Search

NAPA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT NAPA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY ( ) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer DistrictSan Francisco, California I. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative -• Description of Action: The flood control project for the NapaRiver, from Edgerley Island to Trancas Street, consists of channel widening and realignment, dredging, riprap on portions of the riverbanks and construction of concrete step-walls through the central urban area of the City of Napa. Land will be acquired for fish and wildlife miti­gation and for recreation purposes. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: The project will prevent flooding in theurban area of the City of Napa and provide river oriented recreation facilities. Acquisition of 577 acres of former tidelands will be used to mitigate for permanent loss of fish and wildlife habitat caused by the project. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Mitigation measures will alle­viate any adverse effects on fish and wildlife. There will be a tem­porary loss of foliage, due to the removal of plant materials, until the new landscaping has had a chance to mature. .4. A1ternatives: Alternatives to the recommended plan were considered.They are: No action, levees along existing channels, offset leveesalong existing channel, bypass channels, flood control reservoirs, and combinations of the above. r' • Comments Requested: Honorable Don H. Clausen - Representative in Congress - California Honorable Peter H. Eehr - State Senator - California Honorable John F. Dunlap - State Assemblyman - California William S. Leet - Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service - Department of Commerce (diaries Roberts - San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission Public Works Director - City of Napa chairman, Board of Supervisors - Napa County Public Works Department - Napa County Department of Public Health - Napa County Board of Directors - Napa Sanitation Distr

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FOSTER CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY PERMIT APPLICATIONFOSTER CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIASEPTEMBER 1975STATEMENT OF FINDINGSMAINTENANCE DREDGING EXISTING NAVIGATION PROJECTS SAN FRANCISCO MY REGION CALIFORNIA 1. Purpose of SOF. The purpose of this Statement of Findings is to set forth the rationale leading to a recommendation that the maintenance dredging for the Federal navigation projects in San Francisco Bay be continued as authorized, and as described in the Final Composite Environmental Statement. Shoal material from the projects listed a-o are disposed in open water: a. San Francisco Harbor (Main Ship Channel and Islais Creek) b. Petaluma River (Phase I) c. San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait d. Richmond Harbor e. Oakland Harbor f. San Francisco Harbor and Bay - Sausalito Operations Base g. Suisun Bay Channel h. Concord Naval Weapons Station i. Alameda Naval Air Station j. Military Ocean Terminal, Bay Area - North k. Naval Supply Center - Oakland l. Military Ocean Terminal, Bay Area - East m. Point Molate n. Government Island o. Horseshoe Cove The disposal sites for the following projects, p-t, are still under re­view. Should land disposal be selected, these projects would be subject to additional assessment followed by preparation of supplemental envi­ronmental statements and statements of findings. Should water dis­posal be selected, these projectSare also recommended for continued maintenance as authorized and described in the Final Composite Environ­mental Statement: p. San Rafael Creek q. San Leandro Marina r. Redwood City Harbor s. Suisun (Slough) Channel t. New York Slough Future Corps permit applications for dredging in the Bay will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and vzill be the subject of addi­tional environmental review and future statements of findings. The Final Composite Environmental Statement will be used as a background source to aid in assessing t

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE DREDGING,PETALUMA RIVERSONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA August 1975 Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, Corps of EngineersSTATEMENT OF FINDINGS MAINTENANCE DREDGING, PETALUMA RIVER SONOMA AND MARIN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and concerned public, relative to the various practicable alternatives in accomplishing the program for maintenance dredging in Petaluma River. 2. The possible consequences of the Petaluma River maintenance dredg­ing have been studied according to environmental, social well-being, and economic effects, including regional and national development, and engineering feasibility. 3. In evaluation, the following points were considered pertinent: a. Environment.il Cans iderations (1) Dredging Effects: (a) Dredging the Petaluma River will increase the average depth, hence the capacity of the river channel. This will alter the present flow and sediment transport regimens making the project area susceptible to higher average Salinity and increased shoaling rates upstream. The project may alstj cause the existing salt water wedge to intrude further upstream of the project .area than it now does. On the other hand, the project will improve the flushing efficiency of the river and provide greater capacity for flood control purposes. Because the upper reach of the project area is already under tidal influence, the biological response to these physical changes 'would be minimal. (b) As with nearly any dredging project the subject dredging will remove the existing interface between the water and bottom substrate which is an area of nigh biological activity. Benthic organ­isms inhabiting the sediment column to the two-foot overdepth dredged level would not only be destroyed in themselves, but also lest relative to their function

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE DREDGING,. NOYO RIVER CHANNELNOYO HARBOR, MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314 AUGUST, 1975hazards, or aesthetic sensibilities. All of these are temporary in nature and are minor when one considers the long-range overall enhancement of social and economic productivity of the harbor area by the assurance of continued harbor access. The maintenance will preserve the harbor for use as a commercial and recreational fishing port as well as a harbor of refuge. c. Engineering Considerations. The dredging operation will be accomplished by using a hydraulic dredge. This method employs a floating platform with a cutter head and suction pipe which extends into the wTater through which material is loosened and vacuumed up to a system wThich pumps the slurry (water and sediment) through a transfer pipeline to the disposal site. The pipeline is placed on the river's bank or floated on the surface of the water to the disposal site. The material dredged could be deposited on a five acre land disposal area approximately one mile upstream of the project. Should the contractor choose, he has the option of supplying his own disposal site, different from ttie site provided by the local project sponsor. He must, however, have all necessary clearances and coordination prior to bidding on the job. 4. I find, after a thorough analysis and evaluation of the maintenance dredging of Novo River and Harbor channels versus the option of "no-action", that wherever adverse effects are found to be involved they cannot be avoided by following reasonable alternative courses of action which would achieve the congressionally specified purposes; that where the proposed action has an adverse effect this effect is either ameliorated or substantially outweighed by other considerations of national policy, statutes, and administrative directives; and that, on balance, the total public interest shoul

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MARINER'S ISLAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY PERMIT APPLICATION SAN‘MATEO, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIAJULY 1975DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314 19 February 1976 Honorable Russell W. Peterson ChairmanCouncil on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Chairman: Inclosed is a copy of the Statement of Findings for the Final Environmental Impact Statement concerning the proposed Mariner's Island Development at San Mateo, California. This action is in accordance with our policy as published in paragraph 15 of ER 1105-2-507, "Preparation and Coordination of Environmental Statements." Sincerely yours, /COW R. HILL, JR.LTC, Corps of Engineers Assistant Director of Civil Works, Environmental Programs19 February 1976 Honorable Russell W. Peterson ChairmanCouncil on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Dear Mr. Chairman: Inclosed is a copy of the Statement of Findings for the Final Environmental Inpact Statement concerning the proposed Mariner's Island Development at San Mateo, California. This action is in accordance with our policy as published in paragraph 15 of ER 1105-2-507, "Preparation and Coordination of Environmental Statements." Sincerely youra, JOHN R. HILL, JR.LTC, Corps of Engineers Assistant Director of Civil Works, Environmental ProgramsSTATEMENT OF FINDINGS MARINERS ISLAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATORY PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF SAN MATEO, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. Purpose of SOF. The purpose of this S tatement of Findings is to set forth the rationale leading to a recommendation concerning the granting of a land­fill permit to Security Savings and Loan Associations for a site to be utilized for commercial, office, and residential development. 2. Evaluation of Methodology. The proposed landfill and development was first announced by the San Francisco District in Public

FINALCOMPOSITE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE DREDGINGEXISTING NAVIGATION PROJECTS SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION CALIFORNIA DECEMBER 1975 VOLUME ISTATEMENT OF FINDINGS MAINTENANCE DREDGING EXISTING NAVIGATION PROJECTS SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION CALIFORNIA 1. Purpose of SOF. The purpose of this Statement of Findings is to set forth the rationale leading to a recommendation that the maintenance dredging for the Federal navigation projects in San Francisco Bay be continued as authorized, and as described in the.Final Composite Environmental Statement. Shoal material from the projects listed a-o are disposed in open water: a. San Francisco Harbor (Main Ship Channel and Islais Creek) b. Petaluma River (Phase I) c. San Pablo Bay and Mare Island Strait d. Richmond Harbor e. Oakland Harbor f. San Francisco Harbor and Bay - Sausalito Operations Base g. Suisun Bay Channel h. Concord Naval Weapons Station i. Alameda Naval Air Station j. Military Ocean Terminal, Bay Area - North k. Naval Supply Center - Oakland l. Military Ocean Terminal, Bay Area - East m. Point Molate n. Government Island o. Horseshoe Cove The disposal sites for the following proiects, p-t, are still under re­view. Should land disposal be selected, these proiects would be subject to additional assessment followed by preparation of supplemental envi­ronmental statements and statements of findings. Should water dis­posal be selected, these project are also recommended for continued maintenance as authorized and described in the Final Composite Environ­mental Statement: p. San Rafael Creek q. San Leandro Marina r. - Redwood City Harbor s. Suisun (Slough) Channel t. New York Slough Future Corps permit applications for dredging in the Bay will he evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and will he the subject of addi­tional environmental review and future statements of findings. The Final Composite Environmental Statement will be used as a background source to aid in assessing these dredging permits in the Bay.'2. Evalua

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE DREDGING FY 1977 MOSS LANDING HARBOR MOSS LANDING, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIAAPRIL 1975FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTMAINTENANCE DREDGING FY 1977 MOSS LANDING HARBOR MOSS LANDING, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Subject Page 1.00 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 1.01 Authorization 1 1.02 Project 1 2.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 2 2.01 Location and General Description 2 2.06 Topography 3 2.10 Geology and Soils 3 2.15 Water Quality 4 2.24 Oceanography 6 2.34 ' Erosion and Sedimentation 7 2.49 Climate 11 2.55 Elkliorn Slough Biota 11 2.71 Marine Biota 14 2.85 Historical and Archaeological Sites 17 2.86 Socio-Economic Environment 17 2.92 Recreation 18 3.00 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONTO LAND USE PLANS 20 3.01 Existing Land Use 20 3.24 Central Coast Regional Coastal ZoneConservation Commission 23 3.28 Monterey County Planning Commission 23 3.30 Association of Monterey Bay AreaGovernments 24 3.31 Regional Water Quality Control Board 24 3.32 Summary 24Paragraph Subject Page 4.00 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSEDACTION 25 4.02 Short-Term Impacts 25 4.18 Long-Term Impact 27 4.31 Mitigation Measures Consideredto Minimize the Impact 29 5.00 ANY ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL BE IMPLEMENTED 31 6.00 ALTERNATIVES 10 THE PROPOSED ACTION 32 6.01 Use of Alternative Disposal Sites 32 6.09 Alternative Means of Dredging 33 6.13 No Project or Delayed Project 34 7.00 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USESOF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 35 8.00 ANY IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTSOF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 36 9.00 COORDINATION, COMMENT AND RESPONSE 37 9.01 Public Participation 37 9.02 Government Agencies 37 9.03 Citizen Groups 37 9.04 Comments and Responses 37 9.07 Comments Related to the ProjectDescription 38 9.10 Comme

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE DREDGING (FY 1975-1976) SANTA CRUZ HARBOR SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA byU.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, Corps of EngineersApril 1975MAINTENANCE DREDGING (FY 1975)SANTA CRUZ HARBOR SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA SUMMARY ( ) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco,California. 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Maintenance dredging of the entrance channelto Santa Cruz Harbor and disposal of dredge material on the beach east of the east jetty. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Annual dredging and disposal will in­crease turbidity. A portion of the benthos will be removed through dredging, and a portion of the biota at the disposal site will be buried. Maintenance dredging will permit the harbor to remain open. The beaches• downcoast subject to erosion by wave action will receive annual sand nourishment from the dredging operation. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: There will be disruption of thebiota, and a temporary increase in turbidity. 4. Alternatives: a. Disposal Sites (1) Downcoast beach disposal (2) Upcoast beach disposal (3) Land disposal (4) Offshore disposal (5) Deepwater disposal (over 100 fathoms) b. Alternative Means of Maintenance c. No Project or Delayed Project 5. Comments Received: Soil Conservation Service, USDA Federal Highway Administration, Region IX U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Region IX U.S. Department of the Interior, Pacific Southwest Region The Resources*Agency of California California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Historic Preservation Officer) Santa Cruz County Planning Department Mr. Michael Sequeira 6 . Draft Statement to CEQ 21 March, 1974. Final Statement ___2 6 AUG 1975 'FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MAINTENANCE DREDGING (FY 1975-76) Santa Cruz Harbor SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS Par

U. S. HIGHWAY 101 Marin County, California BY JORDAN/MATHIS AND ASSOCIATES V'Jl'TE.i:, 1, ­f. ~~..._.., .. ; I CONSULTING ENGINEERS REPORT ,_ --· SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA , ' . UNDE c,9)NTRACT TO THE U~ ARMY E~_!PJ_3ER DISTRICT SAN FRANCISCO CORPS OF ENGINEERS JUNE 1975 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE • • • • • . • • BACKGROUND INFORMATION .Settlement The Stream and Its Valley. Development in the Flood Plain FLOOD SITUATION Sources of Data and Records. . . . . .. . Flood Season and Flood Characteristics Factors Affecting Flooding and Its Impact •• Obstructions to flood flows •••• Flood damage reduction measures Other Factors and Their Impacts ••• Flood warning and forecasting PAST FLOODS Flood fighting and emergency evacuation plans Material storage on flood plain Summary of Historical Floods Flood Records •• Flood Description. FUTURE FLOODS •••• Intermediate Regional Flood Standard Project Storm and Flood Frequency . ..•......••. 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Hazards of Large Floods GLOSSARY. Table No. 1 Plate No. 1 2 3-5 6-8 9-10 Flooded areas and Flood Damages. Obstructions Velocities of Flow Hydraulic Studies. Photographs of future flood heights. TABLES . . . . Drainage Areas, Peak Discharges, Intermediate Regional and 500 Year Floods •.•..•.. PLATES General Map of the Study Area. Index Map •• Flooded Areas. Water Surface Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Cross Sections Page 9 10 10 10 11 12 18 8 Follows Contents At end of report At end of report At end of report At end of report .,.. .. Figure No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Box Culvert • • • • • • . . . . "' . . . . . Outlet of five culverts draining the Basalt area Inlet Double Box Culvert near Atherton Avenue Culverts at mouth of Rush Creek .. . . . . Inlet of Gated Culvert draining area B Additional 36-Inch Culvert to be installed at mouth of Rush Creek •••• Novato Pump Station. Flood Potential in the Ponding area along Frontage Road Backyard o

FINALj« ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT LOWER KLAMATH RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT,DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared ByU.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, Corps of Engineel^uSS^niaJuly 197221 December 1972 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS Lower Klamath River Flood Control Project 1. I have reviewed and evaluated with total concern for public interest,the data and information pertaining to the flood control project of Lower Klamath River, Del Norte County, California. The principal elements con­sidered in this review were: engineering feasibility, environmental im­pacts, and economic factors of local, regional, and national resource preservation and of social well-being. All of these elements have been evaluated in light of the project purpose. 2. The Lower Klamath River Flood Control Project was authorized under ' the Flood Control Acts of 1966 and 1970 for the purpose of providing for the flood protection work necessary to preserve the towns and river banks of Klamath Town Site, Klamath Glen, Camp Klamath and Requa for commercial and recreational opportunities. 3. I have considered the means available to me for meeting these demands, and I conclude that the demands were best met by constructing the flood control project along the banks of the Klamath River, The Federal project for the improvement of Lower Klamath River (Klamath and Klamath Glen) was based on a report printed in House Document 478, Eighty-Ninth Congress, Second Session. Further river improvements were authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1970, Section 215, which provided for bank protection fora 2 mile section of the lower Klamath River.After observation and study of effects on the environment, I am convinced that construction of the project was necessary. 4. I have reached my conclusion by evaluating all aspects of the project, and by balancing these elements to attain the best public interest. a. From an engineering standpoint, the riprap bank protection, levee, and fill offered the most practica

FINALENVIRONMENTAL impact statement OAKLAND INNER HARBOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS, SAN FRANCISCOFebruary 19736. Draft statement to CEQ: 18 January 1973______ Final statement to CEQ: f>7 flPfl fri/j_________FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OAKLAND INNER HARBOR ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office; U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, California 1. Name of Action; (X) Administration ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Navigation improvement for Oakland InnerHarbor which consists of deepening the existing channel from 30 to 35 feet. Disposal of approximately 2,150,000 cubic yards of material with 1,250,000 to be placed at Alcatraz disposal site and 900,000 at sea beyond the 100-fathom isobath. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Disturbance of bottom sediment duringdredging; increased turbidity at dredging and disposal sites; economic and social benefit for Bay Area; temporary reduction in productivity of biotic community; deposition of sediments adjacent to disposal area and to project area; displacement of "Pollutants" entrained in■ sediment during dredging and disposal. b. Adverse Environmental Effects; Release of sediments and of absorbed chemicals into the water; removal of deeper substrate material which houses burrowing organisms; removal of the original interface between the water and the bottom. Transitory increase in turbidity during dredging and disposal with possible smothering of plankton and sessile benthic organisms; temporary oxygen sag during disposal and dredging. 4. Alternatives: a. No-action; land disposal; ocean disposal of all material; and disposal of all material at Alcatraz. 5. Comments Received: Soil Conservation Service, USDA U.S. Department of Commerce U.S. Department of InteriorU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Environmental Protection Agency The Resources Agency, State of California City of OaklandFINALE

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, JETTIES AND DREDGING HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District. San Francisco, Corps of Engineers June 1973OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF HUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY, JETTIES AND DREDGING HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco,California 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Maintenance dredging of channels in Humboldt Harbor and Bay and rehabilitation of the jetties at the entrance to Humboldt Bay. 3 a. Environmental Impacts: Annual dredging and disposal of approx­imately 600,000 cubic yards of material creates increased tur­bidity. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Silt suspension resultant fromdredging may adversely affect fish and planktonic larvae. Im­mobile benthic organisms will be displaced during dredging. 4. Alternatives: No action 5. Comments Received: The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, USDC Soil Conservation Service, USDA Office of the Secretary, Pacific Southwest Region, USDI United States Environmental Protection Agency The Resources Agency of California County of Humboldt, Administrative Office County of Humboldt, Public Works Department County of Humboldt, Board of Supervisors Humboldt State College, Prof. J. 0. Sawyer, Jr. Pacific Marine Engineering The Wildlife Society, Humboldt Chapter 6. Draft Statement to CEQ 16 August 1972 Final Statement to CEQSTATEMENT OF FINDINGSHUMBOLDT HARBOR AND BAY JETTIES AND DREDGING 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public, relative to the accomplishment of the jetty rehabilitation completed 31 October 1972 and proposed dredging of Humboldt Harbor and Bay in order to insure the ingress and egress of v

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GAS HOUSE COVE (EAST HARBOR FACILITY)S* rnnt?r»Tnpn »f*r»-t"kt a e\L\i i ixAi'iOi.juuSMALL CRAFT HARBOR, CALIFORNIA Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. 20314August 1973GAS HOUSE COVE ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco,Corps of Engineers 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Reduction of wave surge by constructionof a 117-foot long concrete sheet pile breakwater connecting two ex­isting breakwaters. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Provide 6,400 square feet of substratefor sessile organisms; eliminate 1,400 square feet of benthos and a temporary disruption of larger area of benthos, during construction; potential decrease in water quality during construction. b. Adverse Environmental Effects; Removal of small area of benthos. 4. Alternatives: 276-foot concrete sheet pile breakwater extendingout from Breakwater No. 1; No project. 5. Comments Received: Environmental Protection Agency Bureau of Outdoor Recreation U.S. Department of Interior Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service U.S. Department of Interior Department of Commerce U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Interior Department of Health Education & Welfare The Resources Agency of California Association of Bay Area Governments Recreation and Parks Department, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, San Francisco 6. Draft Statement to CEQ_____7 MW 1971____. Final Statement to CEQ 1 g NOV 1973_____.FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GAS HOUSE COVE (East Harbor Facility) San Francisco Marina Small Craft Harbor, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph Subject Page 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT 1 a. Location 1 b. Existing Breakwaters 1 c. Geology 2 d. Wave Activity 2 e. Land Use and Development 2 f. Biological Aspects 3 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSEDACTION 3 4 ADVERSE ENVIRONMEN

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RICHMOND INNER HARBOR, MAINTENANCE DREDGING, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Office of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. 20314August, 1973STATEMENT OF FINDINGS RICHMOND INNER HARBOR MAINTENANCE DREDGING CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public in­terest, the documents concerning the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public, relative to the various practicable alternatives in accomplishing the program for maintenance dredging in the Richmond Inner Harbor for Fiscal Years 1973, 1974, and 1975. 2. The possible consequences of the Richmond Inner Harbor maintenance dredging have been studied according to environmental, social well­being, and economic effects, including regional and national develop­ment, and engineering feasibility. 3. In evaluation, the following points were considered pertinent: a. Considerations for the natural environment: (1) Dredging Effects: (a) The Corps of Engineers’ "Dredge Disposal Study” is addressing the release of sediments and adsorbed chemicals into the water as a result of dredging. Currently, little is known about sediment behavior, and tests are being planned and carried out on the effects of chemicals adsorbed by sediments and their partial release to the water column.To date, no toxic effects on water quality have been indicated. (b) Due to dredging, the original interface between the water and the bottom, which is frequently an area of high biological activity, is removed, although Richmond Harbor does not have a rich and diverse benthic faunal population and occasional oil spills further reduce fauna and plant life. Any burrowing organisms in the deeper substrate are also removed by dredging and organisms dependent on these forms for food are displaced to adjacent areas. Since dredging opens a new face of the same sediment type, however, these effects a

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ALAMEDA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District,San Francisco, California 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The entire project encompasses the construc­tion of flood protection works by the Corps of Engineers on Alameda Creek across the Coastal Plain ;from Niles Canyon to San Francisco Bay, and the construction and maintenance by the State of California of a multipurpose reservoir at Del Valle damsite on Arroyo Del Valle, a tributary of Alameda Creek, as part of the State Water Project. The Del Valle Reservoir and more than 90 percent of the channel work is complete. The major work remaining includes completion of levees, excavation of the channel, levee shaping, and landscaping in the reach between the mouth of Alameda Creek and Newark Boulevard. The work will be completed during 1975. Land­scaping also remains to be done on the reach from the upper Southern Pacific Railroad Bridge to Niles Canyon. This will be completed in the summer of 1974. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: The project will greatly reduce damages toproperty resulting from inundation, bank erosion and sheet erosion; accerer- ate the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses (residential, com­mercial, and industrial); accelerate the conversion of saltpond lands to public uses (recreation, wildlife sanctuaries, nature education, hiking, etc.); and have a positive impact on regional recreation. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: The curving channel will not beas natural looking as the meandering creek; approximately seven acres of riparian growth was cleared north of Stanley Bridge; and in total, saltpond habitat will be reduced by 250 acres. Construction beyond the Coyote Hills reach will temporarily disrupt • marsh vegetation and benthic fauna. Disposal of dredged material will cover 40 acres of marsh and 1

FINALENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CORTE MADERA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20314 January 1974STATEMENT OF FINDINGS CORTE MADERA CREEK FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT MARIN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning both the completed and the proposed action, as well as the stated views of other interested agencies and the concerned public, relative to the various practicable alternatives for accomplishing the intended flood protection by the authorized Corte Madera Creek Project. 2. The possible consequences of the project have been studied rela­tive to environmental, social well-being, and economic effects, in­cluding regional and national development, and engineering feasibility. a. Considerations for the natural environment: (1) Environmental impact of completed project portions: (a) Aesthetics — The major adverse environmental impacts of completed project portions were the loss of vegetation resulting from bank excavation and the removal of some trees within the area of the permanent right-of-way of the concrete channel construction. To mitigate these impacts, the area used for construction activities was kept tp a minimum. The visual effect of conversion of a tree-canopied natural stream compared to an open concrete channel has been the greatest source of public concern. It was recognized that a changein natural conditions would be caused by the project and that the original vegetation growth provided by nature's ecological balance, which was considered by many to be one of natural charm, could not be sustained. However, vegetative species chosen for compatibility to the projects induced changed conditions with an ecological tolerance among themselves, have been provided in completed project portions and will in time provide their own natural charm commingled with man's nec­essities to inhabit the

FIN*L*ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SAN LEANDRO CREEK ' SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, CaliforniaNovember 1971 ^ i 9 V Z C l •* ^ /> ‘ / 7 It - 7V-/ -> (3 - SAN LEANDRO CREEK SMALL FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco,California 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Construction of both the trapezoidalearth channel and the rectangular concrete channel segment with riprap transitions to be initiated approximately 15 April 1972. Lands.ape plan to be initiated in FY 1973 subsequent to comple­tion of construction. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Devel­opment Commission permit for dredging contingent on public access provisions. Suitable materials (35,000 cubic yards) to be placedas fill for access roads, unsuitable materials (18,000 cubic yards), on approved diked upland site. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Provide flood protection against100-year flood; lessen cost of developing undeveloped land; loss of natural stream section and natural vegetation; public access and streambank plantings; reduction of mosquito populations. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Elimination of plants andanimals associated with concrete channel reach, temporary loss of benthic organisms and pickleweed along banks in earth channel reach. 4. Alternatives: No-action; upstream reservoir modification; floodplain management, non-structural measures; trapezoidal earth chan­nel throughout project length; 50-year, 100-year, standard project flood protection. 5. Comments Received: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDIDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentBureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDINational Park Service, USDIDepartment of Health, Education, and WelfareThe REsources Agency of CaliforniaBoard of Supervisors, Alamed

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Interim Report on San Francisco Bay and Tributaries, California for Small-Craft Harbor Improvement (Maintenance) for City of San Leandro Marina, Alameda County Preparad.-ByU.S. Army Engineer District San Francisco, CaliforniaOctober 1970 •1 October 1970 CITY OF SAN LEANDRO MARIKA, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 1, Project Description* The San Leandro Marina is part of the City of• San Leandro Shoreline complex that falls within the category of Small- Craft Harbor Improvements. The project area is located in the San Francisco East bay immediately south of the City of Oakland and shown on Plate 1. The project is recommended for maintenance of the channels in the San Leandro, Marina, Alameda County, California and would entail the following as indicated on Fiate 2. a. The main access channel to a depth of six feet, below mean lower low water, with a width of 200 feet and length of 2.1 miles extending from a greater natural depth in the Bay to the entrance of the harbor; b. The interior access channel and maneuvering area located inside the harbor to an average depth of eight feet, below mean lower low water, with an average width of 150 feet, and extending through the central part of the inside harbor basin, a length of about four-tenths mile; c. The auxiliary access channel branching northwesterly from the harbor entrance to a depth of six feet, below mean lower low water,I with a width of 100 feet and extending around the exterior of the main I northwestern mole to its terminus in a launching ramp area, a distance I of about five-tenths mile with the final one-tenth of a mile being I increased in width to 150 feet to provide a turning basin; I d. The auxiliary access channel branching to the east from the I interior access channel to a depth of eight, feet, below mean lower low I water, with a width of 150 feet and.extending along the south side of the I south dike a distance of about two-tenths mile. 1 The spoil materials

FINALenvironmental statement CRESCENT CITY HARBOR NAVIGATION PROJECT DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, CaliforniaDecember 1971CRESCENT CITY HARBOR NAVIGATION PROJECT DEL NORTE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) DRAFT (X) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U.S. Array Engineer District, San Francisco,California. 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Provide a 20-foot-deep inner harbor 200-footwide at entrance to 300 feet wide along shoreward side of inner break­water and extending north a distance of 325 feet; a 400-foot extension of the inner harbor breakwater. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Remove some benthic life; some turbiditydue to dredging; temporary decrease in water quality; cover of some shore grasslands with spoil; some blasting with consequent adverse effects on fishlife. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Turbidity during dredging withtemporary decrease in water quality; removal of small areas of benthic habitat; removal of quarry topsoil; blasting with some adverse effects of fishlife. 4* Alternatives: Extending the outer breakwater to Round Rock; ex­tending the outer breakwater dogleg; five different breakwaters from the outer breakwater to Whaler Island; a breakwater from the mouth of Elk Creek to the inner harbor; the extension of the inner breakwater 400 feet; combination of all these; no project. Several alternative land and sea disposal sites: Vacant land near Citizens' Dock; offBattery Point Outside breakwater; on beach south of sand barrier. 5. Comments Received: Soil Conservation Service, USDABureau of Reclamation, USDIFish and Wildlife Service, USDINational Park Service, USDIForest Service, Department of AgricultureDepartment of CommerceNational Oceanographic and Atmoshperic Administration Environmental Protection Agency The Resources Agency, State of California Sierra Club . 6. 1 8 NOV 1971 Draft Statement of CEQ Final Statement of CEQ 1 5 MAR 1972 . .

~ ( J.) .I ,,, ·flf L O O O PL A I N I N F O R MAT IO N ) I ,_-/)f£i,... ... ­LAl{ E EARL-LAl

~~~ti FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION · {1v/IJ -cflc,,//A ;1 J , e e1<_, UVAS-CARNADERO CREEK PAJARO RIVER TO UVAS RESERVOIR SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER DISTRICT BY U~-ARM)' NGINEER DISTRICT COR•Ps OF ~GINEERS SAN., RANCISCO MAY 1973 • ·• • TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .....•..... • .. BACKGROUND INFORMATION Settlement . . . . · . . . . . The Stream and I ts Valley . . Developments in the FloodiPlain · ·FLOOD SITUATION .......... . Sources of Data and Records · ... Flood Season and Flood Characteristics Factors Affecting Flooding and Its Impact Obstructions to floodflows . • . Flood damage reduction measures . Other factors and their impacts . . ... Flood warning and forecasting .•. Flood-fighting and emergency evacuafion phms Material storage on the flood plain . PAST FLOODS .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... Summary of Historical Floods • Flood Records . . . Flood Description$ FUTURE FLOODS .... • • t Intermediate Regional Flood Standard Project Storm and Flood Frequency ............ . Hazards of Large Floods . · . . . . . . . . . Flooded.areas and flood damages. Obstructions ........•.. ; Velocities of flow . . . . • . . . · Rates of rise and duration of flooding . .. . Photographs, bridges and future flood heights· GLOSSARY TABLES -NUMBER 1. Drainage Areas 2 . Flood Crest Elevations , 3 . Peak Flows For Intermediate Regional and Standard Project Floods t PAGE • i . 1 . 1 . 1 . 2 .3 .3 . 3 .. 4 .4 .4 .5 .5 .5 .6 .9 . 9 .9 •. 9 11 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 14 19 PAGE 2 3 12 NUMBER 4 Elevation Data - Bridges 5 Rates of Rise and Duration - Uvas-Camadero Creek near U.S. 101 PLATES C>.UMBER 1 General Map 2 IR F Hydrograph 3 SPF Hydrograph 4 Index Map 5-8 Flooded Areas 9-12 Profiles 13-14 Cross Sections FIGURES NUMBER 1 U.S. Highway 101 Bridge 2 Thomas Road Bridge J Culverts st Miller Avenue 4 Santa Teresa Expressway 5 flood potential at Christmas Hill Park 6 landside of levee - Between Thomas Road and Mesa Road 7 Thomas Road 8

INFORMATION MON TEREY Intormat1q~ shown in this document ff~ould no\ be used without securingPREPAR ED F~fs interpretetion by HUD staff en~i-MONTEREY COYiMET~. The information presented by BY the Corps of Engineers may not refiect CORPS OF ENGINEERS,5 -&1i .nterey County under authority of Section 206 of the 1960 Flood Control Act (Public Law 86-645, 14 J·.1ly 1960) which is i;uoted in 3.pplicable part as fol lows: * * 1} "That in recogni tio.n of the increasing use and development of flood plains of the rivers of the United States and of the need for information of flood hazards to serve as a guide to such development, and as a basis for avoiding future hazards by regula• tion of use by States and M1nicipalities, the Secretary of the Army, through the Chief of Engineers, Departm,mt of the Army, is hereby authorized to compile and dis­seminate inforrnation on floods and flood damages, including identification of areas subject to inundation by floods of various magnitu:ies and frequencies, and general criteria for guidance in the use of flood plain areas; and t o provide engineering advise to local interests for their use in planning to ameliorate the flood hazards: Providen, that the necessary surveys and studies will be made and such information and ad­vice will b'-~ provided for specific localities only upon the requests of a State or a responsible local E_'.'over11rMnt agency and upon approval of the Chief of Engineers. *· ,I 1f .n I n response to the above stated request by the Supervi­sors of Monterey County, certaln surveys and studies have been made in the Carmel River Valley by the San Franci

~tum t<' 'f) "'\_ 132 Iii WATER IESCUUttfS N

FLOOD PLAIN INFORMATION SAN BENITO RIVER PAJARO RIVER TO TRES PINOS CREEK SAN BENITO COUN-=rV, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR SAN BENITO COUNTY BY ........ JORDAN/MATHIS AND ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS W.ATli ,~F-~,,.~­'"'"""~ ' • sAN FRANc1sco. cAL1FoRN1A RE;.;;;'lr~'s,., ,~;j r. n·1s10; run,~ £cnon UNDER CONTRACT TO -vv./1 THE U., 5:o ARMY~ ~INEER DISTRICT JIii) 'F/tltAlfY.J{!J um SAN FRANCISCO CORPS OF ENGINEERSo JUNE 1974 • TABLE OF CONTENTS Page • PREFACE .. ... ..... ... . BACKGROUND INFORMATION Settlement . . . . . . . . . The Stream and Its Valley Developments in the Flood Plain FLOOD SITUATION . . . .... . Sources of Data and Records Flood Season and Flood Characteristics Factors Affecting Flooding and Its Impact Obstructions to flood flows .... Flood damage reduction measures Other factors and their impacts .. Flood warning and forecasting Flood-fighting and emergency evacuation plans Material storage on the flood plain PAST FLOODS . ......... . Summary of Historical Floods Flood Records . .. Flood Descriptions FUTURE FLOODS ... Intermediate Regional Flood Standard Project Flood . . . . Frequency . . . .. . . . Hazards of Large Floods Flooded areas and flood damages • i . 1 . 1 . 1 .3 .4 .4 .5 .5 .5 .8 .8 .8 .9 .9 . 10 . 10 . 10 . 10 . 11 . 11 . 12 . 12 . 13 . 13 • Obstructions ........ . .. . . 14 Velocities of flow ........... . .. 15 Rates of rise and duration of flooding . . 15 • Photographs of future flood heights . .. . .... .. .. . 15 GLOSSARY . . ... ... . .... . . ........ .. ... 19 TABLES Number Page 1. Drainage Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3 2. Flood Crest Elevations -San Benito River Near Hollister . ...4 3. Flood Crest Elevations -Pajaro River at Chittenden Road Bridge . . . . 5 4. Peak Flows for Intermediate Regional and Standard Project Floods . . 11 5. Flood Elevations San Benito near Hollister at Gaging Station . . 12 6. Elevation Data -Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7. Rates of Rise and Duration (San Benito River) . 1

ss ( rfoJ l1BRARY COPY f .FLOOD Lt::' I A PLA IN c •r oF rv I INFORMATION APTOS, TROUT AND VALENCIA CREEKS CITY OF APTOS, CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BY THE U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT SAN FRANCISCO CORPS OF ENG NEERS \ WATER RES ~ DIVISION JULY 1973 .JIEeDB-TS-UtrraN • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .............. . BACKGROUND INFORMATION Settlement ....... . The Stream and Its Valley Developments in the Flood Plain . Page • • i . 1 . 1 ............. 1 . .............. 2 FLOOD SITUATION ...................................... 3 Sources of Data and Records Flood Season and Flood Characteristics Factors Affecting Flooding and Its Impact Obstructions to floodflows ..... Flood damage reduction measures Other factors and their impacts .. Flood warning and forecasting . Flood-fighting and emergency evacuation plans ...... . Material storage in the flood plain . ; .... PAST FLOODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Historical Floods Flood Records .... Flood Descriptions . \ .3 .3 .4 .4 .4 .4 .5 . .5 . .5 .. 8 .8 .8 . .8 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont'd) FUTURE FLOODS ........... . Intermediate Regional Flood Standard Project Flood Frequency ...... . Hazards of Large Floods ..... . . . . . 9 . ... 9 . .............. 10 . .............. 11 Flooded areas and flood damages .................. 11 Obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Velocities of flow .... 12 Rates of rise and duration of flooding ............... 12 Photographs, future flood heights .................. 13 • GLOSSARY .............. . ........................... 17 • Number 1 2 TABLES Drainage Areas ................... . High Water Elevations ....... .. ..... . 3 Peak Flows for Intermediate Regional and Standard Project Floods . 4 Flood Elevations ................ Page ... 2 . ....... . 3 . ............ 10 .... 10 5 Elevation Data - Bridges ............................. 12 6 Rates of Rise and Duration .................... 13 • • • • • TABLE OF CONTENT$ (c

WATER RF.SOURCES DIVIffl01$# Return to Rm 132 AT REPORTS SECTION P L A I N I N F O R M A T I O N LIBRARY COPY PREPARED FOR HUMBOLDT COUNTY /II BY " JI COR_ ~t_~F ENGINEERS, U. S. ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT JUNE 1968 DE;PARTMENT OF THE ARMY SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS 100 McALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 SPNED-RF Chief Data Reports Unit Water Resources Division U.S. Geological Survey Washington, D.C. 20242 Gentlemen: 1 2 February I 969 F~EC!EliVEO FEB 141969 DATA REPORTS UNIT Enclosed for your information and use are copies of the Flood Plain Information Report and p~mphlet on the South Fork Eel River, from Weott to Myers Flat, Humboldt County, California. Sincerely yours, l Encl As stated ~ ~r;~NK C. BOERGE / ~~ 1 one 1 , CE District Engineer I • rs. 'tmJ. . on • • • CONTENTS !elBRARY COPY INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF FlOOD SITUATION • GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PAST FLOODS • South Fork Eel River Settlement • • • FVocd damage prevention measures ••. Fiood warning 11nd forecasting services . The §tream snd its va11ey ••• Developments in the flood plain Bridges ~cross thia strraam Obsuuet Ions to f 1oodf1ow Flood Situ&ltlon ••••••••• Flood records Flood .suiges and df scharges Flood cecurrenc0s •.•••••• Duration ~n~ rate of rise ••••• Vis 1 oci ty . . . . .. . .. . Flooded areas, fiood profiles, and cross sections. Flood Descriptions . . . . • ••...•. DecEtiiber 1955 Deciamber 1964 FUTURE FLOODS • • • • • Determination of Intermediate Regional Flood Detelrfflination of St~ndard Project Flood .•••• Frequency . . . . • • . • • . Possible targer floods . . . • • H~~ards of Gr~Qt Floods ••••. Area$ flooded mnd heights of flooding \le1oc1 ty, raites of rise, and duration GLOSSARV OF TERMS AUTHOR.ITV, ACtoaOWLEDGEMENTS, AMO INTERPRETATION OF DAYA Page I 1 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 9 1 '4 1 !$ 15 15 17 18 19 19 19 22 27 27 28 29 29 30 30 32 36 38 2 3 4 5 7 TABLES Reiative F~ood Heights and Dra inage Areas - South Fork Ee~ River ..•.••.. Bridges Across South For

TECHNICAL REPORT H-71-2 DESIGN OF PROPOSED CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CALIFORNIA, TSUNAMI MODEL Hydraulic Model Investigation by P. K. Senter February 1971 Sponsored by U. S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco by U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi TA 7. W34t H-71-2 1971 This document has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution is unlimited bureau of reclamation UBRAKT BUR DENVER, CO Des t roy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. Th e f indings in this report are not to be construed a s an offic Department of the Army position u n le s s so des ignated by other authorized documents. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DESIGN OF PROPOSED CRESCENT CITY HARBOR, CALIFORNIA, TSUNAMI MODEL Hydraulic Model Investigation by P. K. Senter 101L I ! i_ r i_n_r imp IDI IDI February 1971 Sponsored by U. S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco Conducted by U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi ARMY-MRC VICKSBURG, MISS. This document has been approved for public release and sale; its distribution is unlimited 92071182 THE CONTENTS OF THIS REPORT ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR ADVERTISING, PUBLICATION, OR PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES. CITATION OF TRADE NAMES DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFICIAL EN­DORSEMENT OR APPROVAL OF THE USE OF SUCH COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS. ill FOREWORD The model i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t e d h e r e in was r e q u e s t e d by th e D i s t r i c t E n g in e e r , U. S. Army E n g in e e r D i s t r i c t , San F r a n c i s c o , in a l e t t e r t o th e D i v i s i o n E n g in e e r , U. S. Army E n g in e e r D i v i s i o n , South P a c i f i c , d a t e d 23 Augu s t 1968. A u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r th e U. S. Army E n g in e e r Waterways Exper iment S t a t i o n t o p e r fo rm th e s tu d y was g r a n t e d on 2k O c to b e r 1968 by th e O f f i c e , C h i e f o f E n g in e e r s . T e s t s were cond u c ted d u r in g th e p e r io d F e b r

31 TECHNICAL REPORT H-71-8 PROPOSED JETTY-HEAD REPAIR SECTIONS HUMBOLDT BAY, CALIFORNIA Hydraulic Model Investigation by D. D. Davidson I ♦ g .W34t 1971 November I97I Sponsored by U. S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco by U . S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi err? SOI ¡OSm 00 101 I D S APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED BUREAU OF RECLAMATION LIBRARY DENVER, CO Destroy this report when no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator. The findings in this report are not to be construed as an offic Department of the Army position unless so designated by other authorized documents. TECHNICAL REPORT H-71-8 PROPOSED JETTY-HEAD REPAIR SECTIONS HUMBOLDT BAY, CALIFORNIA Hydraulic Model Investigation by D. D. Davidson I D I . IDI[ ru i_r Mp f f f f IDI i ilOl November 1971 Sponsored by U. S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco Conducted by U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi A R M Y -M R C V IC K S B U R G . M IS S APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED 92071181 FOREWORD The model investigation reported herein was requested by the District Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer District, San Francisco, in a letter to the Division Engineer, U. S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific, dated 23 August 1967« Authority for the U. S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station to perform the investigation was granted by the Office, Chief of Engineers, in a second indorsement, dated 20 September 1967* The tests were conducted at the Waterways Experiment Station during the period June 1968 to December 1 9 7 0 . Personnel who visited the Waterways Experiment Station to attend con­ferences in connection with the model study were Messrs. G. P. Reilly, P. L. Vredenburg, F. C. Morello, B. Sloan, H. B. Pape, Jr., R. C. Riddle, R. Shimizu, J. C. Wolfe, and N. W. Rognlie of the San Francisco District; Messrs. 0 . T. Magoon and J. W. Gerhart of the South Pacific Division; Messrs. G. K. St