Pajaro River Flood Protection Study
Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th, 2004
I. Welcome and Introduction
On March 26th, the Pajaro River Technical Stream Team held a meeting at Moore, Iacofano,
Goltsman (MIG), Inc. The objectives of the meeting were to update the group on the recent
ExComm meetings and Board hearings, to review the maintenance costs framework, to develop
opportunities maps, and to discuss the possibilities for sediment modeling and the convening of a
Watershed Study management process. Daniel Iacofano, of MIG, facilitated the meeting and
participants’ comments are summarized below.
The following people attended the meeting in person or participated via the phone:
Jonathan Ambrose, NOAA Fisheries
Bruce Laclergue, Santa Cruz County
Brian Cluer, NOAA Fisheries
Eugene Tsuji, Pajaro Rose Grower
Andy Collison, Phil Williams & Associates
(PWA)
Jim Van Houten, Wetlands Watch & Sierra
Club
Bob Curry, CSUMB
Eric Thaut, ACOE
Dave Dickson, MIG
Bill Phillips, Monterey County
Lisa Dobbins, Action Pajaro Valley (APV)
Daniel Iacofano, MIG
Amy Carter, Planning & Conservation League
Foundation (guest)
Bill Firth, ACOE
Ann Riley, RWQCB
Daniel reviewed the agenda with the Team and discussed the Team’s primary agenda items for the
day. The Team also reviewed and approved the February 20th meeting summary with minor edits.
The group discussed again the goal of using each meeting summary as a tool to communicate with
the ExComm and the Pajaro River Task Force.
The Stream Team approved the previous meeting minutes. Lisa mentioned that if anyone has any
clarifications to email them ASAP. The group discussed sending the Stream Team and APV Task
Force minutes to Ex Comm and visa versa. Bill and/or Bruce will forward the approved Ex Comm.
Minutes to APV for distribution to the Stream Team and APV Task Force.
Action Pajaro Valley Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th, 2004
Page 1
II. Update on Board Hearings and ExComm Meeting
Update on Board Hearings
Monterey County: Bill Phillips said that on Tuesday, March 30th Monterey County Board of
Supervisors should be selecting the 2A & T4 alternatives as the launching point for environmental
review. The item was continued from March 16th in order for one more public meeting to be held
(March 23rd). At the March 23rd public meeting the main concerns were: maintenance, permitability,
and having a sustainable maintenance program.
Santa Cruz County: Bruce Laclergue reported that on Tuesday, March 16th the Board of Supervisors
approved a resolution selecting 2A & T4 as preliminary alternatives and asked the ACOE to look at
excavation in order to pull the setbacks in from 100 feet if possible.
Ex Comm Update
Please see the Ex Comm minutes from March 17, 2004.
Action Items:
Ex Comm minutes will be provided to the APV River Task Force and the Stream Team as they
become available. APV staff will distribute.
III. Review of Maintenance Costs Framework
Dave Dickson handed out the maintenance budget spreadsheets that are based on estimated and
actual numbers from both counties. He will be adding in the Department of Water Resources
estimates as well.
Dave brought up that the Regional Board has made developing an O&M manual a condition of the
Napa waste discharge permit.
Eric reported that the ACOE maintenance figures are not just a 1% factor. They are looking at
O&M projections related to the spreadsheet. The Stream Team is hoping to see the maintenance
projection materials from Ada Squires as soon as they become available.
Bruce is looking into getting permits for sediment excavation on benches.
Andy Collison asked what the cost per cubic yard is to remove sediment from bench and from
channel. He suggests that it may be a higher cost to remove from the channel due to access and
permit costs. Resource agencies suggest that we avoid removal from the channel. However, shortterm channel work may be approved by the resource agencies in order to reduce accumulated
sediment.
Dave handed out a memo sent from Bruce at Santa Cruz County re: costs per cubic yards of
removal. The estimate shows $18 per cubic yard for removal from the benches. An example of 15 ft
x 2ft x450 ft can be cleared for $9,000.
Action Pajaro Valley Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th 2004
Page 2
There is agreement that sediment removal is a key element in design; some tradeoffs will need to be
considered during design and for permit issuance.
Dave asked about factoring in what Ed Wallace of NHC is doing? Bruce clarified that NHC is doing
hydraulics not sediment analysis. Bruce also said that NHC would be doing hydraulic analysis on the
tributaries as well. Andy mentioned that if we do the 2 Dimensional modeling, we would benefit
from knowing what NHC’s full analysis program is.
Action Items:
Dave will distribute copies of the discharge permit and the O&M manual from Napa and other
jurisdictions at the next meeting.
Eric to bring copies of Pajaro River O&M manual.
Army Corps Timeline Issues
Jim Van Houten asked the ACOE to answer a series of questions that he posed via email. Eric
Thaut agreed to answer them at this time. The questions and answers follow:
1. Question: Has the ACOE formally adopted their NED Plan? If not, when is this scheduled? Is
there a deadline?
Answer: The ACOE has tentatively identified alternatives 2A & T4 as the NED plans (that is, the
plans that maximize net benefits). After the EIR/S review, the district will make a final
recommendation.
2. Question: Has the ACOE completed their alternatives analysis? If they have not completed it
but are working in it, what alternatives are they considering? Can other alternatives be
considered?
Answer: Analysis of the broad-set of alternatives has been completed but there is still room to
modify 2A & T4. Decision to tentatively select 2A & T4 leads to more detail design. Benches fit
within the modification of 2A & T4. If the issue of more sediment becomes a fatal flaw, then the
process will have to open up for further cost/benefit analysis review.
3. Question: Has the “scope” of the EIR/S process been established? If “scoping” is not closed,
when will it close?
Answer: All of the broad set alternatives will be in the document. A public scoping meeting has been
held. A scope of work for the EIR/S is underway. The NED design process is parallel to the EIR/S
process and the ongoing design analyses will be reflected in the EIR/S. The 2A modification and/or
sediment analysis causes new alternatives to be developed, and then they will be included in the
review.
Eric mentioned that the timeline for ACOE is affected by the lack of funds allocated at this time. He
says that the new release date for the EIR/S public draft hasn’t been set, but likely won’t be until
January 2005 or later, depending on when funds become available. An administrative draft HEP
(habitat evaluation procedure) report has been prepared on alternatives 1, 2A, and 3; T1, T3, T4 and
a version of 2AX that includes bench excavation in reach 2. The administrative draft has been given
to local sponsors.
Dave suggested that the HEP look alternative 2A “X”.
Action Pajaro Valley Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th 2004
Page 3
IV. Development of Opportunities Maps
The Stream Team first viewed a slide show provided by Dr. Bob Curry of CSUMB’s Watershed
Institute. His slide show helped provide the framework for the “watershed” perspective of the
possible opportunities. His slide show included historical photos of the pre-ACOE project, gravel
mining along the river, recreational vehicle use along the riverbed, and riverbank degradation.
This Stream Team task was to identify potential opportunities for “modification” to the 2A
alternative by mapping them. Members of the Stream Team identified opportunities on with the use
of the following tools: Northwest Hydraulics Maps on wall, aerial photos, and USGS topo maps.
The Team identified the following issues in the upper and lower reaches:
Mining
Off road vehicle use
Breaching: Possible to find landowners who would breach
Some opportunities may have some activities sooner and some later.
Any watershed improvements will need to be identified ASAP
One question that came up: is it possible that the large amount of sediment removal can bump the
B/C ratio? Eric says that it can affect the maintenance budget, which bumps the B/C.
One way to remove sediment and is to truck it away – no 404 permit is needed for removing
sediment from the benches and trucking it away but to move sediment around within the levees you
need a 404 permit.
The Stream Team brainstormed a list of interventions and a way to track them on a timeline/grid as
follows:
Design Features
Levees Breaching
Easements
Sediment basin
Benching
Pocket Levee
Strategic Levee and Channel Re Alignment
In Project
Regulatory Actions
Physical/ Structural Changes
Regulatory Actions
Physical/ Structural Changes
Pre Project
S
M
L
Upstream
Pre Project
S
M
L
Action Pajaro Valley Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th 2004
Page 4
Action Items:
Review the opportunities map at next Stream Team meeting to discuss possible timelines for
actions.
V. Discussion of Draft Scope of Work for Sediment and 2-D Modeling
Andy discussed the possibility of doing a 2 Dimensional model for sediment on the mainstem. He
developed a preliminary scope whereby they would take prototypical portions of the river and run
the model for sediment. It would include a series of test sections to run flows, change designs of
benches to find a sediment budget that would ideally put results back into B/C ratio. He suggests
that it would take 3-4 months at best. It would cost $30-40,000 and they could do it in 2 phases.
The first phase for $20K would be proof of concept modeling. The second phase would be
remainder of prototypical sites for an additional $20,000.
The Stream Team then discussed the importance of knowing the mainstem cross-section
measurements. Andy will work with Bill Firth on cross-sections, bench incising, and to verify
elevations.
Bruce is checking on what NHC has done on mainstem. Bruce will have staff do cross-section on
mainstem measurements.
Action Items:
Andy to bring scope for mainstem 2 Dimensional model
Andy to bring a preliminary scope for an upstream detention basin. (Will e-mail to Wendy for
distribution)
VI. Discussion of Initial Watershed Study Management Process
Ann Riley provided a copy of the bill titled “Water Resources Department Act of 2002.” It has
language to provide credit for non-federal share of watershed planning process. State dollars and any
non-federal will be credited for such a purpose.
Lisa mentioned that APV would be hosting a “Watershed Study Planning Meeting” on Thursday,
April 29th. The goal is to hear from the various groups what they are doing in relation to the Pajaro
River, to hear from the ACOE about the parameters for Watershed Study sponsorship, and
hopefully to solicit support for the non-federal effort.
Eric and Bruce discussed the possibility of the 4 County Flood Prevention Authority being
interested in pursuing local sponsorship of the non-federal match for the Watershed Study. Bruce
and Eric are making a presentation of the preliminary work plan to staff working group on April 21.
They have invited APV staff to join them. Then Eric, Bruce and Lisa will make a presentation to the
FPA Board on May 14th to discuss sponsorship, work program and the outcome of the April 29th
meeting.
Action Pajaro Valley Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th 2004
Page 5
Action Items:
At the next meeting, the Stream Team will assist Lisa with designing the best program to present
for the Watershed Study Planning Meeting on April 29th
Andy to assist with providing “turn-key” graphics of the design features listed above.
VII. Summary & Next Steps
The next Technical Stream Team meeting will be held Friday April 16th, 10:00am-2:00pm at MIG.
The Team suggested the following items be included on the April 16th agenda:
Watershed Opportunity Map Timeline
Sediment Transport Action Grid
Watershed Meeting Strategy
Maintenance Spreadsheet
Maintenance Manuals
River Graphics
Bench Elevation Verification
The meeting summaries are intended to serve as notes from the Technical Stream Team meetings.
They are not official transcripts. Each meeting summary is reviewed and accepted
at each subsequent Technical Stream Team meeting.
Action Pajaro Valley Technical Stream Team
Meeting Summary
March 26th 2004
Page 6