Final Performance Report - sawpa.org · Site Project Control4 Project Control Project Control...

Project: Santa Ana Sucker

Habitat Protection & Beneficial

Use Enhancement Project

Project Proponent: Santa Ana

Watershed Project Authority

Report Prepared For: U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

Final Performance

Report

www.sawpa.org | July 2019

Santa Ana Sucker Habitat Protection and Beneficial Use Enhancement Project

1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Funding Agreement: F15AC00763

Funding Agreement Award Total: $37,000

Project Proponent: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA)

Project Name: Santa Ana Sucker Habitat Protection and Beneficial Use Enhancement Project

Contact: SAWPA Senior Watershed Manager Ian Achimore, [email protected]; (951) 354-4233

Cover Photo: Taken October 15, 2018 from the Van Buren Boulevard Bridge after project construction.

Thanks: To project-partner Orange County Water District for providing guidance and technical

assistance related to the planning and biological monitoring of the project.

mailto:[email protected]


2

Table of Contents Overview of Project Proponent .................................................................................................................... 4

Overview of Project Objectives and Design .................................................................................................. 5

Overview of Project Construction ................................................................................................................. 7

Project Completion and Habitat Features .................................................................................................... 8

Project Monitoring ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Low-Flow Channel Invert Elevation ........................................................................................................ 10

Sediment Transport Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 11

Substrate Data ........................................................................................................................................ 15

Water Quality Data ................................................................................................................................. 17

Fish Population Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 17

Lessons Learned from Project ..................................................................................................................... 18

Mutual Benefits from Project ..................................................................................................................... 20

Tables

Table 1: Habitat Structure Design Alternatives ............................................................................................ 5

Table 2: Timeline of Construction Activities ................................................................................................. 8

Table 3: Streamflow Monitoring Results .................................................................................................... 11

Table 4: Gradations Plotted in Figures 8 and 9 ........................................................................................... 12

Table 5: Substrate Monitoring Results........................................................................................................ 16

Table 6: Water Quality Sampling ................................................................................................................ 17

Table 7: Fish Monitoring Results ................................................................................................................. 18

Figures

Figure 1: Rendering of Partially Submerged Groin ....................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: Project Map .................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 3: Project Construction with Protective Berm ................................................................................... 8

Figure 4: Habitat Structure Features ............................................................................................................ 9

Figure 5: Monitoring Points ........................................................................................................................ 10

Figure 6: Low-Flow Channel Invert Elevation Change ................................................................................ 11

Figure 7: Scheevel Engineering Sampling Along Transect Width................................................................ 12

Figure 8: Bed Load Particle Size at Project Site Right Bank......................................................................... 13

Figure 9: Bed Load Particle Size at Control Site Right Bank ........................................................................ 13

Figure 10: Percent of Total Bed Load Traveling Along Right Bank .............................................................. 14

Figure 11: Streamflow at the MWD Crossing Gaging Station ..................................................................... 15

Figure 12: Percent Sand .............................................................................................................................. 16


3

Attachments

Attachment A: Detailed Summary of Streamflow Variables Attachment B: Detailed Summary of Gradation Measurements Attachment C: Field Monitoring Datasheets Attachment D: Final Project Plan Drawings Attachment E: Pre and Post-Project Photos


4

Overview of Project Proponent

The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) is a Joint Powers Authority, classified as a Special

District (a non-federal governmental sub-entity of the State of California) and located in Riverside,

California. SAWPA has five member agencies: Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Inland Empire

Utilities Agency (IEUA), Orange County Water District (OCWD), San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water

District (SBVMWD), and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). SAWPA’s mission is to develop and

maintain regional plans, programs, and projects that will protect the Santa Ana River Watershed to

maximize beneficial uses in an economically and environmentally responsible manner. SAWPA staff

serves at the direction of the SAWPA Commission which is composed of one representative from each of

its five member agencies, all of which have statutory authority over water supply and water

management in their service areas.

SAWPA administers the Santa Ana Sucker Conservation Team (Team)1, an

inter-agency task force that reflects the involvement and participation of

over 20 agencies and non-profit organizations throughout the Santa Ana

River Watershed. Started in 1998, the Team’s purpose is to determine the

reasons for the decline of the Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae)

in the Santa Ana River Watershed and devise strategies for its recovery.

In 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Santa Ana

sucker as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. The fish is a small short-lived member of the

of the sucker family, Catostomidae, and is one of only a few native freshwater fish species currently

extant in southern California. The species is named suckers primarily because of the downward

orientation and anatomy of their mouth parts, which allow them to suck up algae, small invertebrates,

and other organic matter with their fleshy and protrusible lips.2 Per the USFWS’s Santa Ana Sucker

Recovery Plan, the primary threat to the species is habitat loss, degradation, and modification through

hydrological modifications range-wide.

SAWPA and the Team were able to complete the Santa Ana Sucker Habitat Protection and Beneficial Use

Enhancement Project (Project) with the active involvement from staff from the following partners:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),

• OCWD,

• SBVMWD,

• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board,

• Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District, and

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

1 Team members contributing funding include the City of Riverside, OCWD, SBVMWD and the other three SAWPA member agencies. 2 Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California: Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.


5

Overview of Project Objectives and Design

The purpose of the project is to enhance Santa Ana sucker and other native fish habitat in the

Santa Ana River by creating localized erosion to expose existing gravel beds and cobbles - the

preferred habitat of the sucker. With funding provided by several sources, including the USFWS

Cooperative Funding Agreement, SAWPA worked with the partners to develop a feasibility

study (study) that included conceptual designs for habitat structures and cost/benefit analyses

of each concept. The study, completed by SAWPA consultant Scheevel Engineering in October

2017, presented six design alternatives shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Habitat Structure Design Alternatives

Habitat Structure Description Construction Cost Estimate

#1 Partially Submerged Groin

Rock groin protruding from river bank into active low flow channel. Groin tapper from high at bank edge to subsurface in channel

$136,600

#2 Open Water Runner

A structure in or near the center of the low flow channel with longitudinal edges and an upstream flow collector

$157,600

#3 Elevated Invert A riverbank structure within an existing deep pool area with bed load exclusion capabilities

$167,900

#4 Invert Cross Runner

Relatively narrow rock structure placed across the width of a channel section, at an elevation slightly above the existing river channel invert

$214,500

#5 Boulder Array Lager boulders (> 4’) placed within the low flow channel along with placement of smaller boulders & cobbles in high velocity areas

Not Evaluated

#6 Constricted Channel

Improvements to both riverbanks and the channel invert to construct a durable river section with defined hydraulic and sediment transport properties

Not Evaluated

SAWPA and its project partners chose option #1, the partially submerged groin, because its

costs are within the available budget, it is comparatively easier to construct, the project site’s

physical conditions are conducive to the design, and the structure is more durable in high flows

than some of the alternatives. The partially submerged groin includes the following features:

• A tapered groin to function in a range of water and substrate elevations,

• A large boulder at the end of the groin to split stream flows into two so they pass by each

side of downstream boulders, and

• A sub-surface base of rip rap 2 feet deep supporting the structure’s rocks and boulders to

help withstand flows up to 2,500 cubic feet per second (cfs).


6

The study includes specific information on the design such as the useful habitat area created

(500 square feet as shown in Figure 1), an analysis of the study area, construction

requirements, site access and mobilization, and equipment mix and operating hours.

Flow rates in the Santa Ana River at the MWD Crossing Stream Gage Station, which is 0.7 miles

upstream from the selected project site, generally range from 30 to 100 cfs during the non-

storm season. Flows exceeded 2,500 cfs 11 times over the 17 preceding years so the expected

useful life included in the study was 2-3 years. More heavily armored and permanent structures

were evaluated but were considered infeasible due to the available funding.

At the time of construction, the low-flow channel was in relatively the center of the river

channel. Google Earth aerial photographs show that the low-flow channel abutted the north

embankment of the River channel from the 1990s until November 2009 (the date of the last

Google Earth photographs that shows it at this location). After November 2009, it moved to its

present location at roughly the center of the River channel.

As shown in Figure 2, the selected project site is at 457033.1 E 3758191.3 N (UTM),

approximately 50 feet upstream from the Van Buren Boulevard Bridge along the right bank of

the Santa Ana River’s low-flow channel. The land is owned by the Riverside County Regional

Park and Open-Space District, a public agency that manages recreational and open-space

resources in Riverside County. The site was chosen due to the ease for heavy equipment to

access the river bottom and the elevation change of the riverbed in the area. At this location,

the bed has an increasing slope, between 0.2 and 0.8 percent, depending on the time of year

and aggradation/degradation cycles, from the upstream point of the work area downstream to

the bridge. The study explains that as the habitat structure scours sand, the slope helps move

Figure 1: Rendering of Partially Submerged Groin


7

Figure 2: Project Map

particles through the system instead of settling on the bed and covering the habitat structure.

In general, the bed material in the area is classified as medium sand. This portion of the river is

also important due this prevalence of this sand, which results in a lack of habitat complexity.

The Santa Ana River Habitat Survey, which has collected data annually from 2006 to 2018,

indicates that the primary substrate type downstream of the Market Street Bridge is sand.

Overview of Project Construction

SAWPA staff received approval from the SAWPA Commission May 15, 2018 to release a Notice

Inviting Bids that included a mandatory pre-bid meeting at the project site. On June 21, 2018

only one bid from AToM Engineering Construction Inc. of $198,398 was received, which is 67

percent over the engineering estimate of $118,571. On July 17, 2018, staff received approval

from the SAWPA Commission to reject the sole bid and construct the project internally.

Construction activities included clearing approximately 0.2 acres of riparian vegetation along

the right bank, grubbing the 0.1 mile-long access road and staging area along the river, creating

a two foot tall in-stream protective berm around the perimeter of the work area, delivering 120

cubic yards of rock to the site, removing 120 cubic yards of sand from the site per permit

In-Stream Work Area

N Access Road

Bridge


8

requirements, excavating 2 feet below the river bed, placing the rock with excavators and

completing the final grading of the staging area. A long reach excavator was used on October 15

to finish the project and place rock upstream of the groin.

Three general gradations of rock were used: 1) boulders generally 4 feet in diameter, 2) riprap

generally 2 feet in diameter, and 3) cobble generally 1 to 6 inches in diameter. The cost of

construction totaled to approximately $70,000.

Table 2: Timeline of Construction Activities

Dates (2018) Description

September 26 Trash and invasive species removal in Project area

October 3 – 4 Vegetation removal along access road and bank for heavy equipment

October 8 Grading of the access road to allow access of heavy equipment to the low-flow channel

October 9 – 10 Rock delivery to the Project staging area

October 10 – 12 Berm creation and placement of rock into protected area in the low-flow channel

October 12 - 15 Final rock placement and grading of the staging area

October 24 Replanting native vegetation (0.30 acre) adjacent to work area to mitigate project impacts

Project Completion and Habitat Features

Construction was completed on October 15 and the features of the habitat structure, shown in

Figure 4, included cobble aprons in the footprint of the instream work area, the partially

Figure 3: Project Construction with Protective Berm


9

submerged rock groin, and two clusters of boulders both upstream and downstream of the

groin.

Figure 4: Habitat Structure Features

Project Monitoring

The project site, as well as a control site approximately 0.25 miles upstream in the Santa Ana

River, were monitored before and after construction of the habitat structure in order to

determine the success of the project. The location of the control point is at 11 N 457424

3758312 (UTM). Monitoring of the following parameters were conducted by SAWPA, Scheevel

Engineering and OCWD:

a) Low-flow channel invert elevation,*

b) Streamflow,*

c) Bedload,*

d) Channel width,*

e) Maximum depth,*

f) Depth at banks,*

g) River substrate composition,**

h) Riparian vegetation canopy cover over the transect,**

i) Dissolved oxygen, temperature and water appearance,*

j) Fish count,** and

k) Documentation of gravel/sand bars.**

Those parameters marked with “*” were measured along a transect line drawn from bank to

bank in the low flow channel. Those marked with “**” were measured within a transect band


10

with a longitudinal length that was 50 feet upstream and 50 feet downstream of the transect

line.

Figure 5: Monitoring Points

Low-Flow Channel Invert Elevation

The first project survey of the riverbed’s invert elevation3 was performed by Scheevel

Engineering on 5/16/2017 to set elevation benchmarks. As the structure was to be placed

directly in the perennial low-flow channel, it was important to set a reference point that would

determine the final elevation of the groin relative to the bank during construction. Overall, 12

invert elevation samples were collected during baseflow-only periods from 5/16/2017 to

4/29/2019 with the exception of one measurement on 10/15/2018 which occurred

immediately following a 2,000 cfs peak flow event. Per Figure 6, the 12 samples show a pattern

of regular aggradation and degradation over a range of approximately 1 foot.

3 The lowest part of a channel below the normal high-water mark.

N


11

Figure 6: Low-Flow Channel Invert Elevation Change

Sediment Transport Characteristics

The project will successfully provide habitat to native fish if it scours finer materials, such as

clay, silt and sand, from the project area in order to uncover gravel beds beneath the upper

substrate. To evaluate its success, as well as inform sediment transport models used by other

water agencies in the region, streamflow and bedload (sediment transportation along the

riverbed) were measured at the project and control sites. As the structure was placed on the

right bank, the control’s right bank served as a good comparison as it had similar characteristics

of depth, velocity, bedload discharge, bedload gradation and bed material gradation. Scheevel

Engineering used a FlowTracker 2 streamflow measurement system to collect stream velocity

speeds, velocity vectors, temperature and depth along the transect width at two-foot (or less)

intervals. The streamflow discharge measurement results are provided below in Table 3. A

detailed summary of the variables measured can be found in Appendix A.

Table 3: Streamflow Monitoring Results

Date 9/19/2018 10/29/2018 12/21/2018 4/29/2019

Site Project Control4 Project Control Project Control Project Control

CFS 29.8177 25.0597 40.4206 40.9646 47.9364 49.9559 37.0057 37.1447

Bedload samples were collected along the transect line at two-foot intervals across the entire

transect width. The project’s channel width ranged from 17.2 meters to 19.4 meters, and the

control’s channel width ranged from 14.9 meters to 21.6 meters. After sampling, laboratory

4 The Control site was measured on a separate day than the project: 9/21/2019.

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

INV

ERT

CH

AN

GE

(FEE

T)

DATE

Project Site


12

analysis was performed on the sediment samples to evaluate total mass measurements (to

quantify total bedload movement) and sieve analysis (to determine bedload gradation).

Figure 7: Scheevel Engineering Sampling Along Transect Width

The sieve analysis was performed using the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM)

standard “D422.” Gradation curves were then developed for each collected sample by plotting

the data by site, date sampled and sample location along the transect width (i.e. right bank,

center and left bank). Figures 8 and 9 represent the right bank data in the relevant ASTM D422

class, shown in Table 3, with coarser particles failing to pass through progressively smaller sieve

sizes. A detailed summary of the variables measured can be found in Appendix B.

Table 4: Gradations Plotted in Figures 8 and 9

Unified Class U.S. Sieve Size Materials Passing Sieve

Coarse Gravel 19 mm or 3/4"

Finer

Fine Gravel 12.5 mm or 1/2"

Fine Gravel 9.5 mm or 3/8"

Coarse Sand 4.75 mm or No.4

Coarse Sand 2.36 mm or No.8

Medium Sand 1.18 mm or No.16

Medium Sand 0.6 mm or No.30

Fine Sand 0.3 mm or No.50




13

Figure 8: Bed Load Particle Size at Project Site Right Bank

Figure 9: Bed Load Particle Size at Control Site Right Bank

The 2018/2019 storm season was relatively wet with several very large flow events at the

project site. High flow events can create shifts in bed load transport which must be considered

when drawing conclusions across the various sampling events. As shown in Figure 8, there is a

clear reduction in medium to fine sand along the right bank at the project site between the

December and April sampling events. In comparison, the control site had a clear shift to finer

material across all particle sizes. The gradation curves for the first three samples at the control

show different behaviors in the bedload movement, whereby particle sizes stayed relatively

static across the first three site visits. This reveals that the hydraulics created by the groin and

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

Fin

er

By

We

igh

t

Larger Particle Size Smaller

9/19/2018 10/29/2018 12/21/2018 4/29/2019

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Pe

rce

nt

Fin

er

By

We

igh

t

Larger Particle Size Smaller

9/19/2018 10/29/2018 14/21/2018 4/29/2019


14

boulder cluster are effective at excluding the medium to very fine sands in the vicinity of the

groin.

Another demonstration of the project’s benefit is seen in Figure 10 below, which illustrates a

declining trend in the project’s total sampled bed load moving along the right bank through the

third sampling event. Similar to the bed load particle size analysis above, the high flow events

upset the trends observed early in the storm season. However, the first three sampling events

indicate that the habitat structure was successful at pushing more particles to the center and

left bank. The April sampling event does indicate a spike in total load along the right bank,

however, when considering this with the above particle size shift, this reveals that the sediment

moving along the right side of the project site in April was overall coarser. Meaning that the

hydraulics are capable of moving larger particles and can scour and remove sands to ultimately

expose a coarser substrate.

Figure 10: Percent of Total Bed Load Traveling Along Right Bank

The project site’s April sampling outlier is likely due to the relatively wet winter where peak

flows exceeded 25,000 cfs at the MWD Crossing Stream Gage Station (daily mean

approximately 7,000 cfs). The past two storm seasons are reflected in the streamflow data in

Figure 11 that is collected by the MWD Crossing Stream Gage Station. The storm season of

2018-19 began earlier, lasted longer, and lead to larger flows in the Santa Ana River.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%Project Site BaselineRight Bank 9/19/2018Project Site Post 1 RightBank 10/29/2018Project Site Post 2 RightBank 12/21/2018Project Site Post 3 RightBank 4/29/2019Control Site BaselineRight Bank 9/21/2018Control Site Post 1 RightBank 10/29/2018Control Site Post 2 RigthBank 12/21/2018Control Site Post 3 RightBank 4/29/2019

Project Control


15

Figure 11: Streamflow at the MWD Crossing Gaging Station

As stated above, the project was designed for a peak flow regime of up to 2,500 cfs and

performed well throughout the majority of the monitoring period. Photos of the structure,

taken at different times before and after construction, are shown in Appendix E. More

information on the project performance is discussed in the sections below.

Substrate Data

Using the Santa Ana River Habitat Survey (also known as the Riverwalk) methodology, SAWPA

and OCWD visually surveyed the low-flow channel’s substrate within the 100 foot-long transect

areas. Through visual observation, SAWPA and OCWD determined the amount (in percentages)

of five substrate classifications. These categories included:

• Mud/Silt: Particles that become dusty when dry and are easily brushed off hands;

• Sand: Generally described as tiny, gritty particles of rock up to 0.1 inch that is smaller

than gravel, but coarser than silt;

• Gravel: Particles that range in size from one-quarter inch to approximately 2.5 inches.

Fine grain is generally described as being pea size to marble size and coarse gravel is

generally described as being marble size to tennis ball size;

• Cobbles: Rocks between 2.5 and 10 inches in size. Generally, in size between a tennis

ball and basketball; and

• Boulders: Rocks 10-12 inches in size or larger.

As shown in Table 5, the majority of the substrate material before and after project

construction is sand. Cobble and boulders are present after the construction of the project, but

cobble does disappear for the April 29, 2019 sampling data which occurred after the 2018-19

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10

/1/2

01

7

11

/1/2

01

7

12

/1/2

01

7

1/1

/20

18

2/1

/20

18

3/1

/20

18

4/1

/20

18

5/1

/20

18

6/1

/20

18

7/1

/20

18

8/1

/20

18

9/1

/20

18

10

/1/2

01

8

11

/1/2

01

8

12

/1/2

01

8

1/1

/20

19

2/1

/20

19

3/1

/20

19

4/1

/20

19

5/1

/20

19

Cu

bic

Fe

et

Pe

r Se

con

d (

Dai

ly M

ean

)

Date


16

storm season shown in Figure 11. By looking at just the percent of sand at the both sites over

time, Figure 12 below shows that the structure is successful at reducing the amount of this finer

material in comparison to the control.

Table 5: Substrate Monitoring Results

Sampling Date Substrate Class Project Control

9/19/2018 Mud/Silt 0% 5%

Sand 100% 90%

Gravel 0% 5%

Cobble 0% 0%

Boulder 0% 0%

10/29/2018 Mud/Silt 15% 20%

Sand 72% 75%

Gravel 2% 5%

Cobble 8% 0%

Boulder 3% 0%

12/21/2018 Mud/Silt 10% 5%

Sand 72% 92%

Gravel 5% 3%

Cobble 8% 0%

Boulder 5% 0%

4/29/2019 Mud/Silt 7% 0%

Sand 90% 100%

Gravel 0% 0%

Cobble 0% 0%

Boulder 3% 0%

Figure 12: Percent Sand

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

9/19/2018 10/29/2018 12/21/2018 4/29/2019

Project Control


17

Water Quality Data

Water quality data was taken before and after the project was constructed at the project and

control sites. The temperature and dissolved oxygen measurements were collected using a YSI

ProODO Optical Dissolved Oxygen instrument that was calibrated by OCWD staff before field

sampling. The water appearance data was collected through visual observation.

According to the USFWS’s Recovery Plan for the Santa Ana Sucker, specific tolerances to water

quality variables such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and turbidity have not been

determined for the species. However, the fish is most abundant in clear water at temperatures

that are typically less than 22° C5. As shown in Table 6 below, temperatures did not increase

above 22° C at either site.

Table 6: Water Quality Sampling

Sampling Date Water Quality Parameter Project Control

9/19/2018 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L; % saturation) 8.31; 88.5 8.19; 91.1

Temperature (C) 19.1 20.6

Water Appearance Clear Clear










Fish Population Monitoring

The fish count was performed by sweeping the transect band with an underwater high

definition camera attached to an adjustable grip, which was set to a length of approximately

four feet. Electrofish, snorkeling and seining were considered as possible methods but due to

the available project budget, underwater video recording was done. The project site’s right

bank was swept due to the location of the groin, but the control site’s left bank was swept due

to similar characteristics, such as riparian vegetation and channel features, to the project’s right

bank. The footage recorded was reviewed by SAWPA and OCWD staff and fish were identified

5 Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California: Revised and Expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.


18

and counted using the Field Guide to the Western Riverside County Multispecies Habitat

Conservation Plan Covered Fish Species.

Table 7: Fish Monitoring Results

Sampling Date Fish (Common Name) Project Control

9/19/2018 Santa Ana Sucker 0 2

Western Mosquitofish 35 12

Fathead Minnow 0 2

Arroyo Chub 0 7





4/29/2019 Western Mosquitofish 183 129

Arroyo Chub 20 0

Bullfrog Tadpole 0 1

Native Fish Count (Totals) 25 10

Non-Native Fish Count (Totals) 220 144

As shown in Table 7 above, like the post-project beneficial bedload and substrate trends, there

was an increase in native fish after implementation of the project. In total, there were more

native fish observed at the project site in comparison to the control. Video footage shows Santa

Ana suckers using the cobble for shelter and the gravel to feed. Suckers were seen at the

control site near the edge of the underwater riparian root systems growing along the banks.

Lessons Learned from Project

There are three major lessons learned from the project’s construction phase:

• It was difficult to receive a competitive bid for construction;

• Security guards were needed nightly during the construction phase; and

• Project implementation moved rapidly once access to the in-stream work area was

established.

As described earlier in this report, SAWPA decided to hold a mandatory pre-bid meeting.

Unfortunately, only one bid that was 67 percent over the engineering estimate was received.

After discussions with the contractors who attended the pre-bid meeting, this was due to the

region’s abundance of potential public works projects as well as the perceived risk of working in


19

an in-stream environment. Since most in-stream public works projects are flood control-

related, this project was likely not seen as worth the perceived risk of flooding and vandalism.

Several homeless encampments existed nearby the project during construction. Although the

encampments were not an issue during construction operating hours, a front-end loader was

vandalized the night of October 11, 2018. This delayed project construction by approximately 6

hours. Due to the relatively short construction timeline for this type of project, acquiring a

private security guard was deemed cost-effective for the remainder of the project timeline

since rented construction equipment was left in the river-area overnight. As shown in Table 2,

the construction moved rapidly after the access road was graded and vegetation along the bank

was removed. This short timeline was able to keep construction costs low at approximately

$70,000. Removing vegetation for access, and the resulting mitigation needed, will increase the

costs for future in-stream habitat projects.

The overall lesson learned from the project’s monitoring phase was that the structure

performed as designed up to its 2,500 cfs threshold. There was a clear reduction in medium to

fine sand along the right bank at the project site between the December and April sampling

events and a general increase in fines at the control site. As shown in Appendix E though,

photos document that over the course of the winter of 2018/19, sand was deposited upstream

and downstream of the groin and boulder cluster. Although still providing habitat value per the

fish monitoring data in Table 7, stormflows above the 2,500 cfs threshold affected the

performance of the structure.

The monitoring by Scheevel Engineering concludes that there are two major options for

modifying instream rock habitat structures if the goal is to increase their effectiveness following

high flow events:

• Artificially increase the instream grade of the project’s reach to quickly move deposited

sand off the habitat structure; and

• Install a complimentary structure across the width of the low-flow channel and/or on

the opposite bank to control the hydraulics entering and exiting the reach as well as

control the low flow channel invert elevation.

The project benefited from the existing increasing slope, between 0.2 and 0.8 percent, which

helped ensure finer particles moved along the riverbed. However, very high flow events

resulted in the deposition of sand bars on the habitat aprons that have not yet been scoured

away. Future base flows and storm flows may effectively remove the sand bars, but a faster

recovery of the habitat structure would be possible if the hydraulics and channel invert could

be controlled across the entire low flow channel. If sufficient funding is available, a future

project could contour and slope a section of the low flow channel invert by excavating the


20

riverbed and installing a graded stone/riprap base. The resulting construction costs would be

high as the low-flow channel would need to be diverted and the excavated material would need

to be hauled off-site. A less expensive option is to build two complimentary groins on either

bank along with a narrow full channel width invert stabilizer. The groins would act together to

reduce the area of the low-flow channel, and thus force higher velocity streamflow into the

center of the channel. These higher velocity waters would help move scoured finer materials

away from the structures and protect either bank from being inundated during storm and

baseflow periods. In very high flow events sand would be deposited in all areas across the low-

flow channel regardless of the habitat structure’s configuration. However, the placement of

rock features across the invert would help to create the hydraulics to quickly scour sands from

the habitat feature during subsequent base flow periods.

Mutual Benefits from Project

The study and this report have been shared with members of the Santa Ana Sucker

Conservation Team and the USACE has already used the study to help design their three-acre

Santa Ana Sucker In-Stream Habitat Mitigation Project. SBVMWD is also using the study and

this report to plan the design of their habitat mitigation project that is required as part of the

construction of the Sterling Natural Resources Center. Trends seen in this report’s sediment

transport data can be used to plan the design of other habitat structures by relating the

sampling to other site-specific data and interpolating results. The project has also helped

sparked a renewed interest in in-stream habitat projects in the Santa Ana River and led to

further coordination between local, State and federal agencies.

Report

Attachments

Attachment A

4/24/2019 3:36:08 PM

Discharge Measurement Summary

Scheevel Engineering ● P.O. Box 28745 Anaheim, CA 92809 ● (714) 470-9045 ● [email protected] of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:36:08 PM

Scheevel Engineering ● P.O. Box 28745 Anaheim, CA 92809 ● (714) 470-9045 ● [email protected] of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:36:08 PM

Automated beam check Start time 9/19/2018 7:12:26 AM

Automated beam check SNR(dB) PASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2137

43.6

50.2

56.8

63.4

70

Automated beam check Noise level(cnts) PASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21816

822.8

829.6

836.4

843.2

850

Automated beam check Peak level(dB) PASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2136

41.6

47.2

52.8

58.4

64

Automated beam check Peak position(ft) PASS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.296

0.324

0.352

0.38

0.408

0.436

Automated beam check Quality control warnings

No quality control warnings

Scheevel Engineering ● P.O. Box 28745 Anaheim, CA 92809 ● (714) 470-9045 ● [email protected]

5 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:37:15 PM



6 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:37:15 PM


7 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:37:15 PM


8 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:37:15 PM


9 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:37:15 PM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2140

45

50

55

60

65


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21812

818

824

830

836

842


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2141

46

51

56

61

66


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.355

0.366

0.377

0.388

0.399

0.41




10 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:39:04 PM



11 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:39:04 PM


12 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:39:04 PM


13 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:39:04 PM


14 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/24/2019 3:39:04 PM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2143

45

47

49

51

53


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21807

814

821

828

835

842


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2140

42.4

44.8

47.2

49.6

52


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.357

0.366

0.375

0.384

0.393

0.402




15 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:30:38 AM



16 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:30:38 AM


17 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:30:38 AM


18 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:30:38 AM


19 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:30:38 AM

Automated beam check Start time 9/21/2018 2:04:36 PM


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2135

37.4

39.8

42.2

44.6

47


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21776

782.8

789.6

796.4

803.2

810


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2135

37.4

39.8

42.2

44.6

47


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.356

0.368

0.38

0.392

0.404

0.416




20 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:09 AM



21 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:09 AM


22 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:09 AM


23 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:09 AM


24 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:09 AM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2138

42.8

47.6

52.4

57.2

62


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21818

824.2

830.4

836.6

842.8

849


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2137

43.4

49.8

56.2

62.6

69


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.365

0.373

0.381

0.389

0.397

0.405




25 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:33 AM



26 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:33 AM


27 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:33 AM


28 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:33 AM


29 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

4/26/2019 11:31:33 AM



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2138

40.4

42.8

45.2

47.6

50


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21809

815.4

821.8

828.2

834.6

841


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2142

43.6

45.2

46.8

48.4

50


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 210.348

0.362

0.376

0.39

0.404

0.418




30 of 30

Nate Scheevel

SE Logo

Attachment B

Detailed Summary of Gradation Measurements

Bed Load Sampling: 2 Foot Interval and 20 Second DurationSample Site Project Site Project Site Project Site Control Site Control Site Control Site Project Site Project Site Project Site Control Site Control Site

Sample Event Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Baseline Post Project 1 Post Project 1 Post Project 1 Post Project 1 Post Project 1Sample ID # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Sample Location Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/3 Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/3 Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/3 Left 1/3 Center 1/3Date 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 9/19/2018 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 9/21/2018 10/29/2018 10/29/2018 10/29/2018 10/29/2018 10/29/2018

Station Limit 45 25 3 3 21 39 6 30 44 3 21Station Limit 65 43 23 19 37 67 28 42 68 19 43

Flow Rate (cfs) 29.8 29.8 29.8 25.1 25.1 25.1 40.4 40.4 40.4 41.0 41.0Sample Weight (grams) 137.3 831.4 315.5 758.3 123.8 163.4 714.9 533.5 197.9 504.3 520.0

Bed Load Calc. (tons per day) 5.23 31.67 12.02 28.89 4.72 6.22 27.23 20.32 7.54 19.21 19.81 Bed Load Calc. (cy per day) 1.3 4.02 24.36 9.25 22.22 3.63 4.79 20.95 15.63 5.80 14.78 15.24

% of Total 11% 65% 25% 73% 12% 16% 49% 37% 14% 33% 35%

Unified Class U.S. Sieve mm % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % PassingCobbles 6" Cobbles 152.4 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Cobbles 3" Cobbles 76.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Coarse Gravel 2" Coarse Gravel 50 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Coarse Gravel 1‐1/2" Coarse Gravel 38.1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Coarse Gravel 1" Coarse Gravel 25 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Coarse Gravel 3/4" Coarse Gravel 19 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine Gravel 1/2" Fine Gravel 12.5 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%Fine Gravel 3/8" Fine Gravel 9.5 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99%Coarse Sand No.4 Coarse Sand 4.75 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97%Coarse Sand No.8 Coarse Sand 2.36 97% 96% 99% 97% 93% 96% 95% 94% 99% 95% 91%Medium Sand No.16 Med Sand 1.18 81% 77% 87% 76% 66% 70% 76% 72% 87% 70% 69%Medium Sand No.30 Med Sand 0.6 35% 35% 37% 30% 24% 24% 35% 28% 43% 26% 27%Fine Sand No.50 Fine Sand 0.3 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 5% 2% 3%Fine Sand No.100 Fine Sand 0.15 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Fine Sand No.200 Fine Sand 0.075 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Silt Silt 0.036 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Silt Silt 0.023 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Silt Silt 0.013 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Silt Silt 0.009 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Silt Silt 0.007 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Clay Clay 0.005 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Clay Clay 0.003 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%Clay Clay 0.001 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

1


Sample SiteSample EventSample ID #

Sample LocationDate

Station LimitStation Limit

Flow Rate (cfs)Sample Weight (grams)

Bed Load Calc. (tons per day)Bed Load Calc. (cy per day) 1.3

% of Total

Unified Class U.S. Sieve mmCobbles 6" Cobbles 152.4Cobbles 3" Cobbles 76.2

Coarse Gravel 2" Coarse Gravel 50Coarse Gravel 1‐1/2" Coarse Gravel 38.1Coarse Gravel 1" Coarse Gravel 25Coarse Gravel 3/4" Coarse Gravel 19Fine Gravel 1/2" Fine Gravel 12.5Fine Gravel 3/8" Fine Gravel 9.5Coarse Sand No.4 Coarse Sand 4.75Coarse Sand No.8 Coarse Sand 2.36Medium Sand No.16 Med Sand 1.18Medium Sand No.30 Med Sand 0.6Fine Sand No.50 Fine Sand 0.3Fine Sand No.100 Fine Sand 0.15Fine Sand No.200 Fine Sand 0.075

Silt Silt 0.036Silt Silt 0.023Silt Silt 0.013Silt Silt 0.009Silt Silt 0.007Clay Clay 0.005Clay Clay 0.003Clay Clay 0.001

Control Site Project Site Project Site Project Site Control Site Control Site Control Site Project Site Project Site Project SitePost Project 1 Post Project 2 Post Project 2 Post Project 2 Post Project 2 Post Project 2 Post Project 2 Post Project 3 Post Project 3 Post Project 3

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21Right 1/3 Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/3 Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/3 Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/310/29/2018 12/21/2018 12/21/2018 12/21/2018 12/21/2018 12/21/2018 12/21/2018 4/29/2019 4/29/2019 4/29/201945 7 25 39 5 25 37 8 24 4261 23 37 57 23 35 53 24 40 6041.0 47.9 47.9 47.9 50.0 50.0 50.0 37 37 37481.8 676.6 674.0 109.0 715.7 343.8 584.9 372.6 774.7 503.9

18.35 25.78 25.68 4.15 27.27 13.10 22.28 14.19 29.51 19.20 14.12 19.83 19.75 3.19 20.97 10.07 17.14 10.92 22.70 14.77

32% 46% 46% 7% 44% 21% 36% 23% 47% 31%

% Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing % Passing100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%99% 100% 99% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100% 100% 98%96% 99% 95% 98% 94% 93% 96% 100% 97% 92%76% 90% 78% 84% 73% 70% 77% 94% 86% 74%33% 64% 34% 32% 27% 31% 34% 64% 52% 37%2% 26% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 12% 8% 5%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

2


Sample SiteSample EventSample ID #

Sample LocationDate

Station LimitStation Limit

Flow Rate (cfs)Sample Weight (grams)

Bed Load Calc. (tons per day)Bed Load Calc. (cy per day) 1.3

% of Total

Unified Class U.S. Sieve mmCobbles 6" Cobbles 152.4Cobbles 3" Cobbles 76.2

Coarse Gravel 2" Coarse Gravel 50Coarse Gravel 1‐1/2" Coarse Gravel 38.1Coarse Gravel 1" Coarse Gravel 25Coarse Gravel 3/4" Coarse Gravel 19Fine Gravel 1/2" Fine Gravel 12.5Fine Gravel 3/8" Fine Gravel 9.5Coarse Sand No.4 Coarse Sand 4.75Coarse Sand No.8 Coarse Sand 2.36Medium Sand No.16 Med Sand 1.18Medium Sand No.30 Med Sand 0.6Fine Sand No.50 Fine Sand 0.3Fine Sand No.100 Fine Sand 0.15Fine Sand No.200 Fine Sand 0.075

Silt Silt 0.036Silt Silt 0.023Silt Silt 0.013Silt Silt 0.009Silt Silt 0.007Clay Clay 0.005Clay Clay 0.003Clay Clay 0.001

Control Site Control Site Control SitePost Project 3 Post Project 3 Post Project 3

22 23 24Left 1/3 Center 1/3 Right 1/3

4/29/2019 4/29/2019 4/29/201912 34 6032 58 8037.1 37.1 37.1619.9 356.8 429

23.62 13.59 16.34 18.17 10.46 12.57

44% 25% 31%

% Passing % Passing % Passing100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%100% 100% 100%99% 99% 99%92% 93% 94%58% 67% 69%9% 18% 16%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% 0% 0%

3

Attachment C

Attachment D

FINAL DESIGN PLANS FOR

SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY

Santa Ana Sucker Habitat Protectionand

Beneficial Use Enhancement Project

Riverside, CA

May 2018

Vicinity MapNOT TO SCALE

Corona

Norco

Riverside

Jurupa Valley Van Buren Blvd.

Limonite Ave.

Jurupa Ave.

Van Buren Blvd.

Location MapNOT TO SCALE

Cover Sheet G

Project Location Project Location

Sheet

Scheevel EngineeringP.O. Box 28745Anaheim, CA 92809Phone: (714) 470-9045 Email: [email protected]

SAWPASanta Ana Sucker Habitat Protection and


Sheet No.

01

Sheet No.

01

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date

Drawn NS May 9, 2018 9of

Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority11615 Sterling AvenueRiverside, CA 92503Phone: (951) 354-4220 Website: www.SAWPA.org

NS 5/9/2018 1

GProject Notes

Special Construction Notes

1) By accepting award of the contract, the contractor acknowledges and agrees to the risk to materials, equipment and personnel associated with working in an active river and flood plain.

2) The contractor will be solely responsible for all contractor materials, equipment and personnel at the jobsite for the duration of the project.

3) The contractor will be responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of any and all temporary berms, dewatering and other flow management techniques. The samples provided in this drawing set are for illustrative purposes only. Techniques, material and equipment used to control flow will be subject to approval by the owner. However, owner review and approval does in no way transfer liability, cost or risk to the owner.

4) Flows in the Santa Ana River will fluctuate during construction.5) Rock materials imported for the project will be supplied by San Bernardino Valley

Municipal Water District. The rock material is located at Source Material Site 1 (34°4'52.70"N and 117°7'53.52"W) and the boulders at Source Material Site 2 (34°6'4.52"N and 117°7'7.97"W) and all costs to sort, load and transport the material to the jobsite will be the responsibility of the contractor.

6) The project will result in a zero net volume increase at the project site. Each cubic yard of material imported will be offset by exporting the equivalent volume of material off site. The contractor will assume responsibility for all costs associated with the zero net volume increase. The location and type of material exported from the site will be approved by the owner.

7) Any and all areas disturbed by the contractor will be left in as-good or better condition at the end of the project. The contractor will provide pre-construction videos and photographs of the site prior to starting any work. The contractor will also provide post-construction video and photos prior to final demobilization. All topography and grades will be restored to the pre-project condition unless otherwise approved by the owner.

8) Work hours will be Monday through Friday between the hours of 7:00 am to 5:00 pm. No work will be allowed on weekends or SAWPA observed holidays.

9) The contractor will be required to move personnel, equipment and materials out of the river channel and river overbank areas prior to a storm event or when flows are expected to exceed controls put in-place by the contractor.

Coordination Requirements

1) Biological monitoring will be provided by the owner. The contractor will provide a minimum of 5 working days written notice to the owner for scheduling the biological monitor.

2) All work areas must be inspected and cleared EACH DAY by the biological monitor prior to starting any work.

3) The contractor will be responsible for coordinating with the City of Jurupa Valley (and or Riverside) and will be responsible for all costs associated with abiding by all City of Jurupa Valley (and or Riverside) requirements.

General Notes

1) ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS/PLANS, AND THE LATEST EDITION OF STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

2) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A COPY OF THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS ON THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES.

3) A PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE OWNER AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD PRIOR TO START OF WORK. THE OWNER or OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION OR ANY REQUIRED OBSERVATION. CONSTRUCTION WORK AT THE SANTA ANA RIVER SITE WILL BEGIN ON OR AFTER SEPTEMBER 15, 2018.

4) THE CONTRACTOR PERFORMING WORK ON THIS PROJECT SHALL FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH THIS SITE AND SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES RESULTING FROM HIS OPERATIONS.

5) ALL WORK PERFORMED SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER. BEDDING AND BACKFILL MATERIALS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

6) THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICES ALERT (DIG ALERT) BY DIALING 811 A MINIMUM OF TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.

7) THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AND SHALL NEITHER BE ALTERED NOR REUSED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

8) CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN THE WORK AREA IN A NEAT, SAFE, CLEAN AND SANITARY CONDITION AT ALL TIMES AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER. STREETS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN OF DEBRIS, WITH DUST AND OTHER NUISANCE BEING CONTROLLED AT ALL TIMES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL CLEAN-UP ON ADJACENT STREETS AFFECTED BY HIS CONSTRUCTION.

9) ALL APPROACHES TO PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, DRIVEWAYS AND INTERSECTING STREETS SHALL BE KEPT OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. CONTRACTOR SHALL GAIN PRIOR APPROVAL FROM PROJECT OWNER AND INFORM ALL PROPERTY OWNERS OR BUSINESSES A MINIMUM OF FORTY-EIGHT HOURS PRIOR TO

PERFORMING ANY CONSTRUCTION WHICH WILL IMPEDE THE NORMAL ACCESS TO THEIR PROPERTY OR BUSINESS.

10) THE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ACTUAL LOCATION AND ELEVATION IN THE FIELD (POTHOLE) OF ALL UTILITIES IN CONFLICT.

11) ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY FROM THOSE SHOWN ON THE PLANS. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ACTUAL ABOVE GROUND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF BID.

12) CONSTRUCTION SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN SUCH A CONDITION THAT ANY STORM DOES NOT CARRY WASTES OR POLLUTANTS OUT OF WORK AREAS OR OFF THE SITE.

13) SUCH "DISCHARGES" OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN STORMWATER ARE ALLOWED ONLY WHEN NECESSARY FOR PERFORMANCE AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES AND WHERE THEY DO NOT: CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO A VIOLATION OF ANY WATER QUALITY STANDARD; CAUSE OR THREATEN TO CAUSE POLLUTION, CONTAMINATION, OR NUISANCE; OR CONTAIN A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IN A QUANTITY REPORTABLE UNDER FEDERAL REGULATION S40CFR PARTS 117 AND 302.

a. MATERIALS WHICH MAY HAVE EFFECTS OF POLLUTION INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: SOLID OR LIQUID CHEMICAL SPILLS; WASTES FROM PAINTS, STAINS, SEALANTS, HYDRAULIC, RADIATOR OR BATTERY FLUIDS; FERTILIZERS, VEHICLE EQUIPMENT WASH WATER AND CONCRETE WASH WATER; CONCRETE DETERGENT OR FLOATABLE WASTES; WASTES FROM ANY ENGINE EQUIPMENT STEAM CLEANING OR CHEMICAL DEGREASING, AND SUPER CHLORINATED WATER LINE FLUSHINGS.

b. DURING CONSTRUCTION, DISPOSAL OF SUCH MATERIALS SHOULD OCCUR IN A SPECIFIED AND CONTROLLED TEMPORARY AREA ON SITE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM POTENTIAL STORMWATER RUN-OFF, WITH ULTIMATE DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.

14) CONTRACTOR SHALL USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP'S). SAND BAGS AND FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED OVER ANY STORM DRAINS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT SITE. SILT FENCE WILL BE PLACED TO CONTROL ALL SEDIMENT FROM LEAVING THE SITE AS NEEDED OR DIRECTED BY THE OWNER OR ENGINEER.

15) THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MEETING ALL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND BMPs IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS.

16) THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING AND PAYING FOR ANY AND ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL PERMITS AND HAUL PERMITS TO COMPLETE THE WORK. THE CONTRACTOR WILL UTILIZE CITY AND COUNTY APPROVED HAUL ROUTES TO PERFORM THE WORK.

Sheet




Sheet No.

02

Sheet No.

02

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 2

GSheet Index, Symbols & Contacts

Sheet Index

G-01 Cover SheetG-02 Project NotesG-03 Sheet Index, Symbols & ContactsC-04 Site PlanC-05 Sub-Grade ViewsC-06 Isometric ViewsC-07 Plan ViewC-08 Section ViewsC-09 Restoration Plan

Standard Symbols

Detail NumberDetail Sheet Number

Native Sand

Cut Faces

Gradation 1

Gradation 2

Gradation 3

Rip Rap or Gradation 3

# #-#

Contact Index

SAWPA (951) 354 - 4233Scheevel Engineering (714) 470 - 9045Biological Monitor (951) 757 - 0782Dig Alert 811

Abbreviations

ft feetin incheslbs poundsoz ouncespsi pounds per square inchsq yd square yardsq ft square footOC on centerOCEW on center each wayEF each face

Gradation Specifications

1. Gradation 1

Sieve Size Percent Finer by Weight

6 in 100 3 in 40 to 551/4 in 10 to 20

No. 200 0 to 5

2. Gradation 2


6 in 100 3 in 40 to 55 1 in 10 to 20

No. 200 0 to 5

3. Gradation 3


2 foot 100 1-foot 40 to 55 6-in 5 to 10No. 200 0 to 3

Sheet




Sheet No.

03

Sheet No.

03

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 3

CSite Plan

Overall Site ViewNot To Scale

AC-04

Work Area Plan ViewNot To Scale

BC-04

B C 04

In-Channel Work Area

Staging Area

Access Road

Fill Area

Borrow Area

Fill, Water & Wheel Roll Compact Grade Transition So That Driving Surface Slope is

Less Than 10% or So That Contractors Trucks Can Safely

Navigate The Slope. Fill Material Will Be Taken from

Access Road Surface or Borrow Area. Contractor to Provide 50 CY of Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB) to Improve the Access

Road Surface As Needed.

Trim, Clear and Grub 25' Corridor for Access Road. Re-grade Surface. Dust Control:

Keep Watered & Compacted During Project to Prevent Fugitive Dust, Water As Needed

To Control Dust

Borrow Area (0.10 acres)

Access Road (0.58 acres)

Staging Area - Clear & Grub

(0.17 acres)

In-Channel Work Area (0.10 acres)

Partially Submerged Groin

Boulder or Boulder Cluster

G C 07

Clearing & Grubbing Note #2:5 Select Branches Will Be Trimmed and Saved For Use In The Habitat Feature. The Contractor Will Perform This Work

Under The Direction of the Owner. All Other Vegetation Will Be Removed and Disposed of By The Contractor

Locked access gate. Contractor to bring a lock with a thick shackle to the pre-construction conference so it can be added to the gate.

Riparian Habitat Removal (0.30 acres) To Be Staked/Flagged In Field By Owner

Any and all movement outside of the areas highlighted on these plans or any areas flagged or fenced in the field is strictly prohibited. Absolutely no traffic of any kind and no storage or staging of materials will be allowed outside of the areas highlighted on these plans or any areas flagged or fenced in the field. Any damage or disturbance of grounds,

vegetation or any other features outside of the areas highlighted on these plans or any areas flagged or fenced in the field will be repaired, replaced and maintained for as long as is required to fully restore the areas to as-good or better condition. Additional fees and fines may also apply and the contractor will be solely responsible for any and all costs.

Clearing & Grubbing Note #1:Vegetation growth will occur, and biomass export volume will increase, between bid time and construction. Contractor will assume that the removal and export volume of the biomass will be double (2X) of that observed during bid phase

and include pricing /costs in their bid for the increased clearing, grubbing and export.

Final Location to be Selected and Staked

by the Owner Prior to Construction

Sheet




Sheet No.

04

Sheet No.

04

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 4

CSub-Grade Views

Subgrade View(Looking Upstream)

CC-05

Subgrade ViewLooking North

DC-05

Temporary Berm2' High Min

Existing River Bed Invert

Bottom of Subgrade Excavation 3' Below Existing

River Bed Invert

8'-0"

20'-0"

Final Berm Design By Contractor

Final ExcavationDesign By Contractor

3' Varies 5' to 7'

2'-0"

2'-0"

Groin Subgrade Base2' Thick (Rip Rap or Gradation 3)

Boulder Cluster Subgrade Base2' Thick (Rip Rap or Gradation 3)

Subgrade Rip Rap May Be PlacedIn Partially Wet Condition

(Standing Water)

Approx. Top of Slope Line

3' -0"

Scheevel Engineering Will Layout Structures and Provide Reference Staking 2 Times During Project

25'-9 7/8"19'-3 1/2"

60°

Top of Slope To Be Staked By Scheevel EngineeringAfter Clearing & Grubbing

De-Watering Pump As Needed

9'-0"

Sheet




Sheet No.

05

Sheet No.

05

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 5

CIsometric Views

Boulder ViewNot To Scale

EC-06

Isometric ViewNot To Scale

FC-06

7' Dia Boulder

5'-6' Dia Boulder

5'-6' Dia Boulder

4' Dia Boulder

Main Apron - Gradation 1

Tapered Apron - Gradation 2

Structure - Gradation 3

Toe of Slope - Gradation 3

Tapered Apron - Gradation 2

L C 09

Flowing Water Will Be Present, Not Shown Here For Clarity


Vegetation pictured here to be planted by owner after construction is complete. Contractor to clear and grub existing vegetation to provide clear working area.

Vegetation pictured here to be planted by owner after construction is complete. Contractor to clear and grub existing vegetation to provide clear working area.

Sheet




Sheet No.

06

Sheet No.

06

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 6

CPlan View

Plan ViewNot To Scale

GC-07

Top of Slope

H

C 08

I

C 08

JC 08

3'-0"

Existing Santa Ana River Invert

Flow Direction

Varies 12' to 15'

42' -0" + -


Up To 5 Branches Placed As DirectedEach Branch 4" to 10" in Diameter and up To 10' Long

4' Dia Boulder

Gradation 1

Gradation 2

Gradation 2

Gradation 3

Sheet




Sheet No.

07

Sheet No.

07

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 7

CSection Views

Boulder SectionNot To Scale

JC-08

NOT USEDNot To Scale

KC-08

Partially Submerged GabionNot To Scale

HC-08

Boulder & Gabion SectionNot To Scale

IC-08

2'-0"

1'-0"

4'-0"

18'-0"

3'-0"

20'-0"

1'-0"

3'-0"

1-6"

8'-0"


Gradation 3 Gradation 2

1'-6"

1'-6""1'-0"

4'-0" 9'-0" 4'-0"

Gradation 3Gradation 2


7' Dia Boulder

Gradation 2

1'-0"

7'-0"

2'-0"

5'-0" 17'-0" 5'-0" 15'-0"

42'-0"

5'-0"

8'-0"9'-0"

1'-0"

Varies

6'-0" 6'-0"

2'-0" 2'-0"

6"

6'-0" 4'-0" 6'-0"


Gradation 3

Gradation 1

Gradation 1

Gradation 2

7'

Elevation 99.40'

Elevation 95.30'

Elevation 95.40'

Approx. Existing Grade

Avg. Water Surface Elevation



4'

4' Diameter Boulder

Flow Direction

Note: All elevations based off temporary field benchmark with reference elevation in feet (not a true elevation) set at 100.00'. Scheevel Engineering

to provide benchmark in field at time of construction.

Elevation 95.20' Elevation 95.50'

Gradation 2

Sheet




Sheet No.

08

Sheet No.

08

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 8

CRestoration Plan

Re-Plant Riparian Vegetation (By Owner)

Re-Grade Invert To Flush With Top of Habitat Aprons(By Contractor)

Re-Grade Disturbed Slopes (By Contractor)


Re-Grade Borrow Area To Match Existing Grade (By Contractor)

Re-Grade & Smooth Access Road As Very Last Action (By Contractor)

Restoration PlanNot To Scale

LC-09

Re-Grade Staging Area To Match Existing Grade (By Contractor)

All Plantings Supplied & Installed By Owner

Re-Grade Disturbed Slopes (By Contractor)


Sheet




Sheet No.

09

Sheet No.

09

Final Design

Designed

Revised

ByNS 7/15/2017NS 10/23/2017

Date



NS 5/9/2018 9

Attachment E

7/31/2019

1

Project Site: Pre-Project –06/26/2018

Project Site: Pre-Project –9/19/2018

1

2

7/31/2019

2

Post-Project – 10/15/2018

Flow


3

4

7/31/2019

3


Flow


Flow

5

6

7/31/2019

4


Flow


Flow

7

8

7/31/2019

5


9

Final Performance Report - sawpa.org · Site Project Control4 Project Control Project Control...

Documents

Transcript of Final Performance Report - sawpa.org · Site Project Control4 Project Control Project Control...