebalance itself. <strong>River</strong>s cannot store energy. <strong>The</strong>y must use it as they<br />
gain it, dropping 300 feet in elevation, for example, from Hollister to the ocean. If<br />
water flow volumes exceed sediment volumes, the river will attempt to erode sediment<br />
from its bed and banks to rebalance itself and equilibrate its rate of work with the<br />
potential and kinetic energy available to it. <strong>The</strong> river that drains a watershed is<br />
adjusted to carry the range of floods and sediment inputs that occur naturally in that<br />
watershed. If a period of major landslide activity occurs, for example along the fault<br />
zones in the Upper San Benito <strong>River</strong>, that sediment is stored in the channel awaiting<br />
sequential years of flood flows to move it downstream. This leads to natural channel<br />
aggradation, or build-up of sediment in the bed. After this occurs, flood flows<br />
redistribute that sediment year after year, parceling it out for transport through lowgradient<br />
reaches downstream. <strong>The</strong> steep gradients on the depositional areas of the<br />
San Benito <strong>River</strong> near Hollister (18-20 ft per mile) are the result of the great natural<br />
instability of the watershed hillslopes upstream.<br />
When a river is deprived of sediment or when flood flows exceed the volumes<br />
necessary to carry the sediment entrained in that flood flow, the river erodes its bed<br />
and/or banks. Gravel and sand mining in the natural riverbed act to “starve” the river<br />
of sediment, and lead to channel incision (downcutting) and/or bank cutting. When<br />
downcutting is severe, the river can no longer store floodwater in its floodplain<br />
because it cannot access its floodplain as it would naturally do every 2 to 3 years (see<br />
Fig, 11). If riverbed mining exceeds the long-term natural sediment supply, the<br />
watershed system is said to be in disequilibrium. That is, the natural form of the<br />
watercourse and its watershed are no longer balanced with the water and sediment<br />
that are moving through it. One of the most extreme examples of this imbalance is on<br />
the Lower Russian <strong>River</strong> in California where the sediment-starved middle reach<br />
around Healdsburg has incised as much as 20 feet and is now completely separated<br />
from its floodplain. As a consequence of this loss of flood storage, flooding<br />
downstream has increased in frequency and severity to the point that the area around<br />
the town of Guerneville has become the Nation’s focus for the federal flood insurance<br />
debacle where people repeatedly claim flood losses that cumulatively far exceed the<br />
values of the properties (James Witt, personal communication, 1997). At the Monte<br />
Rio gauge on the lower Russian <strong>River</strong>, 5 or more “100-year floods” have occurred<br />
since 1986.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
34<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure11 Cartoon showing how incision reduces flood storage and riparian habitat<br />
Methods:<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> above the Chittenden gauge was inspected carefully to<br />
determine where natural floodplain areas were no longer being inundated in major<br />
floods. <strong>The</strong> 1998 flood was of a magnitude such that it should have covered most of<br />
the natural floodplains that function in balance with the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and its tributaries.<br />
If, as the probability plot for Chittenden suggests, the 1998 event was a 30-100 year<br />
magnitude flood at various places throughout the watershed, then the floodplain<br />
should have carried water with sufficient depth and velocity to leave a record in the<br />
surface soils. Surface soil characteristics on a floodplain reflect the depositional, and<br />
occasionally erosional, passages of flood waters where they are vegetated and cause<br />
slowing of flood flows. Along the San Benito <strong>River</strong>, low-lying riverside bench lands<br />
below the level of the agricultural Lake San Benito land surface have very young<br />
poorly developed soils that are characteristic of flood deposits formed in the last few<br />
hundred years (Fig 8). <strong>The</strong>se deposits are very different from the moderately<br />
developed soils on the higher Lake San Benito and Lake San Juan surfaces (Fig 9).<br />
<strong>The</strong> current active stream channels do not have any silt-size organic-rich soil<br />
development at all. Thus, it is possible to differentiate unambiguously where<br />
floodplains have been abandoned in the last century.<br />
Surveying of channel cross-sections and elevations was done at several places to<br />
compare with historic data. A good plane table topographic map was made in 1917-<br />
1919 in the Hollister area (Hollister, USGS, 30-minute quadrangle) and<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
35<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
photogrammetric maps were made based on aerial photography taken between 1952<br />
(San Juan Quad) and 1955 (Hollister Quad.) Tres Pinos Quad photos were made in<br />
1953. <strong>The</strong> date of the published map is not material to the reference elevations, nor<br />
are the dates of photorevisions. <strong>The</strong> topography is based on the original aerial data<br />
except where specifically noted in purple overprint. For all of the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> USGS<br />
quadrangles, published revisions in the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s all specifically note<br />
no topographic revisions after the original 7.5 minute quadrangle aerial base surveys.<br />
Field surveys in 2003 augmented a very detailed photogrammetric and 2-foot contourinterval<br />
ground-based survey made privately for the San Benito <strong>River</strong> area by<br />
Graniterock Company. Those December 2000 data with very detailed aerial<br />
photography at a scale of 1-inch = 500 feet were provided to us digitally by<br />
Graniterock. <strong>The</strong> earliest topographic surveys of 1917-1919, as published in the 1921<br />
USGS topographic map, were made on site by plane table and alidade. Although the<br />
contour interval on those maps was only 50 feet, the surveyors clearly and definitively<br />
noted the heights of the stream banks with a “step” in the contour at the break in<br />
slope. By measuring the stream gradient on the map and the length of the step at<br />
map scale, the heights of the banks can be estimated. For the upper San Benito<br />
<strong>River</strong> above Hollister, those banks were 7 to 8 feet high at the time of the early<br />
surveys.<br />
San Benito County staff cooperated to provide access to their mining operation files,<br />
and to the plat maps and property records so that we could tabulate and attempt to<br />
contact all property owners bordering the San Benito <strong>River</strong> below Tres Pinos. <strong>The</strong>se<br />
records are tabulated in Appendix 3. Those property owners were contacted where<br />
possible and state, federal, and local agencies were polled to try to learn of their<br />
concerns and interests in upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> watershed watercourses (Appendix 4). Field<br />
investigations were conducted on the Llagas, Uvas, and San Benito tributaries as well<br />
as portions of the main stems of the <strong>Pájaro</strong>. We investigated evidences of active<br />
channel modifications, gauging station status, riverbed and bank conditions,<br />
evidences of bed-form and plan-form erosion or change, and high-flow markers or<br />
field evidence. <strong>The</strong>se observational data are integrated into our findings and<br />
opinions.<br />
Findings:<br />
Channel Incision:<br />
We verified earlier reports (Goldner Associates, 1997, ) that the San Benito <strong>River</strong> had<br />
been incising. Our findings for the thalweg elevations along the uppermost San<br />
Benito above Hollister are as shown in this table:<br />
DATE<br />
Blossom<br />
Rd<br />
Hospital Rd Union Road Nash Road<br />
1917-1919 350 ft elev 320-25 ft.elev 298-99 ft.elev ~275 ft elev<br />
1955 330 ft elev ~308 ft elev ~295 ft elev 269 ft. elev<br />
2000-2002 314.4 ft. elev 280.7 ft. elev 259.1 ft. elev<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
36<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Although Hospital Road shows some aggradation after 1955, all of the other data<br />
indicate progressive incision. <strong>The</strong> Hospital Road data may reflect the annual filling<br />
that takes place there for a summer road across the streambed. In this Hollister<br />
section of the San Benito <strong>River</strong>, the natural floodplains had been abandoned by 1955<br />
and development was taking place on them. In 1995 and, especially, in 1998, the<br />
flood flows that were confined to an incised channel, cut laterally and made the<br />
channel as much as 3 times as wide as before those floods. This is the natural way<br />
that a watershed system works to regain equilibrium. Lacking overbank low-velocity<br />
water storage, the deep high velocity flow undermines and cuts the easily eroded<br />
sand and gravel banks. This provides the sediment load that the high velocity<br />
confined river is capable of moving, and it begins the process of cutting a new flood<br />
plane at the lower level of the streambed. This lateral erosion will continue until the<br />
width of the new deeper channel is sufficient to expend the available energy of the<br />
flowing water against the stream bed itself with little energy left for bank cutting. In the<br />
case of the San Benito between Hospital Road and Hollister, this will be about a 0.75-<br />
mile width if no reclamation is undertaken. As this occurs, the constructed features<br />
and bridges will be damaged or lost, as is seen in the case of this newly-built Cienega<br />
Road house during the 1998 floods (Fig 12):<br />
Figure 12 - House along Cienega Road south Hollister, 1998<br />
<strong>The</strong> detailed Graniterock aerial photos permitted us to investigate the entire<br />
channel below Hospital Road to the junction with the <strong>Pájaro</strong>. We were<br />
unable to receive landowner permissions to survey most of that channel and<br />
needed to investigate the majority of the channel where public bridge rightsof-way<br />
do not exist, and thus where the channel is not constricted artificially.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Graniterock aerial photos and the accompanying 2-foot contour interval<br />
maps are only a year old and reflect today’s conditions. <strong>The</strong>se permitted us<br />
to compare the present topography of the river with that in the 1950’s as<br />
mapped by the US Geological Survey, and with sequential aerial<br />
photographs. We borrowed and digitized the Soil Conservation Service<br />
historical aerial photo enlargements of August 1959, and copied the available<br />
collections from the University of California Map Library and elsewhere.<br />
<strong>The</strong>se included the 1931 lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley, 1939 entire river, 1952 and<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
37<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
1967 flight lines and the full digital 1998 federal digital orthophoto quadrangle<br />
series.<br />
We learned that there were three classes of change in the San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
channel that all affect downstream flood peak heights. <strong>The</strong>re were two<br />
different kinds of land use changes that affect runoff timing and volume to the<br />
upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> channel derived from San Benito and Santa Clara counties. <strong>The</strong><br />
changes we document can be summarized in 5 classes as follows:<br />
1. Those where direct channel incision prevents or reduces overbank<br />
flood storage onto a floodplain along the river. Rather than model the<br />
degree of incision necessary to affect flood storage on floodplains, we<br />
simply noted abandoned floodplains recognized by soils and<br />
vegetation. This kind of change greatly accelerates passage of<br />
floodwaters downstream, except where the channel incision intercepts<br />
the groundwater surface and vegetation thus chokes the channel to<br />
slow water velocity.<br />
2. Those where channel widening with or without a deeper central<br />
channel (thalweg) effectively increase the capacity of a channel and<br />
thus reduce the height of a flood and access of those waters to their<br />
floodplain. This kind of change accelerates flood runoff because the<br />
water remains in the channel and flows at a higher velocity than would<br />
overbank floodplain flow.<br />
3. Those associated with a change from a multi-thread or braided<br />
channel to a single more efficient channel, often accompanied by<br />
reduced in-channel vegetation. This kind of change accompanies<br />
incision and is favored where a central channel is deliberately graded<br />
or confined to protect banks from erosion or to prevent lateral<br />
migration of the channel, as for example where sewage lagoons or<br />
highways are being protected. This kind of channelization change<br />
greatly accelerates flow and reduces flood storage.<br />
4. Those associated with a straightening and cleaning of seasonal or<br />
flood-period temporary drainage channels on the floodplain. This was<br />
observed today only in the Soap Lake area but these same<br />
constructed drainage channels also are seen in 1917 mapped on the<br />
now-abandoned floodplain south of Hollister. This class of changes<br />
reduces the time that overbank floodwater remains out of the channel,<br />
thus having a modest impact on downstream flood height.<br />
5. Those associated with dams and flood control structures and bank<br />
protection measures that harden banks, reduce bank and bed<br />
roughness, and reduce infiltration capacity and land surface runoff<br />
detention during intense rainfall events. Public works projects such as<br />
bridges, spillways, and highway berms tend to reduce bank and bed<br />
friction and thus accelerate runoff. <strong>The</strong> farther upstream or farther<br />
from the channel that these works are found, the less the degree of<br />
direct impact on peak flood heights. No matter how intense the rainfall<br />
or how long its duration. Uvas, Chesbro, and Hernandez reservoirs<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
38<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
clearly attenuate (reduce) flood peaks for events when they are not<br />
full and spilling. <strong>The</strong> RMC report concludes that:<br />
“<strong>The</strong> three large reservoirs in the watershed – Hernandez, Uvas and<br />
Chesbro – have been very effective in reducing the peak discharges of<br />
the more frequent events and, in the case of Hernandez Reservoir, have<br />
been effective in reducing peak discharges across the frequency<br />
spectrum.” (RMC Hydro Technical Memorandum, 2000).<br />
That report concluded that, in 1937 before the three major water<br />
supply reservoirs were constructed, the 100-year discharge at<br />
Chittenden would have been about 12 percent larger than today.<br />
We disagree. That modeled value is based on observed historical<br />
attenuation of flood peaks below those reservoirs. We investigated<br />
the watersheds above two of those reservoirs and did not find<br />
evidence of hillslope overland flow in the oak woodlands that<br />
represent the conditions that existed in the reservoir basins before<br />
they were constructed. We thus disagree that the 100-year peak<br />
intensity rainfall and runoff event would be detained or attenuated by<br />
a full and spilling reservoir system. <strong>The</strong> opposite should be the case<br />
because a full reservoir with super-elevation at the spillways will not<br />
absorb or detain any more rainfall and thus peak discharges at the<br />
extreme event are increased unless these water supply reservoirs are<br />
first drawn down. Flotsam around the shorelines of Uvas and<br />
Chesbro show that they both have filled to above the elevations of the<br />
spillway inverts.<br />
Dikes along both Llagas and Uvas creeks in Santa Clara County and<br />
significant channelization and straightening of the primary channels<br />
had led to loss of fish passage and high velocity channel erosion in<br />
some places. Much of this is now being repaired and channel<br />
roughness elements are being put in place to try to rebalance these<br />
tributaries. Our impressions were that the channels themselves are<br />
now as rough or rougher than were their natural antecedents,<br />
particularly where filled with Arundo and other plants, and tortuously<br />
threaded through urban areas. Thus, acceleration of runoff is minimal<br />
(Fig 13 photos are examples of Llagas conditions)<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
39<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Fig. 13 Two views of the Llagas Creek Channel showing roughness<br />
elements. Left image is just above Soap Lake, right in central urban<br />
area<br />
Channel Diversion<br />
For the Lower San Benito <strong>River</strong>, the Graniterock aerial photos and contour<br />
maps permitted us to establish that a local mining strategy has been to<br />
isolate various portions of the channels and to protect mining areas and<br />
channel banks with berms. Some of these berms are built to the same height<br />
as the natural Lake San Benito lakebed land surface. That elevation assures<br />
that the berms are above any historic level of the river. <strong>The</strong> berms and dikes<br />
reduce access by floodwaters to the full channel width and the incision<br />
reduces access to adjacent floodplains so that the river is greatly constrained<br />
and downstream flooding is increased. Figs 18-21 (Appendix 5 – Historical<br />
Change in the San Benito <strong>River</strong>) show an example of this kind of<br />
manipulation in the lowermost reaches of the San Benito <strong>River</strong> just upstream<br />
from San Juan Road. Fig 18 is from the December 2000 Graniterock survey<br />
and shows Highway 101 at its junction with Highway 129, and San Juan<br />
Highway. <strong>The</strong> “A”s are placed on abandoned floodplain remnants. A road is<br />
seen going from the sand mining operation area upstream (right) along the<br />
crest of a constructed berm that is the same height at the Lake San Benito<br />
agricultural lands. This berm thus isolates the present river from its floodplain<br />
remnants, some of which are used for mining equipment storage and some<br />
for agriculture as was the case in the earlier photographs (Fig 19, taken in<br />
1939). Topographic detail can be seen in Appendix 6. Modifications from<br />
1950’s through the 70’s are shown on the 7.5 minute USGS Quadrangles<br />
shown in Fig. 20<br />
Channel diversions are found throughout the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> basin north of Tres<br />
Pinos. Because the natural channels in both Santa Clara and San Benito<br />
counties were braided or wide and changing from year to year, early property<br />
owners confined the channels widely. Llagas Creek is now confined by<br />
berms over much of its length. Uvas is confined by major levees through<br />
Gilroy. San Benito <strong>River</strong> is confined to protect the City of Hollister, to protect<br />
various sewage treatment facilities, and to protect agricultural uses.<br />
Agriculture and development do not exist on most of the natural floodplain<br />
except above the City of Hollister where most of the floodplain is developed<br />
and where gravel mining and public works has resulted in many training and<br />
confining dikes. Below (downstream) of Hollister the natural floodplain is<br />
used for cattle grazing and for a single sod farm. <strong>The</strong> Pacific Sod Farm<br />
(Tom Galdos, personal communication, 2003) has cooperated to protect its<br />
primary growing area with a low berm that was overtopped in 1998.<br />
Overbank silts are needed for the operation of this farm, where each sod crop<br />
excavates a portion of the soil resource, and we were told that production is<br />
becoming marginal without further sediment accumulation.<br />
RESTORATION OF CHANNEL FUNCTIONS<br />
We estimate that an average one-fourth mile width of the 6.5-mile long lower<br />
San Benito <strong>River</strong> below Highway 156 could be restored to provide an<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
40<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
average 8-foot depth of water that is not now being stored at flood stages<br />
above that of a 25-30 year recurrence interval. To reclaim this storage<br />
volume mid-channel levees would have to be breached, incised channels<br />
would have to be recontoured or confined by gabion baskets or other<br />
structures or plantings to slow peak flood flow volumes, and overwide<br />
channel reaches would need gabion structures or plantings to constrict flow<br />
to a central meandering channel.<br />
Non-structural solutions, primarily involving willow plantings, have been<br />
effective in the Carmel <strong>River</strong> for this kind of restoration of a low-flow central<br />
channel that supports wildlife and protects riverbanks from erosion. <strong>The</strong> San<br />
Benito <strong>River</strong> is more problematic than the Carmel. Unlike the Carmel,<br />
aggregate mining is a primary tax base for San Benito County. Further the<br />
channel of the San Benito (but not Upper <strong>Pájaro</strong>) has a very low base flow<br />
and is dry much of many years, thus making vegetation management more<br />
difficult. <strong>The</strong> history of mining and degree of channel incision that has<br />
resulted on the San Benito create a more immediate need for active solutions<br />
that will set the stage for raised water tables, increased in-stream vegetation,<br />
and slow aggradation of the active riverbed.<br />
Suggested Restoration options for San Benito <strong>River</strong>:<br />
Two primary restoration strategies must be used on the San Benito <strong>River</strong>.<br />
<strong>The</strong> levees and dikes that exist within the channel must be breached at<br />
sufficient points to allow ready and rapid exchange of floodwaters throughout<br />
the channel. This will create a floodway, or zone of active flood storage. It is<br />
important that this storage be “on-channel”; that is, readily able to retain<br />
floodwater as the stage rises in the river. All of the berms need not be<br />
removed, but the more that can be removed, the greater the storage capacity<br />
of that active channel. For sites like the Hollister sewage lagoons, the levees<br />
cannot be breached, but for sites such as shown in Appendix 5, they must be<br />
breached. For a site like the Pacific Sod farm, where an entire meander is<br />
protected by a berm, some accommodation can be made to allow flooding<br />
only at flood stages of 25-year return period or greater. This is about the<br />
magnitude where these protective berms overtop today.<br />
For the overwide channels and other sites where floodplains have been<br />
abandoned directly along the San Benito <strong>River</strong> channel, we recommend<br />
consideration of a series of gravel-filled gabion baskets that extend from the<br />
banks toward an optimal central channel. <strong>The</strong>se structures do not cross the<br />
channel and do not impact the low-flow channel. <strong>The</strong> serve as a series of<br />
confining and “training” structures that focus the flow of the river in a singlethread<br />
central channel, while simultaneously creating flow velocity reduction<br />
against the banks and sediment deposition zones. As the central channel<br />
becomes defined after one or more channel-forming events (see Rosgen<br />
figure on p 16), then a second and third set of baskets are built on top of the<br />
first until the grade of the channel at flood stage is high enough to reach the<br />
floodplain and restore stable channel geometry. If properly placed, the<br />
gabion basket assemblages will encourage pool and riffle geometry in the<br />
central channel, and will allow vegetation to become established along the<br />
base of the present riverbanks. That vegetation is the primary tool for<br />
reducing bank erosion and for slowing the flood velocities. In effect, each<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
41<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
“lift” or set of gabion baskets becomes a control structure for a new floodplain<br />
in the overwide channel areas,<br />
If sediment supply were very large and aggregate mining were not occurring,<br />
it would be a simple matter to allow the channel to aggrade to sequential<br />
gabion installations until the system was returned to a condition similar to that<br />
prior to human alteration. But sediment supply is episodic and not unlimited<br />
as is demonstrated by the ever-widening channels (see Riley, 2003).<br />
Further, the aggregate industry owns much of the channel and its banks and<br />
is the logical entity with the capability to stabilize and restore the river<br />
channels.<br />
Aggregate Mining Company Opportunities:<br />
We tabulated and plotted all riverside ownerships (see Appendix 3). <strong>The</strong><br />
Granite Rock Company of Watsonville, California, owns or controls the major<br />
portion of the channel between the <strong>Pájaro</strong> confluence and Tres Pinos. <strong>The</strong>y<br />
lease surface portions of their parcels for farming on the Lake San Benito<br />
soils, and extract aggregate resources from the channel bed, usually by<br />
“skimming” the active braided bed. <strong>The</strong>ir active mining operations ceased in<br />
this area 5 years ago. <strong>The</strong>re are other aggregate operators on the river, and<br />
all are in theory regulated by both the State and the County (see Appendix 7).<br />
Regulation is not consistent or effective. <strong>The</strong> State, under the Surface Mining<br />
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) requires a Reclamation <strong>Plan</strong> and financial<br />
assurances (bonding) for each operator. This program is administered by<br />
San Benito County. <strong>The</strong> State has no authority over land use permits, so the<br />
County is also responsible for either issuing a Conditional Use Permit or<br />
making specific findings that may allow “grandfathered” projects as vested<br />
uses. Thus, San Benito County carries the primary responsibility for<br />
oversight of an industry that provides an important part of its tax base.<br />
According to the California Department of Fish and Game (personal<br />
communication, Santa Rosa office, 2003), some San Benito <strong>River</strong> operators<br />
may not be in compliance with their Section 404 regulations for in-channel<br />
modifications. According to some operators, San Benito County is attempting<br />
to limit their operations, in part because of complaints by riverside<br />
landowners about bank erosion (such complaints were heard from many<br />
property owners that we contacted). This environment restrains mining<br />
operations, with some operations currently shut down awaiting permits. We<br />
see an opportunity to use aggregate mining operators, with access to heavy<br />
equipment and aggregate resources, to help provide a solution.<br />
A San Benito <strong>River</strong> Parkway <strong>Plan</strong> needs to be developed to stabilize and<br />
restore the lower San Benito <strong>River</strong>. At the present time, public respect for the<br />
river is very low. Both access and amenities are rare. Many residents of that<br />
county only see the river from highway bridges and have no idea what is<br />
actually in the channel. Where the channel has incised to the water table and<br />
mid-channel willow thickets exist, local residents and the County complain,<br />
with some validity, that flood flows are then forced into the banks with<br />
resulting erosion. Where roads access the channel or banks, refuse is<br />
dumped to be carried away by subsequent floods. Temporary summer river<br />
crossings, as at Nash Road and Hospital Road, are installed seasonally with<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
42<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
culverts and fill. Other parts of the channel are used for off-road vehicle<br />
recreation resulting in destruction of the veneers of gravel cobble bed armor<br />
leading to erosion with only minimal flow velocities in subsequent winters.<br />
Exotic vegetation in the channel provides a seed source that spreads to<br />
adjacent agricultural fields.<br />
Graniterock has shown us its willingness to discuss and promote restoration<br />
options, including a <strong>River</strong> Parkway. <strong>The</strong>y are on record with such a proposal,<br />
and conducted the channel survey for just such a purpose. For them, the<br />
incentive is continuing County cooperation and permitting through all<br />
regulatory agencies. <strong>The</strong>y want to access the aggregate resources. For the<br />
riverside landowners and the County Public Works agency, the incentive is<br />
reduced erosion and maintenance costs. For the local residents, the<br />
incentive is a potential river parkway with 10 or more miles of high-value<br />
riparian parkway and habitat, and some public access. For the downstream<br />
counties, the incentive is flood storage and reduced loss of lands and costs<br />
downstream for flood control. This is a potential win-win situation.<br />
Practically, such restoration planning and implementation takes time. Some<br />
areas must be maintained for mining if the operators are to cooperate and<br />
provide support for the restoration. Because of the high value of the<br />
agricultural production on the Lake San Benito silt soils, mining aggregate offchannel<br />
is not practiced locally. Because mining does not take place during<br />
flood periods or when groundwater levels are high, operators need to mine<br />
and stockpile in the dry season. A well-designed restoration plan that<br />
attempts to integrate aggregate resource mining is not a tautology. It can be<br />
done. <strong>The</strong> Merced <strong>River</strong> parkway, the San Joaquin <strong>River</strong> Parkway, and<br />
several other California examples provide models. Enhanced flood storage<br />
accrues slowly. It may take decades to achieve the full component of<br />
potential enhanced flood storage. You cannot simultaneously aggrade and<br />
mine the same parts of the channel. Mining must be focused on those sites<br />
where there are minimal streamside potential flood storage areas that can be<br />
restored. Gabion baskets would have to be installed in areas not being<br />
mined as well as in areas being mined. As many as three tiers of baskets<br />
may need to be placed initially just to bring high flood flows up to floodplain<br />
grade, but mining can continue between those tiers of baskets. We are<br />
working to restore what is called the energy grade line of the surface of the<br />
flood flows at 25-30-year magnitude events only. We can allow all other<br />
lesser floods to pass down a central thalweg. Fig 14 is a cartoon that<br />
illustrates this open central channel. Unfortunately, the USDA Stream<br />
Restoration Best Management Practices web site does not provide examples<br />
of these 1-km wide scale restoration structures, but the principles that they<br />
illustrate are often applicable<br />
(http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/watershed/UrbanBMPs/stream.html). What is<br />
important is the fact that the structures are low-tech, porous, inexpensive and<br />
do not obstruct the central channel. Like the Stream Barb structure used in<br />
smaller channels (Fig 15), the gabion basket structures slow water at the<br />
edges of the channel and are easy to install and maintain.<br />
We recommend that Graniterock and other willing San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
aggregate mining operators be invited to develop plans for a restoration/river<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
43<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
parkway system that can be implemented with no or minimal outside funding.<br />
Graniterock has already demonstrated a willingness to propose such action<br />
and assisted our study through their generous sharing of their aerial survey<br />
data. If conservation easements or land trust arrangements can be<br />
implemented for parts of the upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> watershed in conjunction with<br />
these major landholders, this may facilitate faster completion of potential<br />
storage volumes. We can help to facilitate such planning and<br />
implementation.<br />
Suggested Enhancement Options for Upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>:<br />
<strong>The</strong> Upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, along the Santa Clara-San Benito County line is<br />
fundamentally different than the San Benito <strong>River</strong>. Here a channel is incised<br />
up to 25 feet below the Lake San Benito lakebed, but because the riverbed<br />
has historically carried a reliable supply of influent groundwater, a dense<br />
finger of riparian forest characterizes most of the channel. This mature<br />
riparian forest of cottonwood, alder, maple, and willow has a dense woody<br />
instream fabric of logs and mid-channel growth, with a diverse pool structure.<br />
Although only 100 m wide in places, this riparian corridor provides high<br />
quality wildlife habitat and, apparently, allows anadromous fish passage into<br />
Llagas and Uvas creeks.<br />
Because the riparian forest is so dense and woody debris so prevalent, flood<br />
stages rise rapidly and go overbank onto the old San Benito lakebed. Local<br />
landowners report that flooding reaches the old lakebed level at a frequency<br />
of 10 years or less. Because of the high regional groundwater levels that<br />
seasonally saturate up to the lakebed silt cap, the soils of the area are<br />
classed as hydric and, unless cropped continually, revert to wetland<br />
conditions with emergent wetland plants. Farmers have constructed drainage<br />
channels across these lands to carry shallow groundwater and rainfall into<br />
the <strong>Pájaro</strong>.<br />
We were able to meet with local landowners and/or farm leaseholders. We<br />
learned that this Soap Lake area, just south of Gilroy, and situated along<br />
Highway 25 between Gilroy and Hollister, may be a target for extensive<br />
development. An ongoing effort sponsored through the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong><br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Prevention Authority and AMBAG seeks to establish flood<br />
or conservation easements for the Soap Lake basin. Our sources suggest<br />
that the opportunity costs for development are so great that contiguous<br />
easements may be very difficult to obtain. While the site looks like marginal<br />
agricultural land used for little more than growing hay or grazing with small<br />
areas of row crops, it is in fact being leased back to local farmers and kept in<br />
agriculture as an interim holding pattern while development options are<br />
considered. If some of these lands would be wetlands were it not for<br />
continual agricultural use, then federal regulations will make it necessary to<br />
maintain agricultural uses or raise the lands or protect them with dikes and<br />
levees to permit non-agricultural uses. Should this be the case, a need for<br />
local fill may provide an opportunity to encourage landowners to excavate the<br />
3-foot deep lake-silt cap immediately adjacent to the river. This could<br />
increase the flood storage.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
44<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Our modeling of enhanced flood storage considers opportunities for local<br />
landowners to enhance wetland status in areas now in agriculture through<br />
excavation of 2 to 3 feet of native surface lake silt (see Map C). <strong>The</strong>re is no<br />
assurance that the expensive regarding efforts would be cost-effective for<br />
owners wishing to develop parts of the margins of Soap Lake for housing or<br />
other non-agricultural uses. Preliminary discussions with representatives of<br />
landowners have not discouraged us from considering three-foot excavation<br />
in about 2.5 square miles of lower Soap Lake along the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> for onchannel<br />
flood storage augmentation, yielding 4800 ac-ft of new storage in<br />
addition to the existing Soap Lake flood volume. We have also modeled an<br />
added 2.25 square mile area extending westward to the existing railroad bed<br />
berm, adding an additional 2880 ac-ft of new storage, and raising the land<br />
elevation between Highway 101 and the rail line above flood levels. This kind<br />
of tradeoff must be approved by all regulatory agencies. In essence, a<br />
marginal non-functional wetland area now in agriculture is converted to<br />
functional restored planted natural wetland in exchange for allowing fill of the<br />
edges of the Soap Lake basin that are only wet during sustained 100-year<br />
flood events at the present time. Of the 30,000 ac-ft Soap Lake basin<br />
storage volume, some 700 ac-ft of natural storage would be traded for about<br />
7000 ac-ft of enhanced functional wetland habitat storage. This is also a winwin<br />
situation if a developer or regional agency can be found to champion that<br />
large-scale set-aside, and if the regulatory agencies favor it.<br />
CONCLUSIONS<br />
Over 60,000 ac-ft of flood storage exists on or very near the channels of the<br />
upper <strong>Pájaro</strong> watershed. Soap Lake comprises an important part of this, but<br />
only a part of the storage that can be modified or lost with upstream<br />
development. Approximately 22,400 ac-ft of storage enhancement is readily<br />
possible. Most of this storage is no longer active and no longer accessible to<br />
the river because of stream channel incision, levees and berms, and<br />
diversions. Restoration of this volume can reduce downstream peak flood<br />
heights by on the order of 4 feet during a 100-year flood. <strong>The</strong> cost of this<br />
flood reduction is believed to be less than the cost of protective works<br />
downstream that achieve the same level of protection.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
45<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
California State University<br />
Robert Curry, Research Director<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Institute<br />
Earth Systems Science & Policy<br />
CSU Monterey Bay<br />
Seaside, CALIF. 93955<br />
Bob_curry@csumb.edu<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Restoration Class – Spring, 2003<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
<strong>Flood</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Wm Bodensteiner<br />
Lani Clough<br />
Suzanne Gilmore<br />
Paul Huntington<br />
Joy Larson<br />
April McMillan<br />
Steve Mack<br />
C. Andrew Mauck<br />
Serena Pring<br />
Emily Roth<br />
Amy Thistle<br />
Melanie Vincent
APPENDICES & Figures<br />
APPENDIX 1: Note on 1998 records for upper river flows<br />
Message<br />
From:<br />
Subject:<br />
To:<br />
Cc:<br />
Monday, May 13, 2002 9:44:13 PM<br />
lfreeman@usgs.gov<br />
Re: San Benito vs <strong>Pajaro</strong> 1998 peak question<br />
Bob Curry<br />
lfreeman@usgs.gov<br />
Bob. I had thought your inquiry about 1998 peaks for San Benito<br />
at HWY 156 and <strong>Pajaro</strong> R at Chittenden had been responded to several<br />
months ago. Apparently not, so here is some feed back.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Feb. 3 Tres Pinos peak was determined using a slope area and<br />
an outside high water mark at a location near where the washed out gage<br />
was last seen (best guess). <strong>The</strong> peak totally changed the channel. <strong>The</strong><br />
slope area discharge was calculated to be 27,200 cfs, rated Poor with a<br />
comment that the calculation is "No better than +/- 25% uncertainty".<br />
This yields potential peaks of 20,400 to 34,000 cfs.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Feb. 3 peak value for San Benito at HWY 156 was also a result<br />
of a slope area using the gage height from the Crest Stage Gage (the<br />
digital record was faulty because of a huge debris jam at the orifice<br />
location). Again, the peak totally changed the channel. <strong>The</strong> slope area<br />
discharge was calculated to be 34,500 cfs and rated Poor with a comment<br />
that it is " no better than +/- of 25% of true". This yields peaks that<br />
could range from 25,875 to 43,125 cfs. <strong>The</strong>re was also a float<br />
measurement made just after the peak and two follow-up recessional<br />
measurements made that were used to define the new rating. At the end<br />
of the 1998 WY, we lowered the datum 3.0 feet in order to avoid gage<br />
heights of less than zero, caused by the channel scour. <strong>The</strong> published<br />
GH for the 2/3/98 peak did not incorporate the datum change as it had<br />
not yet been made. Peaks for the 1999 WY and later do incorporate the<br />
additional 3 feet.<br />
<strong>The</strong> Feb. 3 <strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> peak of 25,100 is during a period of<br />
record that is rated poor (at least +/-8% potential for error) and is<br />
based on actual GH record adjusted to surveyed outside high water marks<br />
of excellent quality. Recessional measurements were made on Feb. 4<br />
(29.23 GH/17,700 cfs) and Feb. 15 (6,040 cfs). Both were used to define<br />
a new rating, so the comment in the annual report about rating<br />
extension being based on slope conveyance is not correct. It's my fault<br />
for leaving it in the manuscript. I have no record of when the slope<br />
conveyance was run and subsequently used. <strong>The</strong> upper end of the new<br />
rating (40) was based on the two measurements made on the recession<br />
from the peak. 40 merges with upper end of R 38 and extends only 1.30<br />
feet higher than 38. Rating 38 was put into effect on the March 1995<br />
flood peak. <strong>The</strong> rating extension was only 7,400 cfs above the highest<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
46<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
measurement and only 2,100 cfs higher than rating 38. It is still a<br />
peak of record as are the peaks for San Benito and Tres Pinos.<br />
Please note that there is a major tributary entering the <strong>Pajaro</strong><br />
<strong>River</strong> upstream of the confluence of the <strong>Pajaro</strong> and San Benito rivers.<br />
Uvas Creek has a drainage area of 71.2 square miles at the old USGS<br />
gage (1959-1992) Uvas Creek near Gilroy (11154200). I don't know what<br />
the DA is at the confluence with <strong>Pajaro</strong>. We don't know what the flow<br />
contribution or timing of the peak for Uvas Creek actually is. Peaks<br />
are regulated by Uvas Reservoir. Santa Clara Valley Water District now<br />
operates this gage. I would like to take over the operation of that<br />
gage once again as the peak flows seem to be a key element for<br />
validating flows at Chittenden.<br />
Another item to note is that the peak at Chittenden occurred 45<br />
minutes before the peak at the San Benito site. If one looks at the<br />
total runoff in acre feet for both of the sites, the numbers make<br />
sense. <strong>The</strong> total runoff at Chittenden was much higher. February ACFT<br />
for San Benito at HWY 156 was 130,500 while ACFT for <strong>Pajaro</strong> at<br />
Chittenden was 387,500.<br />
Other factors which are being overlooked or unknown are;<br />
1) there is a huge, natural, heavily forested and overgrown<br />
floodplain area where the San Benito meets the <strong>Pajaro</strong> that acts as a<br />
reservoir to store peak flows. I don't know how much it could put into<br />
storage and then release. It's not too hard for me to imagine this<br />
possibility looking at the height of the post-flood drift in trees I<br />
could see from HWY 101.<br />
2)there is also a large area of low lying farmland on the San<br />
Benito R above this area which was under several inches to feet of<br />
water. This storage component is very real. If one compares the<br />
hydrographs for San Benito vs <strong>Pajaro</strong>, the San Benito peak is much more<br />
flashy than the <strong>Pajaro</strong> peak. This is a common occurrence for flood<br />
peaks at these two sites.<br />
Given all of the above, including the large uncertainties in the<br />
Slope Area measurements, I see no big problem here.<br />
I have also made a suggestion to the US Army Corp of Engineers to<br />
develop a plan to map flooded areas and run calculations for storage<br />
the next time we see a major event. <strong>The</strong>y too were concerned with the<br />
apparent numerical discrepancies between peak discharges at these two<br />
sites. My contact at the San Francisco office is Carlos Hernandez.<br />
Larry.<br />
Larry Freeman<br />
Field Office Chief<br />
USGS<br />
3239 IMJIN ROAD<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
47<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
APPENDIX 5 Example of Historical Changes in the Lower San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
Fig 18-19: Top photo, December 2000; bottom photo, June 1939<br />
See Fig 20-21for topographic maps of this site. <strong>River</strong> flow is from right to left. Overbank<br />
floodplain areas are clearly visible in 1939, as is a wide aggrading sand-filled channel. Mining beginning<br />
in the 1940’s has now lowered the channel 15-20 feet or more to intersect groundwater. An incised<br />
channel can be seen in the vegetated mined-out area today. Some areas of original flood plain in 1939<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
48<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
are now occupied by industrial development along Highway 101 and along San Juan Highway north of<br />
Anzar High School.<br />
Historical Change in San Benito <strong>River</strong> Just above Hwy 101<br />
Fig 20. Portions of San Juan Bautista and Chittenden 1:24,000 topographic quadrangles<br />
showing 1952 topography with mining that was interpreted as active in 1997-98. <strong>The</strong> purple overprint<br />
convention differs between the two matched maps, but streambed alteration is indicated over most of<br />
the original channel area.<br />
Fig 21 Topography based on the December 2000 photobase. Levees isolate active channel<br />
from both historic and newly excavated floodway. See text for details.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
49<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
APPENDIX 2: 1995 and 1998 Storm Comparisons (see text for discussion)<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
50<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
25<br />
Pinnacles National Monument Precipitation & Willow Creek School Hydrograph for<br />
1995<br />
6000<br />
20<br />
5000<br />
15<br />
precip (cm)<br />
10<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
2000<br />
Q (cfs)<br />
5<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
0<br />
31/Mar<br />
30/Mar<br />
29/Mar<br />
28/Mar<br />
27/Mar<br />
26/Mar<br />
25/Mar<br />
24/Mar<br />
23/Mar<br />
22/Mar<br />
21/Mar<br />
20/Mar<br />
19/Mar<br />
18/Mar<br />
17/Mar<br />
16/Mar<br />
15/Mar<br />
14/Mar<br />
13/Mar<br />
12/Mar<br />
11/Mar<br />
10/Mar<br />
9/Mar<br />
8/Mar<br />
7/Mar<br />
6/Mar<br />
5/Mar<br />
4/Mar<br />
3/Mar<br />
2/Mar<br />
1/Mar<br />
Pinnacles National Monument PRECIP (cm) cumulative precip (cm) San Benito <strong>River</strong> near Willow Creek School Q (cfs)<br />
16<br />
Pinnacles National Monument Precipitation & Willow Creek School Hydrograph for<br />
1998<br />
3000<br />
14<br />
2500<br />
12<br />
precip (cm)<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
2000<br />
Q (cfs)<br />
1500<br />
1000<br />
4<br />
2<br />
500<br />
0<br />
0<br />
28/Feb<br />
27/Feb<br />
26/Feb<br />
25/Feb<br />
24/Feb<br />
23/Feb<br />
22/Feb<br />
21/Feb<br />
20/Feb<br />
19/Feb<br />
18/Feb<br />
17/Feb<br />
16/Feb<br />
15/Feb<br />
14/Feb<br />
13/Feb<br />
12/Feb<br />
11/Feb<br />
10/Feb<br />
9/Feb<br />
8/Feb<br />
7/Feb<br />
6/Feb<br />
5/Feb<br />
4/Feb<br />
3/Feb<br />
2/Feb<br />
1/Feb<br />
Pinnacles National Monument PRECIP (cm) San Benito <strong>River</strong> near Willow Creek School Q (cfs) cumulative precip (cm)<br />
Precipitation data from the National Park Service for Pinnacles National Monument at<br />
the station of the east entrance (point 004 on map), available at:<br />
APPENDICES<br />
A52
http://12.45.109.6/pls/portal30/get_input.make_parmsl_bdate=03-01-1995&l_edate=03-31-<br />
1995&site=17&par_abbr=RNF&format_out=ASCII, accessed 27 May 2003.<br />
Stream Discharge data from the U.S. Geological Survey for the San Benito <strong>River</strong> near<br />
Willow Creek School (point 005 on map), available at:<br />
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dischargesite_no=11156500&agency_cd=USGS&format=rdb&b<br />
egin_date=02/01/1995&end_date=04/30/1995&period, accessed 27 May 2003.<br />
16<br />
14<br />
Hollister Precipitation & San Benito Hydrograph for 1995<br />
9000<br />
8000<br />
12<br />
7000<br />
precip (cm)<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
6000<br />
5000<br />
4000<br />
3000<br />
Q (cfs)<br />
4<br />
2000<br />
2<br />
1000<br />
0<br />
0<br />
31/Mar<br />
30/Mar<br />
29/Mar<br />
28/Mar<br />
27/Mar<br />
26/Mar<br />
25/Mar<br />
24/Mar<br />
23/Mar<br />
22/Mar<br />
21/Mar<br />
20/Mar<br />
19/Mar<br />
18/Mar<br />
17/Mar<br />
16/Mar<br />
15/Mar<br />
14/Mar<br />
13/Mar<br />
12/Mar<br />
11/Mar<br />
10/Mar<br />
9/Mar<br />
8/Mar<br />
7/Mar<br />
6/Mar<br />
5/Mar<br />
4/Mar<br />
3/Mar<br />
2/Mar<br />
1/Mar<br />
San Benito Precip (cm) cumulative precip (cm) San Benito <strong>River</strong> at HWY 156 near Hollister Q (cfs)<br />
25<br />
Hollister Precipitation & San Benito Hydrograph for 1998<br />
25000<br />
20<br />
20000<br />
precip (cm)<br />
15<br />
10<br />
15000<br />
Q (cfs)<br />
10000<br />
5<br />
5000<br />
0<br />
0<br />
1/Feb<br />
2/Feb<br />
3/Feb<br />
4/Feb<br />
5/Feb<br />
6/Feb<br />
7/Feb<br />
8/Feb<br />
9/Feb<br />
10/Feb<br />
11/Feb<br />
12/Feb<br />
13/Feb<br />
14/Feb<br />
15/Feb<br />
16/Feb<br />
17/Feb<br />
18/Feb<br />
19/Feb<br />
20/Feb<br />
21/Feb<br />
22/Feb<br />
23/Feb<br />
24/Feb<br />
25/Feb<br />
26/Feb<br />
27/Feb<br />
28/Feb<br />
San Benito Precip (cm) San Benito <strong>River</strong> at HWY 156 near Hollister Q (cfs) cumulative precip (cm)<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
53<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Precipitation data from California Irrigation Management Information System station<br />
#126 at San Benito (point 006 on map), available at: http://www.cimis.water.ca.gov/, accessed<br />
21 May 27, 2003.<br />
Stream discharge data from the U.S. Geological Survey for the San Benito <strong>River</strong> at<br />
HWY 156 near Hollister (point 007 on map), available at:<br />
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dischargesite_no=11158600&agency_cd=USGS&format=rdb&b<br />
egin_date=03/01/1995&end_date=03/31/1995&period=, accesses 27 May 2003.<br />
30<br />
Corralitos Creek Hydrograph & Corralitos Precipitation 1995<br />
1400.00<br />
25<br />
1200.00<br />
20<br />
1000.00<br />
precip (cm)<br />
15<br />
800.00<br />
600.00<br />
Q (cfs)<br />
10<br />
400.00<br />
5<br />
200.00<br />
0<br />
0.00<br />
30-Mar<br />
29-Mar<br />
28-Mar<br />
27-Mar<br />
26-Mar<br />
25-Mar<br />
24-Mar<br />
23-Mar<br />
22-Mar<br />
21-Mar<br />
20-Mar<br />
19-Mar<br />
18-Mar<br />
17-Mar<br />
16-Mar<br />
15-Mar<br />
14-Mar<br />
13-Mar<br />
12-Mar<br />
11-Mar<br />
10-Mar<br />
9-Mar<br />
8-Mar<br />
7-Mar<br />
6-Mar<br />
5-Mar<br />
4-Mar<br />
3-Mar<br />
2-Mar<br />
1-Mar<br />
Corralitos daily precip (cm) cumulative precip (cm) Corralitos Creek Q (cfs)<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
54<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
50<br />
Corralitos Creek Hydrograph & Corralitos Precipitation 1998<br />
1200.00<br />
45<br />
40<br />
1000.00<br />
precip (cm)<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
800.00<br />
600.00<br />
400.00<br />
Q (cfs)<br />
10<br />
5<br />
200.00<br />
0<br />
0.00<br />
28/Feb<br />
27/Feb<br />
26/Feb<br />
25/Feb<br />
24/Feb<br />
23/Feb<br />
22/Feb<br />
21/Feb<br />
20/Feb<br />
19/Feb<br />
18/Feb<br />
17/Feb<br />
16/Feb<br />
15/Feb<br />
14/Feb<br />
13/Feb<br />
12/Feb<br />
11/Feb<br />
10/Feb<br />
9/Feb<br />
8/Feb<br />
7/Feb<br />
6/Feb<br />
5/Feb<br />
4/Feb<br />
3/Feb<br />
2/Feb<br />
1/Feb<br />
daily precip (cm) Q (cfs) cumulative precip (cm)<br />
Precipitation data from California Data Exchange Center for Corralitos (point 003 on<br />
map), available at: http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgiprogs/selectQuerystation_id=COR&dur_code=H&sensor_num=2&start_date=2/1/95&end_date<br />
=2/28/95, accessed 28 May 2003.<br />
Stream discharge data from the U.S. Geological Survey for the Corralitos Creek (point<br />
001on map), available at:<br />
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dischargesite_no=11159200&agency_cd=USGS&format=rdb&b<br />
egin_date=02/01/1995&end_date=04/30/1995&period=, accessed 27 May 2003.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
55<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
APPENDIX 6:<br />
Topographic detail for a Cross Section in Appendix 5 Historical Change area<br />
Detailed topography of a section of lower San Benito <strong>River</strong> near Highway 101<br />
Appendix 6. A cross-section based on the December, 2000 aerial survey. Lower San<br />
Benito <strong>River</strong> just upstream from San Juan Road near Highway 101. Tilled bench at the lower left<br />
is 160 ft. elevation. Orchard is 142 ft elevation on old floodplain. Berm rises to between 154 and<br />
170 ft elevation. Thalweg of channel is at 130 ft elevation. Channel right bank is at 160 ft<br />
elevation.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
56<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Figure 16 – San Benito <strong>River</strong> channel at Mitchell Road about one-half mile downstream<br />
(west) from the “new” Highway 156 bridge. <strong>The</strong> active channel is 1.0 km wide here. <strong>The</strong> banks<br />
here against the old floodplain are only 6-8 ft above the riverbed but that floodplain is now<br />
abandoned because the overwide channel accommodates all flow. Remnant floodplain is seen in<br />
the upper northeast and northwest corners and a small portion of the left bank at the bottom of<br />
the photo. Active bank cutting is toppling buildings along the right bank. Figs 8-10 (following)<br />
show how distinct floodplain and Lake San Benito terrace levels are at this point on the right<br />
bank.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
57<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Fig 9: Lake San Benito “terrace”<br />
Fig 8: Recently abandoned active floodplain<br />
Fig 10. Abandoned floodplain surface 1 km north of Mitchell Road. Active channel on<br />
the left, Lake San Benito “terrace” on the right with power poles. View west, downstream.<br />
This is an example of easily recovered flood storage, now only 6-8 feet above the overwide<br />
(1 km) adjacent riverbed.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
58<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Fig 15 Stream Barb Structures<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
59<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Appendix 3: Streambank Property Owners, San Benito <strong>River</strong> (see separate file)<br />
Appendix 7: Mines in the San Benito County Permit files, 2003 (see separate file)<br />
Appendix 8: Economic and Socioeconomic considerations<br />
Introduction<br />
Economic considerations for the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> are almost as<br />
complex as the geological issues. Because the lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley is cooled by<br />
fog in the summer, yet remains under marine influence all winter, the field<br />
survey crews recognized it in 1853-54 as an unusually favorable agricultural<br />
region (Wm. Johnson, 1854 US Coast Survey). High value crops can be grown<br />
and harvested all year in the rich Lake San Benito silt soils. Agricultural<br />
drainage tiles were installed at the beginning of the 20 th Century to enhance<br />
winter production in the lowermost part of the valley where waterlogging of soils<br />
could occur during the winter. By 1950 the flood-tolerant fruit tree and nut crops<br />
were being cut down in favor of much more valuable row crops. With the local<br />
selective breeding of berry varieties adapted to high production in morning fog<br />
sites, there was strong economic pressure to shift to very high value crops such<br />
as strawberries and cut flowers.<br />
Agriculture in the Lower <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley is thus very different than in most<br />
agricultural areas of the world. In the <strong>Pájaro</strong>, it pays to tear down houses and<br />
parking lots and plant crops. Agricultural property has among the highest<br />
returns on investment as are found anywhere. This means that valuation of<br />
flood protection works cannot be treated as they would be for cropland in Iowa<br />
or Indiana. It further means that seasonal flooding of silt across fields, as is<br />
welcomed throughout most of the world, has a high cost to farmers in the<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong>. Thus, cost-benefit analyses that must be accomplished for federal flood<br />
protection works have to be based on an entirely different metric than elsewhere<br />
in the United States.<br />
We attempted to disaggregate the Corps’ comparative cost figures for the<br />
scenarios that were released to the public as this report was being written.<br />
Despite repeated requests to the Corps’ offices in San Francisco, none of the<br />
lumped categories for cost assessment were provided to us. In no public<br />
meetings that we attended were these various cost categories explained or<br />
questioned. We thus cannot accurately estimate the cost-savings that are<br />
inherent in the upstream flood storage options presented here.<br />
But we take the position that however insubstantially based may be the<br />
Corps’ numbers, we can state that our cost estimate for a reduction of 4 feet in<br />
the height of the 100-year flood at Murphy’s Crossing in the Lower Valley is less<br />
costly. That is, the cost of the top 4-feet of flood protective works envisioned by<br />
the Corps’ in their scenarios is more expensive than our zero-public-cost<br />
upstream flood storage restoration alternative.<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
60<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
Corps’ Data presented Alternatives By Ada Squires 2003 - <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
Estimates in millions<br />
raise levee 9 ft<br />
100 ft setback<br />
& raise 5 ft<br />
100 ft setback &<br />
raise 6 ft<br />
setback<br />
costs/ft.<br />
LERRD's 33.5 22.7 24.3 2.6<br />
Construction 193.7 130.7 131.7 1<br />
E&D, S&A 34.1 23 23.4 0.4<br />
Total Projected Cost 261.3 176.4 179.4<br />
Annual Cost 18 12.2 12.4<br />
OMRR&R 1.9 1 0.8<br />
Total Annual Cost 19.9 13.2 13.2<br />
Benefits 14.8 14.9 14.8<br />
Net Benefits -5.1 1.7 1.6<br />
Benefit: Cost 0.74 1.13 1.12<br />
Non-Federal Cost (25%) 44.1 44.1 44.9<br />
Squires Table<br />
Socioeconomic Context:<br />
<strong>The</strong> two areas where floodwater from the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> most affects<br />
communities are at the town of <strong>Pájaro</strong> and the city of Watsonville. Located near<br />
the mouth of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, these two communities are built where the <strong>Pájaro</strong><br />
<strong>River</strong> is confined to an unnatural and unstable artificial flood channel.<br />
<strong>The</strong> upper watershed of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, which consists of over 90% of<br />
the watershed, is comparatively wealthy. San Benito County has a per capita<br />
income of $20,932/year with a poverty rate for families of 8.6%. Santa Clara<br />
County fares even better with a per capita income of $32,795/year with a<br />
poverty rate of 6.8%.<br />
When one compares those figures to that of <strong>Pájaro</strong> and Watsonville, one<br />
can easily see why the voices of those towns might not be heard in the politics<br />
of the watershed. <strong>The</strong> US Census Bureau reports that <strong>Pájaro</strong> has a per capita<br />
income of $9893/year, while 20.4% of its families are below the poverty level.<br />
<strong>The</strong> city of Watsonville has a per capita income of $13,205/year and a poverty<br />
level of 19.7%. It is important to note that these figures are those of the Census<br />
Bureau and do not accurately reflect the true populations in these cities due to<br />
migrant and illegal farm workers. In a survey of Monterey County and Santa<br />
Cruz County farm workers, the median family income was $11,000/year and<br />
$14,000/year respectively (Monterey County Farm Workers, 2003).<br />
In addition to low-income status, populations with a high percentage of<br />
minorities have historically borne the heavier weight of environmental problems<br />
than those with a higher percentage of Caucasians (Bullard, pg.xv). <strong>The</strong> state<br />
of California has a Caucasian population consisting of 46.7% of the total<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
61<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
population. San Benito County is 46% Caucasian, while Santa Clara County is<br />
44% Caucasian. <strong>The</strong> City of Watsonville is only 24.9% Caucasian (75.1%<br />
Hispanic) and the town of <strong>Pájaro</strong> is a mere 3.7% Caucasian (94.2% Hispanic).<br />
Both the towns of Watsonville and especially <strong>Pájaro</strong>, which was<br />
evacuated during the flood of 1995 and again in 1998, are strongly affected by<br />
flood risk. Families are struggling to live day to day, and another large flood<br />
could devastate their livelihood.<br />
Per Capita Income($)<br />
% of Pop. Caucasian<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> 9893 <strong>Pájaro</strong> 3.7<br />
Watsonville 13,205 Watsonville 24.9<br />
Santa Clara Cnty 32,795 Santa Clara Cnty 44<br />
San Benito Cnty 20,932 San Benito Cnty 46<br />
California 22,711 California 46.7<br />
Poverty Level - Families<br />
% of Pop. Hispanic<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> 20.4 <strong>Pájaro</strong> 94.2<br />
Watsonville 19.7 Watsonville 75.1<br />
Santa Clara Cnty 6.8 Santa Clara Cnty 24<br />
San Benito Cnty 8.6 San Benito Cnty 47.9<br />
California 15.3 California 32<br />
US Census Data Table<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
62<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
California State University<br />
Robert Curry, Research Director<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Institute<br />
Earth Systems Science & Policy<br />
CSU Monterey Bay<br />
Seaside, CALIF. 93955<br />
Bob_curry@csumb.edu<br />
<strong>Watershed</strong> Restoration Class – Spring, 2003<br />
<strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
<strong>Flood</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Wm Bodensteiner<br />
Lani Clough<br />
Suzanne Gilmore<br />
Paul Huntington<br />
Joy Larson<br />
April McMillan<br />
Steve Mack<br />
C. Andrew Mauck<br />
Serena Pring<br />
Emily Roth<br />
Amy Thistle<br />
Melanie Vincent<br />
References A62 Draft of July 22, 2003
References Cited:<br />
Ackers and Charlton, 1970, Meander Geometry Arising from Varying Flows. Jour. Hydrol, v. XI,<br />
no. 3, p 230-252 in U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-<br />
1418 : Channel Stability Assessment for <strong>Flood</strong> Control Projects, 1994<br />
Anderson, R.S., (1990) Evolution of the northern Santa Cruz Mountains by advection of crust past<br />
a San Andreas Fault bend. Science 249: 397-401.<br />
Bullard, R., 1994, Unequal <strong>Protection</strong>: Environmental Justice and Communities of Color. Sierra<br />
Club Books. San Francisco, Ca.<br />
Calciano, Elizabeth, 1967, <strong>The</strong> <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley apple industry, 1890-1930. An interview oral<br />
history.<br />
California Historical Survey Commission, 1923, California county boundaries: a study of the<br />
division of the state into counties and the subsequent changes in their boundaries.<br />
Berkeley<br />
Crosetti, J.J., 1993 : <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley agriculture, 1927-1977 / interviewed and edited by Randall<br />
Jarrell. Oral history Collections, UC Santa Cruz<br />
Curry, R. R., 1981, <strong>Watershed</strong> Form and Process: <strong>The</strong> Elegant Balance. Chapter. 20 (p. 319-<br />
340) in Emery, F.E. (ed), “Systems Thinking”, Vol. 2, Penguin Books, Middlesex,<br />
England, 474 p. Penguin Modern Management Readings, Education Series, published<br />
simultaneously by Penguin Books, New York; etc.<br />
Curry, R. R., 1996, Coupling Marine and Terrestrial <strong>Watershed</strong> Processes. NOAA, Monterey<br />
Bay National Marine Sanctuary Symposium,<br />
http://bonita.mbnms.nos.noaa.gov/sitechar/sympcurr.html<br />
Farquhar, Francis P., 1930, Up and down California in 1860-1864. <strong>The</strong> journal of William H.<br />
Brewer. Princeton, Yale University Press, p. 152.<br />
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 1996, FEMA <strong>Flood</strong> Map for San Benito<br />
County (digital copy)<br />
__________, 2002, Guidelines and Specifications for <strong>Flood</strong> Hazard Mapping Partners: Appendix<br />
C: Guidance for <strong>River</strong>ine <strong>Flood</strong>ing Analysis and Mapping. Final.<br />
Goldner Associates, 1997, report to San Benito County <strong>Plan</strong>ning Dept.<br />
Iwamura, T.I., 1995, Hydrogeology of the Santa Clara and Coyote Valleys groundwater basins,<br />
California, in Sanginés, E.M., Andersen, D.W., and Buising, A.B., eds., Recent geologic<br />
studies in the San Francisco Bay area: Los Angeles, Society of Economic Paleontologists<br />
and Mineralogists, Pacific Section Guidebook, v. 76, p. 173–192.<br />
Jenkins, Olaf P., 1973, Pleistocene Lake San Benito, California Geology, July 1973, Vol. 26, No.<br />
7.<br />
Jones & Stokes Associates, 1998, Groundwater Management <strong>Plan</strong> for the San Benito County<br />
Part of Gilroy-Hollister Groundwater Basin – for San Benito County Water District<br />
Kilburn, C., 1972, Groundwater hydrology of the Hollister and San Juan Valleys, San Benito<br />
County, California. 1913-1968. USGS Open File Report 73-144, Sacramento, CA<br />
Monterey County Survey of Farm Workers.<br />
http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/dss/affiliates/downloads/farmworker_survey/7_Work_Issue<br />
s.pdf<br />
Riley, Ann L. , 2003, A Primer on Stream and <strong>River</strong> <strong>Protection</strong> for the Regulator and Program<br />
Manager. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region,<br />
Tech. Ref. Circular W.D. 02-#1<br />
Rosgen, Dave, 1996, Applied <strong>River</strong> Morphology. Wildlife Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO<br />
Secretary of War, 1944, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, Calif. [microform] : letter from the Secretary of War<br />
transmitting a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, dated December<br />
13, 1943, submitting a report ... authorized by the <strong>Flood</strong> Control Acts approved on June<br />
22, 1936, and August 28, 1937. Washington, D.C. : U.S. G.P.O., 1944.<br />
Secretary of the Army, 1966, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> Basin, California : letter from the Secretary of the<br />
Army, transmitting a letter form the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, dated<br />
August 27, 1965, submitting a report, together with accompanying papers and<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
63<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
.<br />
illustrations, on an interim report on the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> Basin, California, requested by a<br />
resolution of the Committee on <strong>Flood</strong> Control, House of Representatives, adopted May<br />
14, 1945 Washington : U.S. G.P.O.<br />
Stanley, Richard G., Robert C. Jachens, Paul G. Lillis, Robert J. McLaughlin, Keith A.<br />
Kvenvolden, Frances D. Hostettler, Kristin A. McDougall, and Leslie B. Magoon, 2002,<br />
Subsurface and Petroleum Geology of the Southwestern Santa Clara Valley<br />
(“Silicon Valley”), California. USGS Professional Paper 1663.<br />
United States. Army. Corps of Engineers. Committee on Channel Stabilization. 1998, Channel<br />
stability problems, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>, Watsonville and <strong>Pájaro</strong>, California : U.S. Army<br />
Engineer Committee on Channel Stabilization report of the 63th meeting / by Ronald R.<br />
Copeland and Dinah N. McComas, editors ; prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.<br />
94 p. : ill. ; 28 cm. — (ERDC/CHL ; SR-00-3)(CCS ; 00-1)<br />
US Census Bureau. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/AdvSearchByPlaceServlet<br />
U.S. Geological Survey, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, Guidelines for<br />
determining <strong>Flood</strong> Flow Frequency, Bull #17B.<br />
Whiting, Peter J, 1998, <strong>Flood</strong>plain Maintenance Flows, pp. 160-170 in <strong>River</strong>s, v. 6, no. 3<br />
Historical materials reviewed<br />
1853. US Coast Survey. Part of the Coast of California from the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> Northward. T-<br />
4442 1:10,000. UCSC Map Library. (including field notes)<br />
1854. US Coast Survey. Part of the Coast of California from the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> Southward. T-473.<br />
1:10,000. UCSC Map Library . (including field notes)<br />
1858. John Wallace. Plat of the Rancho Bolsa del <strong>Pájaro</strong> . 1:15,840. UCSC Map Library.<br />
1865. Fuller, A.D. Map of a part of the Rancho Bolsa del <strong>Pájaro</strong> . 1:2,400. UCSC Map Library.<br />
1912. USGS Capitola Quadrangle. 1:62,500. Surveyed in 1911-12. UCSC Map Library.<br />
1917. USGS. San Juan Bautista Quadrangle. 1:62,500. Surveyed in 1915. UCSC Map Library.<br />
1921 . USGS, Hollister Quadrangle: 1:62,500 Surveyed in 1917-1919, UCSC Map Library<br />
1930 . Lloyd Bowman, the Santa Cruz County Surveyor. <strong>Plan</strong> and profile of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong>.<br />
1:2,400. 13 sheets (Santa Cruz County Surveyors Office).<br />
1931 aerial photographs of the <strong>Pájaro</strong> Valley, from the Fairchild Collection at Whittier College.<br />
UCSC Map Library<br />
1938. City of Watsonville <strong>Plan</strong> and sections, <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> and levees. 1:1,200. 2 sheets.<br />
1949 US Army Corps of Engineers. <strong>Plan</strong> of Construction (As-Built), <strong>Pájaro</strong> <strong>River</strong> Levee Project.<br />
With maintenance manual<br />
"San Benito" Monterey County 1843. (Rancho San Benito) Terreno de San Juan Bautista<br />
concedido a Don Augustin Narvaes por El Gobernador Micheltoreno : [Santa Clara Co.,<br />
Calif.] / Medido por C.S. Lyman ; y Sherman Day Published 1850 Scale Scale [ca.<br />
1:16,000]<br />
Deseño del Rancho de San Juan Bautista : [Santa Clara County, Calif.] Published [184-] Scale<br />
Scale [ca. 1:33,000] (W 121°53/N 37°17)<br />
DRAFT 7/22/03<br />
64<br />
<strong>Pajaro</strong> <strong>Watershed</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Management
APPENDIX 3 Streambank Property Owners along the San Benito <strong>River</strong> below Tres Pinos<br />
http://home.csumb.edu/c/currybob/world/<strong>Pajaro</strong>/Appendix%203.htm<br />
Page 1 of 2<br />
6/7/2011<br />
APPENDIX 3 Streambank Property Owners along the San Benito <strong>River</strong> below Tres Pinos<br />
P jaro<br />
<strong>River</strong> Holstr = Hollister <strong>Watershed</strong><br />
S.J. = San Jose Spring 2003<br />
Contacts S.J.B. =San Juan Bautista Steve Mack<br />
Glry = Gilroy<br />
Cmrilo = Camarillo<br />
Slnas = Salinas<br />
Oxnrd = Oxnard<br />
Bookpageparcel<br />
# Owner Acres Address Phone Nearest Cross Street<br />
020-28-41 Brigantino J-V Trust 28.69 150 San Felipe Rd. Holstr 831-637-5563 Hospital Rd.<br />
020-28-13 Lemos Family Trust 27.96 320 Ladd Ln. Holstr 831-636-9838 Union Rd.<br />
020-28-12 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 9.06 Cienega<br />
020-28-46 Felice Family Living Trust 10.2 2220 Cienega Rd. Holstr 831-638-1198 Cienega<br />
020-28-47 Felice Family Living Trust 17.9 2220 Cienega Rd. Holstr Cienega<br />
021-10-4 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 3 Cienega<br />
021-10-3 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 34.21 831-768-7071 Cienega<br />
021-10-12 Hollister School District 1.09 Cienega/ Union School<br />
021-10-17 County of San Benito 19.63 Cienega/ Summerset<br />
020-17-17 Palmtag Frances Trustee 22.59 1570 Cienega 831-637-3175 Cienega/ Eastview<br />
020-17-14 Felice Family Living Trust 13.3 2220 Cienega Rd. Holstr 831-638-1198 Cienega/ Eastview<br />
020-16-14 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 27.88 Nash<br />
020-16-15 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 24.46 Nash<br />
020-16-16 Escover Manuel J- Joyce 1.25 315 <strong>River</strong>side Rd. Holstr 831-637-2915 Nash<br />
020-06-42 Sandman INC (Star Concrete) 35.85 1510 S. 7th St. S.J. Nash<br />
020-06-43 Sandman INC (Star Concrete) 6.01 1510 S. 7th St. S.J. Nash<br />
020-06-30 Schipper Properties 1.57 2984 Monterey Rd. S.J. Nash<br />
O'Connell Ranch (Cal LTD<br />
013-12-11 Liability) 79.1 P.O. Box 58 S.J.B. Bolsa Rd.<br />
013-12-06 Breen Elizebeth H- Patrick 71.2 1439 San Benito St. Holstr 831-637-5469 San Benito <strong>River</strong><br />
012-07-02 Breen Elizebeth H- Patrick 96.09 1439 San Benito St. Holstr San Justo Rd.<br />
012-07-01 Breen Elizebeth H- Patrick 247.69 1439 San Benito St. Holstr San Justo Rd.<br />
012-08-02<br />
Gubser Survivors Trust (Dorris<br />
G.) 100 7800 Miller Ave. Glry San Justo Rd./ Lucy Brown<br />
012-08-03 Hudner Philip-Stephen (J. Breen) 56.56 1439 San Benito St. Holstr San Justo Rd./ Lucy Brown<br />
018-10-21 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 22.74 Mitchell Rd./ Freitas<br />
018-10-31 Stevens Family Trust 33.43 564 4th St. Holstr Mitchell Rd./ Freitas<br />
018-10-33 Bonnie Brae Co (Felice L. Phillip 22.24 P.O. Box 1356 Holstr Mitchell Rd./ Freitas<br />
018-10-29 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 20.83 Mitchell Rd./ Freitas<br />
018-10-02 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 29.51 831-768-7071 Mitchell Rd./ Freitas<br />
5415Santa Clara Ave.<br />
018-10-22 Grether Enterprises 92.058 Cmrilo<br />
Flint Rd.<br />
5415Santa Clara Ave.<br />
018-09-13 Grether Enterprises 119.77 Cmrilo<br />
Flint Rd.<br />
018-09-24 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 13.13 BixbyRd. / Duncan<br />
018-09-15 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 10.7 BixbyRd. / Duncan<br />
018-09-17 Schipper Properties 4.68 2984 Monterey Rd. S.J. BixbyRd. / Duncan<br />
018-09-20 Schipper Properties 12.23 2984 Monterey Rd. S.J. BixbyRd. / Duncan<br />
018-09-19 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 36.97 831-768-7071 BixbyRd. / Duncan<br />
018-09-18 Brookhollow Ranch L P 10.16 P.O. Box 68 Holstr BixbyRd. / Duncan<br />
018-08-04 Black Daniel L- Teresa M 8.2 1240 Bixby Rd. S.J.B. 831-623-2742 Duncan Rd./ Bixby<br />
018-08-21 Brookhollow Ranch L P 13.08 P.O. Box 68 Holstr Duncan Rd.<br />
018-08-20 Freitas Joseph 23.66 700 Duncan Ave. SJB 831-623-4444 Duncan Rd.<br />
018-08-25 Wright Roberta-Martha 9.94 5380 Poppy Blossom Ct. SJ Duncan Rd.<br />
018-08-24 Freitas Bernard Family Trust 9.94 8061 Fairview Rd. Holstr Duncan Rd.
APPENDIX 3 Streambank Property Owners along the San Benito <strong>River</strong> below Tres Pinos<br />
http://home.csumb.edu/c/currybob/world/<strong>Pajaro</strong>/Appendix%203.htm<br />
Page 2 of 2<br />
6/7/2011<br />
018-08-23 Frietas Lucille M in Trust 25.62 801 Olympia Ave. SJB 831-623-4246 Duncan Rd./Lucy Brown ln.<br />
018-08-22<br />
Frietas Lawrence & A Family<br />
Trust 21.64 771 Olympia Ave. SJB 831-6234303 Duncan Rd.<br />
018-08-07 Foster Philip W- Katherine 29.89 P.O. Box 249 SJB Duncan Rd.<br />
018-08-06 S.B. Nursery (Delaware LTD Co) 29.81 P.O. Box 4070 Slnas Duncan Rd.<br />
2700 Camino Del Sol.<br />
018-08-05 Seminis Vegetable Seed 29.89 Oxnrd<br />
Duncan Rd./Lucy Brown ln.<br />
018-08-01 Breen Elizebeth H- Patrick 16.31 1439 San Benito St. Holstr 831-637-5469 Duncan Rd.<br />
018-07-01 Freitas Bernard Family Trust 19.862 8061 Fairview Rd. Holstr San Justo Rd. / Lucy Brown<br />
018-06-26 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 27.08 Buena Vist Rd.<br />
018-06-25 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 8.19 Buena Vist Rd.<br />
018-06-24 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 62.34 Buena Vist Rd.<br />
018-06-12 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 6 Buena Vist Rd.<br />
018-05-13 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 41.38 Buena Vist Rd.<br />
018-05-11 Granite Rock #29381 (Jim West) 247.95 831-768-7071 Buena Vist Rd.<br />
018-05-08 Brookhollow Ranch L P 23.96 P.O. Box 68 Holstr Brookhollow Rd.<br />
018-05-07 Brookhollow Ranch L P 22.67 P.O. Box 68 Holstr Brookhollow Rd.<br />
018-05-06 Breen Elizebeth H- Patrick 62.32 1439 San Benito St. Holstr 831-637-5469<br />
Buena Vist Rd./<br />
San Benito <strong>River</strong>
Historical Change in San Benito <strong>River</strong> east of Hwy 101<br />
Plate 39: Top photo, December 2000; bottom photo, June 1939<br />
See Appendix Plate XX for topographic maps of this site. <strong>River</strong> flow is from right to left.<br />
Overbank floodplain areas are clearly visible in 1939, as is a wide aggrading sand-filled channel. Mining<br />
beginning in the 1940’s has now lowered the channel 15-20 feet or more to intersect groundwater. An<br />
incised channel can be seen in the vegetated mined-out area today. Some areas of original flood plain<br />
in 1939 are now occupied by industrial development along Highway 101 and along San Juan Highway<br />
north of Anzar High School.
Historical Change in San Benito <strong>River</strong> Just above Hwy 101<br />
Portions of San Juan Bautista and Chittenden 1:24,000 topographic quadrangles showing 1952<br />
topography with mining that was interpreted as active in 1997-98. <strong>The</strong> purple overprint convention<br />
differs between the two matched maps, but streambed alteration is indicated over most of the original<br />
channel area.<br />
Topography based on the December 2000 photobase. Levees isolate active channel from both<br />
historic and newly excavated floodway. See text for details.