Weir 1 Final Project Report+Appendices_Part6.pdf

WB4

WB3

WB2

WB1

P at h:

U

:\G

IS

\G

IS

\P ro je ct s\ xx x\ D

4_

_U S

F W

S _W ei r_

N o_

1_ F is h_

P as sa ge

_P ro je ct

\0 3_

P ro je ct

\H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _F ig ur es \m em o_ fig ur es .a pr x, b da vi s

/1

9/

SOURCE: Levees (DWR 2012)

N

Sediment Sampling Locations

(ESA 2023)

Levee 0 8,000

Feet

Butte Creek - Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis

Figure A-11

(A) Sediment Sample Locations, (B) Petite Ponar Sediment Sampler, and (C) Sediment Samples

S u tter B yp ass

West Borrow Canal

Weir 1

Guisti Weir

Tisdale Bypass

East Borrow Canal

A B

C

4 Hydraulic Analysis – Alternatives A, B, and C.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 24 ESA / D202001164.00 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis April 2024

Preliminary − Subject to Revision

Figure A-12

Sediment Gradations for WBC Sampling Locations

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 25 ESA / D202001164.00

Preliminary − Subject to Revision

5. MODEL RESULTS

5.1 Fish Passage Assessment

Fish Passage Criteria Table A-4 summarizes the hydraulic criteria used to assess fish passage of each alternative. These criteria were derived from the Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project (DWR, 2017;

USBR, 2017) and the Tisdale Weir Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Project (ESA, 2020).

TABLE A-4

SUMMARY OF FISH PASSAGE CRITERIA

Species

Adult migration time

Minimum flow depth (short distance, <60 ft)

Minimum flow depth (long distance, 60-200 ft)

Minimum channel width

Maximum flow velocity (short distance, <60 ft)

Maximum flow velocity (long distance, 60-200 ft)

Adult sturgeon Jan-May 3 5 10

6 4 Adult salmon Nov-May 1 3 4

SOURCE: DWR, 2017; USBR, 2017

Passage conditions were assessed for alternatives 0, A, B, and C using the 2D HEC-RAS model.

Alternatives B and C each have roughened structures with a length greater than 60 ft. The following figures (Figures A-13 through A-15) depict the depth and velocity predicted by the model for existing conditions and alternatives A, B and C for each passage flow listed in Table A-4.

With design refinement each alternative is expected to provide passage for adult spring run Chinook salmon. Under high passage flow conditions, alternatives A & B provide unrestricted passage for fish as the hydraulic results meet all of the passage criteria. Under the high passage flow conditions, alternative C nearly meets all passage criteria, and the results suggest that with design refinement can be passable by adult Chinook salmon. The hydraulic results have a minimum of one-foot depth at the ramp crest but spans a distance greater than 60 feet and does not pass the passage criteria as designed and modeled.

However, with improvement in the ramp design, and subsequent model refinement, alternative C is expected to provide more favorable passage conditions. The rock ramp was modeled using a continuous roughness, and improvements to the design could include iterating the size and placement of boulders, creating variable roughness along the ramp to increase hydraulic complexity and create a low flow channel with a depth-varying flow path along the ramp and between the boulder crests. An example of boulder crests arrangement is included in Appendix C, though for purposes of this comparative analysis was not included in the HEC-RAS modeling.

5. Model Results.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 26 ESA / D202001164.00 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis April 2024

Preliminary − Subject to Revision

Similar to the results of Alternative C for the high passage flow, alternative B for the medium and low passage flows did not meet the passage criteria due to the lack of minimum flow depth. At the upstream end of the roughened channel, the minimum modeled depth is approximately 2.4 ft for the low passage flow for a distance greater than 60 feet. Though this doesn’t meet the passage criteria, the alternative is expected to meet the criteria upon model and design refinement.

5.2 Wetland Activation

There are several wetlands adjacent to the West Borrow Canal in the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge, as depicted in Figure A-4. These wetlands are activated by the West Borrow Canal during instances of overbank (bankfull) flow. Utilizing the 2D HEC-RAS model, the minimum flow rate required to activate the wetlands was estimated for existing conditions and each alternative (Table A-5). Figure A-16 depicts the WSE profiles for the median and high passage flows as well as surveyed wetland inverts surveyed by ESA in 2023. It should be noted that the surveyed wetland inverts are generally one-half to two feet lower than the HEC-RAS existing conditions model surface. The survey conducted by ESA in 2023 captured the invert location along the bank of the WBC. For wetland activation the invert on the WBC bank and wetland itself would need to be inundated, requiring additional flow. The 2D HEC-RAS terrains use LiDAR elevations for the overbank areas including the wetlands which contain thick vegetation which may be classified as ground. Because of this, the minimum required flows for wetland inundation may be lower than what is stated below. More detailed survey data (i.e. wetland boundary and transects) would need to be taken and incorporated in the terrains to provide a more accurate assessment. That said, the flows reported below serve as a comparative tool to assess the various alternatives and their effect on wetland activation.

Using the 2D HEC-RAS model, under existing conditions a discharge of 650 to 750 is required to inundate the various wetlands. Due to broader wetland activation, a discharge of 750 cfs was used to represent the bankfull flow under existing conditions. More discharge (~1000 cfs) is required to activate the wetlands for Alternatives A and B due to removal of the weir, an inline hydraulic control within the WBC. Although Alternative C maintains the existing sill elevation of Weir 1, additional roughness elements (boulders and large cobble on the ramp) downstream of the weir raises the upstream water surfaces profile. Approximately 550 cfs is required to inundate the wetlands under Alternative C.

Although not explicitly modeled, it is expected that Alternative D would result in a similar or slightly higher upstream water surface profile as Alternative C. The water surface profile under Alternative D may be higher due to the slight constriction from the fish ladder and embankment structures.

SOURCE: Levees (DWR 2012)

P at h:

U

:\G

IS

\G

IS

\P ro je ct s\ xx x\ D

4_

_U S

F W

S _W ei r_

N o_

1_ F is h_

P as sa ge

_P ro je ct

\0 3_

P ro je ct

\H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _F ig ur es \F

A X

_H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _L ow F lo w

.a pr x, b da vi s

/2 3/

Butte Creek - Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis

Figure A-13 Two-dimensional HEC-RAS Model Hydraulic Results

Low Passage Flow (356 cfs)

Velocity ≥ 7 ft/s

6 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 7 ft/s

5 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 6 ft/s

4 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 5 ft/s

Velocity < 4 ft/s

Velocity Categories

Depth ≥ 3 ft

Depth < 1 ft

Depth Categories

Levee (State-Federal SPFC)

Existing Conditions Alternative A Remove Weir

Alternative B Remove Weir with

Roughened Channel

Alternative C Replace Weir with

Rock Ramp

0 200

Feet N

Weir 1 Headcut

West Borrow Canal

Flow

1 ft ≤ Depth < 3 ft

Grading Footprint

Low Flow 356 cfs at h:

U

:\G

IS

\G

IS

\P ro je ct s\ xx x\ D

4_

_U S

F W

S _W ei r_

N o_

1_ F is h_

P as sa ge

_P ro je ct

\0 3_

P ro je ct

\H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _F ig ur es \F

A X

_H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _M ed F lo w

.a pr x, b da vi s

/2 3/

Butte Creek - Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis

Figure A-14 Two-dimensional HEC-RAS Model Hydraulic Results

Median Passage Flow (380 cfs)

Velocity ≥ 7 ft/s

6 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 7 ft/s

5 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 6 ft/s

4 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 5 ft/s

Velocity < 4 ft/s

Velocity Categories

Depth ≥ 3 ft

Depth < 1 ft

Depth Categories

Levee (State-Federal SPFC)

Existing Conditions Alternative A Remove Weir

Alternative B Remove Weir with

Roughened Channel

Alternative C Replace Weir with

Rock Ramp

0 200

Feet N

1 ft ≤ Depth < 3 ft

Grading Footprint

Median Flow 380 cfs

West Borrow Canal

Flow

Weir 1 Headcut at h:

U

:\G

IS

\G

IS

\P ro je ct s\ xx x\ D

4_

_U S

F W

S _W ei r_

N o_

1_ F is h_

P as sa ge

_P ro je ct

\0 3_

P ro je ct

\H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _F ig ur es \F

A X

_H yd ra ul ic R es ul ts _H ig hF lo w

.a pr x, b da vi s

/8 /2

Butte Creek - Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis

Figure A-15 Two-dimensional HEC-RAS Model Hydraulic Results

High Passage Flow (953 cfs)

Existing Conditions Alternative A Remove Weir

Alternative B Remove Weir with

Roughened Channel

Alternative C Replace Weir with

Rock Ramp

0 200

Feet N

High Flow 853 cfs

Velocity ≥ 7 ft/s

6 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 7 ft/s

5 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 6 ft/s

4 ft/s ≤ Velocity < 5 ft/s

Velocity < 4 ft/s

Velocity Categories

Depth ≥ 3 ft

Depth < 1 ft

Depth Categories

Levee (State-Federal SPFC)

1 ft ≤ Depth < 3 ft

Grading Footprint

West Borrow Canal

Flow

Weir 1 Headcut

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 30 ESA / D202001164.00

This page intentionally left blank

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 31 ESA / D202001164.00 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis April 2024

Preliminary − Subject to Revision

TABLE A-5

ESTIMATED BANKFULL FLOWS AND PERCENT EXCEEDANCES FOR WETLAND INUNDATION

Scenario Estimated Bankfull Discharge

(cfs) Percent Exceedance in WY

2014 (October through July)a

Existing Conditions 750 6

Alternative A 1,000 2

Alternative B 1,000 2

Alternative C 550 10

NOTES:

a Estimated from the TUFLOW model results within the West Borrow Canal. The TUFLOW model simulation period extends from October through July.

In the context of percent exceedance, the flow rates in Table A-5 signify the percentage of time or frequency with which the actual flow exceeds the specified values, informing the estimated inundation in the wetlands during a critical water year. Assessing the TUFLOW model results for water year 2014 shows that the minimum flow to provide wetland inundation occurred approximately 6% of the time under existing conditions, 2% under alternatives A and B, and 10% of the time under Alternative C.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 32 ESA / D202001164.00

Figure A-16

Two Dimensional HEC-RAS Model Longitudinal Profiles for the Median and High Passage Flow

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 33 ESA / D202001164.00 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis April 2024

Preliminary − Subject to Revision

5.3 Channel Stability

The “Copeland Method” of stable channel design (Copeland, 1994) was selected to assess the relative stability of the WBC at the Weir 1 location under a full weir removal and natural channel configuration as described in Alternative A. The Copeland Method is applicable to stability investigations for the WBC due to its foundation in the Brownlie sediment transport function, which was calibrated for labile, sand-bed channels (Brownlie, 1981). The Copeland Method uses the Brownlie depth prediction equation and other empirically derived hydraulic geometry relationships to determine stable channel dimensions given an incoming sediment concentration and gradation.

Because no sediment load data is available for this segment of the Butte Creek drainage, incoming sediment concentration was calculated using typical channel dimensions upstream of the weir (supply reach), where:

• Bottom width = 40 feet

• Bank height = 10 feet

• Energy slope = 0.0002 feet/feet

• Left side slope = 4H:1V

• Right side slope = 9H:1V

• Bank roughness (n) = 0.06

A discharge of 1000 cfs was used since the associated water surface profile in the WBC resulted in the initial inundation of most wetlands between the canal and refuge. This discharge represents our preliminary estimate of bankfull or effective discharge under the Alternative A scenario. Because most of the sediments sampled in the WBC could be characterized as “silty sand”, the average of Group 1 sediment gradations were used to define the incoming sediment load, where d84 = 0.68mm, d50 = 0.39mm, and d16 = 0.13mm.

Results of the stability analysis indicate that Alternative A, as currently designed, would not result in aggradation of degradation of the channel. If the channel bottom is gradually transitioned from upstream to downstream, a bed slope equivalent to the average valley and channel slope of 0.0002 feet/feet is achievable. Maintaining the valley slope and average bottom width of 40 feet results in a stable channel design (Figure A-17). This configuration of slope and depth supports channel depths in the ballpark of those observed under existing conditions (Figure A-18). As anticipated, the stability charts indicate that a bed slope steeper than the valley slope may result in degradation (incision) of the channel bed. It is unlikely that the bed slope would flatten below 0.0002 feet/feet if the average channel geometry is maintained throughout the upstream to downstream transition of the channel bed as currently designed.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 34 ESA / D202001164.00

Figure A-17

Stability Curve for Width and Slope

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 35 ESA / D202001164.00

Figure A-18

Stability Curve for Depth and Slope

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 36 ESA / D202001164.00 Feasibility Study and Alternatives Analysis April 2024

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 37 ESA / D202001164.00

6. MODEL LIMITATIONS

The model, validated against the TUFLOW flood flow model, lacks calibration due to insufficient gage data. While this limitation is acceptable for the current feasibility study focused on alternative scenario comparisons, it is crucial to note that calibration, supported by flow and stage gage data, is vital for refining the model's precision, accuracy, and future design development.

In subsequent stages of design, there are several actions that could significantly improve the hydraulic evaluation of Weir 1. The first action includes refining the input hydrology of the WBC, ideally from the collection of flow and stage data which could also be used to calibrate the hydraulic model and refine passage scenario flows. Subsequent model refinement should include the incorporation of gaged hydrology data for passage flows and model calibration, and the incorporation of flow-varied roughness values and spatially varied roughness values throughout any roughened channel features where applicable. If alternative A is selected additional sediment data should be collected to conduct additional stability analyses within the reach. If Alt C is selected, model refinement with gaged data and design iterations of boulder placement and associated roughness will be needed to improve passage hydraulics.

6. Model Limitations.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 38 ESA / D202001164.00

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 39 ESA / D202001164.00

7. CONCLUSION

For the purposes of alternative comparisons, the modeling analysis suggests that with refinement Alternatives A, B, and C can all be designed to improve fish passage. Alternatives A and B (full weir removal) may adversely affect adjacent wetlands due to lower water surface in the WCB resulting from removal of the inline hydraulic control at Weir 1. Alternative C however, would maintain a similar water level within the WBC, resulting in no expected effects to the adjacent wetlands.

7. Conclusion.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 40 ESA / D202001164.00

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 41 ESA / D202001164.00

8. REFERENCES

Brownlie, W. R. (1981). Prediction of flow depth and sediment discharge in open channels. Report No.

KH-R-43A, California Institute of Technology, W. M. Keck Laboratory, Pasedena, CA, 232 pp.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2009. California Salmonid Habitat Restoration Manual, Part XII Fish Passage Design and Implementation. CDFW, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2020). Weir 1 survey data. Mark Gard personal communication.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). (2010). Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation (CVFED) Program LiDAR.

California Department of Water Resources (DWR). (2017). Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project: Adult fish passage criteria for federally listed species within the Yolo Bypass and Sacramento River

Chow, V.T., 1959, Open-channel hydraulics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY

Copeland, Ronald R. 1994 (Sep). "Application of Channel Stability Methods—Case Studies." US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. TR-HL-94-11

ESA. 2020. Tisdale Weir Rehabilitation and Fish Passage Project. Flow Analysis – Baseline Model Calibration and Validation Report. Prepared for the California Department of Water Resources, September 2020.

ICF Jones & Stokes (2008). Draft Butte Slough/Sutter Bypass Fish Passage and Entrainment Assessment

NMFS. 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design, NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

NMFS. 2023. NOAA Fisheries Pre-Design Guidelines for California Fish Passage Projects, West Coast Region, Portland, OR.

PSOMAS. (2020). Topographic Survey Tisdale Weir Project Sutter County, California.

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). (2017). Yolo Bypass Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Fish Passage Project: Plan Formulation Report

Quantum Spatial. (2021). Tisdale Bypass, California Lidar Technical Data Report.

8. References.

Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 42 ESA / D202001164.00

Appendix B Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment

Preliminary Geotechnical

Assessment Butte Creek - Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternative Analyses

Butte County, CA

November 6, 2023

Prepared under the responsible charge of

Mark H. Stanley

GE 2397

No. 2397

EXP. 09/30/2023

Geotechnical hdrinc.com

Introduction As part of the project team, led by Environmental Science Associates (ESA), HDR is providing this preliminary Geotechnical Assessment that evaluates geologic and geotechnical conditions in the immediate area of Weir 1 located along the west edge of the Sutter Bypass in Butte County, California. The weir is located near the southern boundary of the Sutter National Wildlife Refuge approximately 2,500 feet upstream of the confluence with the Tisdale Weir (Figure 1). This assessment summarizes information gathered and presented in a team presentation on September 22, 2023, which consisted of a site visit and a limited desktop review of available information regarding performance of the Sutter Bypass and geotechnical and geological information in the site vicinity specifically to provide input into the alternative analysis process. Geotechnical exploration or analysis for any of the proposed alternatives was not included as part of this effort.

Background The Sutter Bypass is a constructed water conveyance that transmits excess flows from the Sacramento River to the Feather River. The Sutter Bypass begins west of the town of Sutter and extends in a southeast direction to the Feather River, east of the Town of Nicholaus. The Sutter National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1968 by the California Fish and Game Commission and is located in the northern portion of the bypass, between the Tisdale Weir on the south and McClatchy Road on the north, approximately 5 miles in length. Tisdale Weir is located to the south of the site, a west-east flowing conveyance that also transmits flow from the Sacramento River to the Sutter Bypass. The Sutter Bypass West Levee, adjacent to the wildlife refuge, is maintained by Reclamation District 1660.

Site Condition The bypass is approximately 4,000 feet wide. It was constructed by United States Army Corps of Engineers in the early 1930s across existing farmlands and is contained by earthen levees. The levees were constructed by borrowing soil in long excavations that parallel the toe of the levees.

Weir 1 is located at the southern end of one of these long borrow excavations. A review of Google Earth imagery and other available online aerial imagery shows the delineation of the remnant and current field boundaries inside and outside of the bypass, depicted in Figure 1. Farms in this region have been active for several generations and likely follow surveyed section lines dividing each township into 36 sections that are each 1-mile square, with farms broken into full, half or quarter sections. Therefore, other than excavation of the levee borrow area, the area within the bypass is relatively unchanged.

The available aerial photographs and review of historical topographic maps indicate that the levee west borrow area is approximately 150 feet wide and started (or stopped) at the location of Weir 1, leaving a narrow width (estimated to have once been 50 to 60 feet wide) of native material, likely maintained as farm access from the east to west side of the bypass. The borrow excavation then continued south of this crossing. The borrow cuts were likely made by drag line excavation methods.

Aerial photographs from 2014/2015 show drought low water levels exposing shallow borrow excavation along the east side of the west borrow cut; therefore, the deeper excavation is limited to the western portion of the borrow cut.

Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Butte Creek - Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternative Analyses

Figure 1 – Current and former agricultural field boundaries

The west side of the west-east access was later abandoned, and a bridge is located where it crosses the east borrow excavation. The current weir and fish ladder was constructed through the embankment located towards the bypass west bank and an overflow cut weir section (cut weir) excavated to the east of the weir. A small portion of the former remnant embankment is located between the cut weir and the eastern edge of the borrow area. The cut weir appears to have progressed upstream over the years due to backward erosion.

Levee Past Performance and Evaluation A review of available documentation provided little information about the west levee performance. In 1997, the west levee breached north of the wildlife refuge and the levee at the intersection of the bypass and Tisdale Weir was cut to allow flood water to drain out of the Meridian Basin (within RD 1660). Prior historical floods in the region also occurred in 1940, 1955 and 1986. The 1955 flood affected levees located south of the Tisdale Weir but not the west levee adjacent to Weir 1.

The State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) included an assessment of the bypass levees as part of the Non-Urban Levee Evaluation (NULE) program, documented in a report entitled, “Geotechnical Assessment Report, North NULE Study Area” (URS, 2011). DWR also assessed the east bypass levee as part of the Urban Levee Evaluation (ULE) documented in separate report (URS 2014). For the NULE study no explorations were performed though they likely relied on the exploration program of the east bypass levee and assessed the hazard level for the west levees based on projected performance from the east levee evaluations. The study ranked the flood hazard for each levee using a four-letter Hazard Classification as follows:

• Hazard Level A. When water reaches the assessment WSE, there is a low likelihood of either levee failure or the need to flood-fight to prevent levee failure.

• Hazard Level B. When water reaches the assessment WSE, there is a moderate likelihood of either levee failure or the need to flood-fight to prevent levee failure.

• Hazard Level C. When water reaches the assessment WSE, there is a high likelihood of either levee failure or the need to flood-fight to prevent levee failure.

• Lacking Sufficient Data (Category LD). The segment is currently lacking sufficient data regarding levee past performance or hazard indicators to be able to assign a hazard level, or there is poor correlation between past performance and hazard indicators.

Weir 1 will be inundated during large flood flows in the bypass. However, the assigned hazard level from the NULE study provides insight into the subsurface conditions. Also, the hazard levels look at the entire levee reach as a whole and not any specific location and, therefore, may not be representative of all portions of the levee. The west levee is classified as a Hazard Level C by DWR due to under seepage (ranked the highest hazard risk), stability (ranked the second highest hazard) and erosion (ranked the lowest hazard risk). The overall rank is based on the highest hazard level found for the levee reach. It should be noted that the west levee reach includes the 1997 breach that occurred due to under and through seepage. No other areas of the west levee within the wildlife refuge were noted as having past distress in the available records reviewed in this study.

Surface Geology and Near Surface Conditions DWR performed a detail mapping of the surface geology for each levee area assessed. The mapping is based on a review of aerial photography from 1937. A portion of this map is reproduced as Figure 2. The approximate weir location can be determined based on the agricultural field boundaries shown in in Figure 1.

The near surface geology in the Sutter Bypass area is generally characterized as follows:

• Fine-grained Holocene basin and/alluvium deposits overlie coarser late Pleistocene deposits of the Modesto and Riverbank formations.

• Typically, a well-developed soil with impervious horizons (hardpan) is found at the top of the late Pleistocene deposits, the basin and/or alluvium deposits from the underlying coarser deposits.

• Fine-grained basin and/or alluvium deposits and the hardpan generally have much lower hydraulic conductivity than the underlying late Pleistocene deposits.

More recent Holocene aged and historical channel deposits (map units Hch and Rch) are incised into the basin deposits. These southwest-trending alluvial channel deposits locally underlie the bypass levee and result in local differences in material textures beneath the levee. The mapped channels are about 250 feet wide. In this area, the channels are estimated to be about 6 to 8 feet deep, and are typically filled with sand, silt, and clay in a fining-upward sequence, i.e., coarser-grained and overlain by about 1 to 2 feet of silt and clay. This sedimentary sequence may be conducive to seepage where relatively more-permeable channel sands are overlain by a relatively thin, fine-grained blanket layer (Source URS 2014).

A review of Figure 2 suggests that the incised channel deposits were not mapped beneath the west levee and may be a factor in the lack of notable levee performance issues in this immediate area.

Figure 2 – Surface geology, excerpt (URS 2011), weir location approximate, no scale

The DWR-sponsored geotechnical investigations for the bypass east levee indicate that there is a fine-grained lower permeability blanket layer overlying coarser late Pleistocene deposits. Due to their age, layers of very hard soil, or hard pan, can develop and were identified in the east levee exploration performed within this reach of the bypass. The borrow excavations would have extended through the hardpan layers.

After performing a review of available area photography and the available information from prior studies, the following can be concluded regarding current site conditions:

• The central portion of the wildlife refuge is substantially unchanged from the original farming section and subsection boundaries.

• Weir 1 is constructed on an access road remnant that extended across the refuge, and the access is still in use (bridge) at the east levee borrow area.

• The southern limit of east dragline borrow cut is deepest parallel to the levee with a shallower, variable width bench to the east exposed in 2014/2015.

• Near vertical borrow cut slopes are still in place along both the east and west cut banks.

• The weir head cut section may be formed along the top of the hardpan layer (approx. Elev.

+27 feet) with the weir extending into the underlying stiff to hard clay and silt.

Weir 1

Proposed Weir Alternatives The project has evaluated several weir replacement alternatives consisting of:

• Alternative A - Weir Removal

• Alternative B - Roughened Channel

• Alternative C - Partial Weir Removal with Rock Ramp

• Alternative D - Operable Weir and Fish Ladder

For this assessment, only two alternatives were considered (Alternatives B and C) as presented in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Alternatives B and C (Source ESA, 2023)

HDR developed the following geotechnical conclusions considering the above information.

Alternative B: Roughened Channel Pro

• Removes remnant barrier and weir.

• Provides continuity for flow.

• Does not impact west side of borrow cut along toe of levee with placement of erosion protection.

• Uniform surface elevation will not create a potentially adverse seepage condition along the channel.

• Fill thickness is limited.

• Foundation primarily in cut limiting requirements for surface preparation.

Con

• More excavation and material disposal required including completely removing weir.

• Site access will need to be created to access bottom of newly deepened channel.

• May result in lower water surface in dry years allowing flow from fields behind levee towards and into the channel.

• Will require cofferdams to divert water to unwater channel.

• Deep excavation can be more challenging from top of existing bank.

• May need to be checked for design flood event flows for levee scour impacts from change in channel flow characteristics.

Alternative C: Rock Ramp Pro

• Encapsulated the existing weir – limited removal.

• Provides a more similar to existing flow conditions.

• Provides for continuity of flow.

• Less impact to western borrow area slope.

• Construction access can be incorporated in the fill areas.

• Construction could be sequenced from west to east from top of bank.

Con

• Need to divert water to construct.

• Dewatering will be required to place fill.

• Fill downstream of weir will need to be designed to prevent internal erosion from hyporheic flows.

• Import fill required.

• Foundation conditions are unknown for placement of fill.

Limitations This study was performed reviewing limited geotechnical and site performance data to support the alternative analysis phase of the Butte Creek – Sutter Bypass Weir 1 Feasibility Study and Alternative Analysis project to support ESA by providing geotechnical input for consideration for two of the proposed alternatives to modify Weir 1. An assessment has not been provided regarding the future performance of Weir 1 due to either low or high flows within the bypass. Subsurface conditions are inferred from past documentation of performance, nearby geotechnical investigations and assessment by the State of California using professional engineering judgment. A subsurface investigation has not been performed as part of this study and conditions may vary from those discussed in the memorandum.

This study has not been performed to appropriate detail to support design of any of the alternatives and site-specific geotechnical investigation would need to be performed to support further design of any of the alternatives, and consultation with appropriate federal, state, and local interests will be required to develop and execute the investigation program. This study should not be relied upon for determination of levee performance as it relies on the level of study performed by the State of California for its assessment. Future studies on weir modification could be required to address impacts to levee stability following established processes and procedures for levee evaluation established by state and federal agencies.

References ESA (2023) Presentation Slides for the Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2, September 19

URS (2011) Geotechnical Assessment Report, North NULE Study Area, Volumes 1 and 3, Non- Urban Leve Evaluation Project, performed for the State of California Department of Water Resources, April

URS (2014) Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Volume 1, Existing Conditions, Sutter Bypass- Wadsworth Canal Study Area, Urban Levee Design Evaluation Project, June 16

Appendix C Engineering Drawings

0+00.001+00.002+00.003+00.004+00.005+00.00 0+50.001+50.002+50.003+50.004+50.00

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+001+002+003+004+005+00

EXISTING GRADE, TYP

WWW.ESASSOC.COM

2600 CAPITOL AVENUE

SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CA 95816

OFFICE - 916.564.4500

STAMP

CONSULTANT

PHASE

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET OF

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

# DATE DESCRIPTION

SCALE IS AS SHOWN WHEN

PLOTTED TO FULL SIZE (22"x34")

10% DESIGN

DOCUMENTATION

MM/DD/YY

D202001164.00

DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

IN CHARGE

U

SF

W S

W

EI

R

FI

SH

P

AS

SA

G

E R

ES

TO

R

AT

IO

N

P R

O

JE

C T

ALTERNATIVE 0 - NO ACTION

PLAN 1" = 40'

(E) WEIR NO. 1

(E) FISH LADDER (CDFW)

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

ALTERNATIVE 0 - NO ACTION

PROFILE NOT TO SCALE

(E) HEADCUT: FLANKING WEIR & FISH LADDER STRUCTURE

A

FI

LE

: P :\0

C

AD

\2

0x xx xx

\D

4.

U

SF

W

S W ei r 1

F is h Pa ss ag e Pr oj ec t\D W

G \1

A

LT

ER

N

AT

IV

E

- N O

A C

TI

O

N .d w g

PL

O

T D

AT

E:

/2

3/

:5 4:

P

M P

LO

TT

ED

B

Y:

B

R

EN

T D

AV

IS

ALTERNATIVE 0 - NO

ACTION

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

FLOW

WEST BORROW CANAL

N

ACCESS ROADSUTTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE BOUNDARY

1. EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS (ESA

2023; USFWS 2020) AND LIDAR SURVEYS (QUANTUM SPATIAL 2021; DWR CVFED 2010).

NOTES

http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/

0+001+002+003+004+005+00

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+001+002+003+004+005+00

0%

CUT

DESIGN GRADE

EXISTING GRADE

NATIVE

BACKFILL

WWW.ESASSOC.COM

2600 CAPITOL AVENUE

SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CA 95816

OFFICE - 916.564.4500

STAMP

CONSULTANT

PHASE

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET OF

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

# DATE DESCRIPTION

SCALE IS AS SHOWN WHEN

PLOTTED TO FULL SIZE (22"x34")

10% DESIGN

DOCUMENTATION

MM/DD/YY

D202001164.00

DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

IN CHARGE

U

SF

W S

W

EI

R

FI

SH

P

AS

SA

G

E R

ES

TO

R

AT

IO

N

P R

O

JE

C T

ALTERNATIVE A - WEIR REMOVAL

PLAN 1" = 40'

FLOW

WEST BORROW CANAL

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

ALTERNATIVE A - WEIR REMOVAL

PROFILE NOT TO SCALE

A

CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE,

3:1 MIN SLOPE

FI

LE

: P :\0

C

AD

\2

0x xx xx

\D

4.

U

SF

W

S W ei r 1

F is h Pa ss ag e Pr oj ec t\D W

G \2

A

LT

ER

N

AT

IV

E A

- W

EI

R R

EM

O

VA

L.

dw g

PL

O

T D

AT

E:

/2

3/

:5 6:

P

M P

LO

TT

ED

B

Y:

B

R

EN

T D

AV

IS

ALTERNATIVE A -

WEIR REMOVAL

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

N

REMOVE (E) WEIR &

FISH LADDER

GRADING LIMIT, TYP

ACCESS ROADSUTTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE BOUNDARY

1. EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS (ESA

2023; USFWS 2020) AND LIDAR SURVEYS (QUANTUM SPATIAL 2021; DWR CVFED 2010).

NOTES

http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/

0+001+002+003+004+005+00

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+001+002+003+004+005+00

1%

CREST SPACING TBD CUTCREST, TYP DESIGN GRADEEXISTING GRADE

UPSTREAM KEY

NATIVE

BACKFILL

COMPACTED FILL

WWW.ESASSOC.COM

2600 CAPITOL AVENUE

SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CA 95816

OFFICE - 916.564.4500

STAMP

CONSULTANT

PHASE

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET OF

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

# DATE DESCRIPTION

SCALE IS AS SHOWN WHEN

PLOTTED TO FULL SIZE (22"x34")

10% DESIGN

DOCUMENTATION

MM/DD/YY

D202001164.00

DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

IN CHARGE

U

SF

W S

W

EI

R

FI

SH

P

AS

SA

G

E R

ES

TO

R

AT

IO

N

P R

O

JE

C T

ALTERNATIVE B - ROUGHENED CHANNEL

PLAN 1" = 40'

FLOW

WEST BORROW

CANAL

REMOVE (E) WEIR &

FISH LADDER

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

ALTERNATIVE B - ROUGHENED CHANNEL

PROFILE NOT TO SCALE

A

CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE,

3:1 MIN SLOPE

FI

LE

: P :\0

C

AD

\2

0x xx xx

\D

4.

U

SF

W

S W ei r 1

F is h Pa ss ag e Pr oj ec t\D W

G \3

A

LT

ER

N

AT

IV

E B

- R O

U G

H

EN

ED

C

H

AN

N

EL

.d w g

PL

O T

D

AT

E:

/2 3/

:5

7:

P M

P

LO

TT

ED

B Y:

B R

EN

T

D

AV

IS

ALTERNATIVE B -

ROUGHENED

CHANNEL

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

VARIABLE BASE

FLOW CHANNEL

AND THALWEG

DISSIPATION POOL, TYP

ROCK CREST AND CUTOFF, TYP

SPACING AND LAYOUT TBD

RESTING POOL, TYP

N

ROUGHENED CHANNEL, TYP

GRADING LIMIT, TYP

ACCESS ROADSUTTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE BOUNDARY

1. EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS (ESA

2023; USFWS 2020) AND LIDAR SURVEYS (QUANTUM SPATIAL 2021; DWR CVFED 2010).

NOTES

http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/

0+001+002+003+00

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+001+002+003+00

2%

CREST SPACING TBDCREST, TYP DESIGN

GRADE

EXISTING

GRADE

PARTIALLY

REMOVE WEIR

STRUCTURE KEY

RAMP AND WEIR

SEAL CONNECTION

COMPACTED FILL

EXISTING WEIR,

APPROX.

NATIVE

BACKFILL 1

WWW.ESASSOC.COM

2600 CAPITOL AVENUE

SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CA 95816

OFFICE - 916.564.4500

STAMP

CONSULTANT

PHASE

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET OF

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

# DATE DESCRIPTION

SCALE IS AS SHOWN WHEN

PLOTTED TO FULL SIZE (22"x34")

10% DESIGN

DOCUMENTATION

MM/DD/YY

D202001164.00

DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

IN CHARGE

U

SF

W S

W

EI

R

FI

SH

P

AS

SA

G

E R

ES

TO

R

AT

IO

N

P R

O

JE

C T

ALTERNATIVE C - PARTIAL WEIR REMOVAL WITH ROCK RAMP

PLAN 1" = 40'

PARTIAL REMOVAL OF (E) WEIR

& COMPLETE REMOVAL OF (E) FISH LADDER

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

ALTERNATIVE C - PARTIAL WEIR REMOVAL WITH ROCK RAMP

PROFILE NOT TO SCALE

A

CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE,

3:1 MIN SLOPE

INTEGRATE ROCK

RAMP WITH WEIR

FI

LE

: P :\0

C

AD

\2

0x xx xx

\D

4.

U

SF

W

S W ei r 1

F is h Pa ss ag e Pr oj ec t\D W

G \4

A

LT

ER

N

AT

IV

E C

PA

R

TI

AL

W

EI

R

R

EM

O

VA

L

- R

O C

K R

AM

P v2 .d w g

PL

O

T D

AT

E:

/2

3/

:5 9:

P

M P

LO

TT

ED

B

Y:

B

R

EN

T D

AV

IS

4 ALTERNATIVE C -

PARTIAL WEIR

REMOVAL - ROCK

RAMP

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

CONFORM TO

EXISTING RIFFLE

VARIABLE BASE

FLOW CHANNEL

AND THALWEG

DISSIPATION POOL, TYP

RESTING POOL, TYP

N

FLOW

WEST BORROW CANAL

GRADING LIMIT, TYP

ACCESS ROAD

SUTTER NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE BOUNDARY

ROCK CREST AND CUTOFF, TYP

SPACING AND LAYOUT TBD

1. EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS (ESA

2023; USFWS 2020) AND LIDAR SURVEYS (QUANTUM SPATIAL 2021; DWR CVFED 2010).

NOTES

http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/

0+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+00

B

ISSUE DESCRIPTION

0 1" 2" FILENAME

SCALE

SHEET

DATE

C

D

A

1 3 4 5 6 7 8

DESIGN BY

DESIGN BY

CHECKED BY

DRAWN BY

PLOT DATE

BUTTE CREEK

SUTTER BYPASS WEIR 1

ALTERNATIVE D

PLAN AND PROFILE

4.1 4.01

AS NOTED

T. MALONE

M. GARELLO

A. BLAKE

November 8, 2023- - -

PLAN

SCALE: 1" = 20'

PROFILE

HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1" = 20' VERTICAL SCALE: 1" = 4'

UTILITY, ELECTRICAL,

COMPRESSOR BUILDING

VORTEX POOL AND

CHUTE FISH LADDER

W/ DUAL ORIFICE

ADJUSTABLE CREST WEIR

(OBERMEYER OR EQUAL)

ROCK APRON

RSP

REMOVE EXISTING

CONCRETE LADDER

OPTIONAL

SPLIT-LEVEL

SLUICEWAY

WEST BORROW CANAL FLOW

FLOW

ENGINEERED

STREAMBED

MATERIAL

ROCK APRON

LADDER BEYOND

ADJUSTABLE

CREST WEIR

EXISTING GRADE

WEST BORROW CANAL FLOW

2+

1+

0+

3+

4+

VP

I 0

+5

EL

4.

ABUTMENT WALL

ABUTMENT WALL AIR SUPPLY AND

RELIEF LINES

FLOATING

DEBRIS BOOM

25 YR

NORMAL OPERATIONAL

WATER SURFACE ELEVATION

SHEET PILE

SEEPAGE WALL

(DEPT TBD)

PILE SUPPORTED

FOUNDATION

'-0

150' +/-

REMOVE EXISTING

CONCRETE WEIR

'-0

ENGINEERED

STREAMBED

MATERIAL

COMPACTED FILL

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+00 1+00 2+00 2+38

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+00 1+00 2+00 2+38

3 MIN

3 MIN

5 MIN

5 MIN

VEGETATED

ROCK SLOPE ROUGHENED CHANNEL VEGETATED

ROCK SLOPE

BASE FLOW CHANNEL

EXISTING BERM &

ACCESS ROAD

HEADCUT WEIR 1 FISH LADDER

(CDFW)

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

LEVEE BANK

GRADE CHANNEL BANKS TO CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

LEVEE BANK

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+00 1+00 2+00 2+38

EL

EV

AT

IO

N

STATION

0+00 1+00 2+00 2+38

3 MIN

3 MIN

3 MIN

3 MIN

VEGETATED

ROCK SLOPE

VEGETATED

ROCK SLOPE

CUT, TYP

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

LEVEE BANK

GRADE CHANNEL BANKS TO

CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE

LEVEE MAINTENANCE ROAD

LEVEE BANK

GRADE CHANNEL BANKS TO

CONFORM TO EXISTING GRADE

EXISTING WEIR

CREST,

APPROX.

WWW.ESASSOC.COM

2600 CAPITOL AVENUE

SUITE 200

SACRAMENTO, CA 95816

OFFICE - 916.564.4500

STAMP

CONSULTANT

PHASE

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER

ISSUE DATE

PROJECT NUMBER

REVISIONS

SHEET OF

PRELIMINARY

NOT FOR

CONSTRUCTION

PR

O

JE

C

T N

AM

E

# DATE DESCRIPTION

SCALE IS AS SHOWN WHEN

PLOTTED TO FULL SIZE (22"x34")

10% DESIGN

DOCUMENTATION

MM/DD/YY

D202001164.00

DESIGNED

DRAWN

CHECKED

IN CHARGE

U

SF

W S

W

EI

R

FI

SH

P

AS

SA

G

E R

ES

TO

R

AT

IO

N

P R

O

JE

C T

A

ALTERNATIVE B - ROUGHENED CHANNEL

SECTION NOT TO SCALE

A

ALTERNATIVE 0 - NO ACTION

SECTION NOT TO SCALE

FI

LE

: P :\0

C

AD

\2

0x xx xx

\D

4.

U

SF

W

S W ei r 1

F is h Pa ss ag e Pr oj ec t\D W

G \6

S

EC

TI

O

N S.

dw g

PL

O

T D

AT

E:

/2

3/

:0 0:

P

M P

LO

TT

ED

B

Y:

B

R

EN

T D

AV

IS

SECTIONS

XXX

XXX

XXX

XXX

A

ALTERNATIVE C - PARTIAL WEIR REMOVAL WITH RAMP

SECTION NOT TO SCALE

A

ALTERNATIVE A - WEIR REMOVAL

SECTION NOT TO SCALE

1. EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON TOPOGRAPHIC AND BATHYMETRIC SURVEYS (ESA

2023; USFWS 2020) AND LIDAR SURVEYS (QUANTUM SPATIAL 2021; DWR CVFED 2010).

NOTES

http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/ http://www.esassoc.com/

Appendix D Preliminary Opinions of Probable Construction Costs

BID ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT COST AMOUNT TOTAL

SITE WORK AND DEMO $245,720.00

1 SITE SURVEYING 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

2 TESC MEASURES 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

3 ACCESS AND STAGING AREA 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

4 STREAM DIVERSION AND CONSTRUCTION ISOLATION 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00

5 EXISTING FISH LADDER AND WEIR DEMO 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00

6 CONCRETE DISPOSAL 106 CY $ 120.00 $ 12,720.00

7 FINISH GRADING 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00

8 SITE CLEAN-UP 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

9 PLANTING 1 ACRE $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

IN-CHANNEL WORK $365,010.00

10 EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2,329 CY $ 30.00 $ 69,870.00

11 ENGINEERED STREAMBED GRADING 1,495 CY $ 180.00 $ 269,100.00

12 INFILL SEDIMENT 186 CY $ 140.00 $ 26,040.00

SUBTOTAL 611,000$

MOBILIZATION (5%) 30,550$

GENERAL CONDITIONS (10%) 61,100$

BOND (2%) 12,220$

GENERAL CONTRACTORS OH AND PROFIT (15%) 91,650$

SUBTOTAL 806,520$

TAXES (9%) 73,000$

879,520$

440,000$

1,320,000$

40,000$

1,360,000$

163,000$

14,000$

54,000$

68,000$

54,000$

1,713,000$

TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY

ALTERNATIVE A

USFWS WEIR 1 FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION PROJECT

PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

UNDEFINED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ITEMS (50%)

ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION (4%)

TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS

MARKET VOLATILITY ADJUSMENT FACTOR (3%)

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

DESIGN SERVICES (12%)

TESTING, MATERIAL AND GENERAL (1%)

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (4%)

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES (5%)

SITE WORK AND DEMO $258,720.00

1 SITE SURVEYING 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

2 TESC MEASURES 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

3 ACCESS AND STAGING AREA 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

4 STREAM DIVERSION AND CONSTRUCTION ISOLATION 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

5 EXISTING FISH LADDER AND WEIR DEMO 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00

6 CONCRETE DISPOSAL 106 CY $ 120.00 $ 12,720.00

7 FINISH GRADING 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

8 SITE CLEAN-UP 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

9 PLANTING 1 ACRE $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

IN-CHANNEL WORK $962,550.00

10 EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 6,376 CY $ 30.00 $ 191,280.00

11 12"-24" BOULDERS 523 CY $ 190.00 $ 99,370.00

12 24"-36" BOULDERS 523 CY $ 200.00 $ 104,600.00

13 ENGINEERED STREAMBED GRADING 2,176 CY $ 180.00 $ 391,680.00

14 ROCK FILTER LAYER 1,269 CY $ 100.00 $ 126,900.00

14 INFILL SEDIMENT 348 CY $ 140.00 $ 48,720.00

SUBTOTAL 1,221,000$

MOBILIZATION (5%) 61,050$

GENERAL CONDITIONS (10%) 122,100$

BOND (2%) 24,420$

GENERAL CONTRACTORS OH AND PROFIT (15%) 183,150$

SUBTOTAL 1,611,720$

TAXES (9%) 145,000$

1,756,720$

878,000$

2,640,000$

79,000$

2,719,000$

326,000$

27,000$

109,000$

136,000$

109,000$

3,426,000$

TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY

ALTERNATIVE B

USFWS WEIR 1 FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION PROJECT

PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

UNDEFINED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ITEMS (50%)

ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION (4%)

TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS

MARKET VOLATILITY ADJUSMENT FACTOR (3%)

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

DESIGN SERVICES (12%)

TESTING, MATERIAL AND GENERAL (1%)

SITE WORK AND DEMO $217,580.00

1 SITE SURVEYING 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

2 TESC MEASURES 1 LS $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

3 ACCESS AND STAGING AREA 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

4 STREAM DIVERSION AND CONSTRUCTION ISOLATION 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

5 EXISTING FISH LADDER AND PARTIAL WEIR DEMO 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00

6 CONCRETE DISPOSAL 97 CY $ 120.00 $ 11,580.00

7 FINISH GRADING 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

8 SITE CLEAN-UP 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

9 PLANTING 1 ACRE $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

IN-CHANNEL WORK $1,164,920.00

10 RAMP AND WEIR SEAL CONNECTION 210 CY $ 500.00 $ 105,000.00

11 EXCAVATION 2,325 CY $ 20.00 $ 46,500.00

12 COMPACTED BACKFILL (IMPORT) 4,213 CY $ 60.00 $ 252,780.00

13 12"-24" BOULDERS 360 CY $ 190.00 $ 68,400.00

14 24"-36" BOULDERS 360 CY $ 200.00 $ 72,000.00

15 ENGINEERED STREAMBED GRADING 2,425 CY $ 180.00 $ 436,500.00

16 ROCK FILTER LAYER 1,339 CY $ 100.00 $ 133,900.00

17 INFILL SEDIMENT 356 CY $ 140.00 $ 49,840.00

SUBTOTAL 1,383,000$

MOBILIZATION (5%) 69,150$

GENERAL CONDITIONS (10%) 138,300$

BOND (2%) 27,660$

GENERAL CONTRACTORS OH AND PROFIT (15%) 207,450$

SUBTOTAL 1,825,560$

TAXES (9%) 164,000$

1,989,560$

995,000$

2,990,000$

90,000$

3,080,000$

370,000$

31,000$

123,000$

154,000$

123,000$

3,881,000$

TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY

ALTERNATIVE C

USFWS WEIR 1 FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION PROJECT

PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

UNDEFINED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ITEMS (50%)

ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION (4%)

TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS

MARKET VOLATILITY ADJUSMENT FACTOR (3%)

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

DESIGN SERVICES (12%)

TESTING, MATERIAL AND GENERAL (1%)

SITE WORK AND DEMO $258,720.00

1 SITE SURVEYING 1 LS $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00

2 ACCESS AND STAGING AREA 1 LS $ 10,000.00 $ 10,000.00

3 STREAM DIVERSION AND CONSTRUCTION ISOLATION 1 LS $ 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00

4 EXISTING FISH LADDER AND WEIR DEMO 1 LS $ 100,000.00 $ 100,000.00

5 CONCRETE DISPOSAL 106 CY $ 120.00 $ 12,720.00

6 FINISH GRADING 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

7 SITE CLEAN-UP 1 LS $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00

8 PLANTING 1 ACRE $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00

IN-CHANNEL WORK $1,061,260.00

FLOATING DEBRIS GUIDANCE BOOM AND ANCHORAGE 1 LS $ 250,000.00 $ 250,000.00

3 EXCAVATION INCL. HAUL 2,121 CY $ 30.00 $ 63,630.00

4 COMPACTED BACKFILL 1,297 CY $ 50.00 $ 64,850.00

5 24"-36" BOULDERS 771 CY $ 200.00 $ 154,200.00

6 ENGINEERED STREAMBED GRADING 2,333 CY $ 180.00 $ 419,940.00

7 INFILL SEDIMENT 776 CY $ 140.00 $ 108,640.00

WEIR AND FISHWAY $2,410,000.00

8 OBERMEYER WEIR 1 LS $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00

9 CONCRETE WEIR FOUNDATION 450 CY $ 800.00 $ 360,000.00

PILE FOUNDATION (LIQUIFACTION) DEPTH TBD 1 LS $ 200,000.00 $ 200,000.00

SEEPAGE CUTOFF WALL (SHEET PILE) DEPTH TBD 153,000 LB $ 5.00 $ 765,000.00

10 VORTEX POOL AND CHUTE FISH LADDER W/ DUAL ORIFICE 700 CY $ 800.00 $ 560,000.00

11 SLUICEWAY GATE 1 LS $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00

BUILDING $30,000.00

12 UTILITY ELECTRICAL COMPRESSOR BUILDING 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00

ELECTRICAL SYSTEM $80,000.00

13 ELECTRICAL UTILITY SERVICE DISTRIBUTION 600 LF $ 50.00 $ 30,000.00

14 ELECTRICAL UTILITY SERVICE 1 LS $ 50,000.00 $ 50,000.00

INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS $130,000.00

15 CONTROL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT PANELS AND RACKS 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00

16 PLC AND SCADA PROGRAMMING 1 LS $ 70,000.00 $ 70,000.00

17 INSTRUMENTATION 1 LS $ 30,000.00 $ 30,000.00

SUBTOTAL 3,970,000$

MOBILIZATION (5%) 198,500$

GENERAL CONDITIONS (10%) 397,000$

BOND (2%) 79,400$

GENERAL CONTRACTORS OH AND PROFIT (15%) 595,500$

SUBTOTAL 5,240,400$

TAXES (9%) 472,000$

5,712,400$

2,856,000$

8,570,000$

257,000$

8,827,000$

1,059,000$

88,000$

353,000$

441,000$

353,000$

11,121,000$

UNDEFINED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ITEMS (50%)

TOTAL WITH CONTINGENCY

MARKET VOLATILITY ADJUSMENT FACTOR (3%)

ALTERNATIVE D

USFWS WEIR 1 FISH PASSAGE RESTORATION PROJECT

PRELIMINARY OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TOTAL BASE CONSTRUCTION COSTS

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS

DESIGN SERVICES (12%)

TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS

TESTING, MATERIAL AND GENERAL (1%)

CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES (4%)

ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION (4%)