DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydraulic Assessment of Existing Conditions Novato Creek Watershed Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hydraulic Assessment of Existing Conditions Novato Creek Watershed Project HYDRAULIC ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS NOVATO CREEK WATERSHED PROJECT PREPARED FOR: County of Marin Department of Public Works BY: Kamman Hydrology & Engineering, Inc. 7 MT. LASSEN DRIVE, SUITE B250 San Rafael, CA 94903 (415) 491‐9600 IN ASSOCIATION WITH: WRECO 1243 Alpine Rd, Suite 108 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 June 2014 Novato Creek Watershed Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions Services provided pursuant to this Agreement are intended for planning purposes for the The Marin County Department of Public Works i‐1 Novato Creek Watershed Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... ES‐1 2 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1 Physical Setting .......................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.2 Approach .................................................................................................................................... 2‐2 3 WATERSHED AND GEOMORPHIC ASSESSMENT .............................................................................. 3‐1 3.1 Channel and Bridge Surveys ...................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.2 Geomorphic Assessment – Field Investigation .......................................................................... 3‐7 3.3 Sediment Yield and Transport Assessments ............................................................................ 3‐21 4 DESCRIPTION OF NUMERICAL MODELS ............................................................................................. 4‐1 4.1 Creek Hydraulics Models ........................................................................................................... 4‐2 4.2 Bayland Hydraulics Model ......................................................................................................... 4‐4 4.3 Model Linkages .......................................................................................................................... 4‐7 5 NOVATO CREEK FLO‐2D MODEL .......................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.1 FLO‐2D Model Configuration ..................................................................................................... 5‐1 5.2 Model Calibration ...................................................................................................................... 5‐7 5.3 Simulation Results ................................................................................................................... 5‐12 6 NOVATO BAYLANDS MODEL .................................................................................................................. 6‐1 6.1 Model Domain and Configuration ............................................................................................. 6‐1 6.2 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................................. 6‐9 6.3 Model Calibration and Validation ............................................................................................ 6‐17 6.4 Sensitivity Analysis ................................................................................................................... 6‐23 6.5 Simulation Results (Q10, Q50 and Q100) ................................................................................ 6‐24 7 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................. 7‐1 7.1 Geomorphic Assessment Conclusions ....................................................................................... 7‐1 7.2 Novato Creek Modeling Conclusions ......................................................................................... 7‐2 7.3 Novato Bayland Modeling Conclusions ................................................................................... 7‐12 i‐2 Novato Creek Watershed Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) 8 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS .................................................................. 8‐1 8.1 Novato Creek Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 8‐1 8.2 Novato Baylands Alternatives: ................................................................................................. 8‐18 9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 9‐1 i‐3 Novato Creek Watershed Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions LIST OF TABLES Page No. Table 3.1: Selected Reach Slope Estimates 3‐ 2 Table 3.2: Tidal Datums at mouth of Novato Creek 3‐15 Table 3.3: Sediment descriptions for bed sediment samples collected in the 3‐24 Confluence Reach Table 3.4: Sediment characteristics for samples collected within the Lower 3‐26 Bayland Reach Table 3.5: Critical shear stress and critical velocity values for non‐cohesive and 3‐27 cohesive sediment types within the Novato Creek Table 3.6: Existing (2012) Novato Creek tidal prism and channel dimensions at 3‐42 assumed basin connection locations Table 3.7: Post Breach (EC2012) and long‐term (Mature Marsh) Novato Creek tidal 3‐43 prism estimates at assumed basin connection locations Table 3.8: Channel geometries for both Post Breach (EC 2012), Long‐term (Mature 3‐46 Marsh) scenarios assuming all basins are connected to Lower Novato Creek Table 3.9: Channel geometries for both Post Breach (EC 2012) and Long‐term 3‐52 (Mature Marsh) scenarios for Alternative 1, North Deer Island Basin connection to Novato Creek Table 3.10: Channel geometries for Post Breach (EC 2012) and Long‐term 3‐56 (Mature Marsh) scenarios: All basins connected to Lower Novato Creek Table 3.11: Channel geometries for both Post Breach (EC 2012) and Long‐term 3‐54 (Mature Marsh) scenarios for Alternative 3, North Deer Island and East Basin connection to Novato Creek Table 3.12: Channel geometries for both Post Breach (EC 2012) and Long‐term 3‐55 (Mature Marsh) scenarios for Alternative 4, East Basin connection to Novato Creek Table 5.1: Peak 10‐, 50‐, and 100‐year flows 5‐12 Table 5.2: Peak 10‐, 50‐, and 100‐year flows, considering SLR 5‐25 Table 5.3: Detention Basin Characteristics developed from SWM Model, 50‐Year 5‐29 Event Table 6.1: Starting Water Surface Elevations in Bayland Ponds 6‐8 Table 6.2 Novato Bayland Design Storm Peak Inflows 6‐10 Table 6.3: Moved to Appendix ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Table 6.4: Maximum Simulated Water Surface Elevations 6‐24 Table 6.5: Maximum Simulated Velocities 6‐25 i‐0 Novato Creek Watershed Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Page No. Table 7.1: Escape Flows in 100‐year event, FLO‐2D model 7‐3 Table 7.2: Escape Flows in 50‐year event, FLO‐2D model 7‐5 Table 7.3: Novato Bayland Predicted Peak Water Surface Elevations 7‐12 Table 7.4: Novato Bayland Predicted Peak Water Surface Elevations 7‐13 i‐1 Novato Creek Watershed Project: Hydraulic and Geomorphic Assessment of Existing Conditions LIST OF FIGURES Page No. Figure 2.1: Novato Creek Watershed Topography and Drainages 2‐2 Figure 3.1: Novato Creek Reaches 3‐1 Figure 3.2: Cross‐section survey, bridge survey and pebble count locations in Upper‐Middle‐Lower Creek Reaches of Novato Creek 3‐4 Figure 3.3: Calculated channel slopes and channel bed elevation profile with cross‐section, bridge and pebble count locations 3‐5 Figure 3.4: Calculated channel flow area below top of bank and channel bed elevation profile with cross‐section, bridge and pebble count locations 3‐6 Figure 3.5: Reach 1: Upper Creek Reach (Stafford Lake to Sutro Avenue) 3‐8 Figure 3.6: Novato Cr. Looking downstream from Bowman Creek Confluence. 3‐9 Figure 3.7: Reach 2: Middle Creek Reach (Sutro Avenue to Simmons Lane) 3‐10 Figure 3.8: Bedrock channel constriction in Middle Creek Reach 3‐10 Figure 3.9: Reach 3: Middle Creek Reach (Simmons Lane to Diablo Avenue) 3‐12 Figure 3.10: Reach 4: Confluence Reach (Diablo to SMART Bridge) 3‐14 Figure 3.11: Reach 5: Upper Bayland Reach (SMART Bridge to Highway 37) 3‐18 Figure 3.12: Reach 6: Lower Bayland Reach (Highway 37 to San Pablo Bay) 3‐19 Figure 3.13: Grain‐size distribution of channel bed sediments 3‐22 Figure 3.14: Sediment sample locations in Confluence Reach 3‐24 Figure 3.15: Sediment sample locations in Lower Bayland Reach 3‐25 Figure 3.16: Annual sediment yield from local area watersheds 3‐28 Figure 3.17: Contributing sediment source areas to mainstem Novato Creek 3‐30 Figure 3.18: Bedload transport estimates (Parker, 1990) for Novato Creek reaches 3‐33 Figure 3.19: Bedload transport estimates (Wilcox‐Crowe, 1990) for Novato Creek reaches 3‐34 Figure 3.20: Bayland basins and assumed basin connection points along Lower Novato Creek 3‐41 Figure 3.21: Tidal prisms at each basin confluence location for Post Breach (EC 2012), long term (mature marsh) and existing Novato Creek channel conditions (2012) at each basin confluence 3‐43 Figure 3.22: Correlation of the maximum channel depth below MHHW as a function of tidal 3‐44 prism for mature San Francisco
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Major Streams and Watersheds of East Marin
    Ch ile no t å V S 29 al å le y Rd I D St d Major Streams and WatershedsR of East Marin San Anto o ni i o n R o d t 9å3 S n an A A å nton io Rd n a S Ma rs ha d ll R P s e e ta y lum e a R R d t L P a a k m e lu vi ta lle Pe R d W i lso n H ill Rd SOULAJULE RESERVOIR L 4 a 2 k e v il North Novato le R d 9 48 7 6 3 ay w 0 gh 1 i H e at St r an Ma in S 3 D 7 N r ova U to n B i lv t d 7å3 e å å n d 77 L å S s d t a n v l o t e B m s STAFFORD LAKE d m H i o S o i g A w h th N d w e o e r East Marin Schools v a to a R n to y A d å Bå 55 1 v R lv t G e å d å ra 0 å Blackpoint e n å å å 63 å S t 59 a A 1 1, ADALINE E KENT MIDDLE SCHOOL 34, LYNWOOD ELEM. SCHOOL 67, RING MOUNTAIN DAY SCHOOL å v ve å r m A h D u t r l 7 D o a n å e L b t o 32 ong r å å e å s å Av a il e 2, ALLAIRE SCHOOL 35, MADRONE CONTINUATION HIGH SCHOOLP 68, ROSS ELEM.
    [Show full text]
  • Codornices Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Improvement Project
    Codornices Creek Fish Passage and Habitat Improvement Project Conceptual Restoration Plan San Pablo Avenue to Monterey Avenue Codornices Creek Berkeley, California May 2005 Urban Creeks Council 1250 Addison Street, #107 Berkeley California 94702 FarWest Restoration Engineering 538 Santa Clara Ave Alameda, CA 94501 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope 1.2 About the Urban Creeks Council 1.3 Project Participants and Objectives 2.0 BACKGROUND AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.1 Watershed and Land Use 2.2 Historic Conditions 2.3 Streamflow Records 2.4 Historic Flooding 2.5 Existing Biological Resources 2.6 Prior Stream Habitat Assessments 2.7 Prior Fish Barrier Assessments 3.0 SUMMARY OF WORK PERFORMED UNDER THIS PROJECT 4.0 STREAMBANK STABILIZATION AND FISH BARRIER REMEDIATION ALTERNATIVES 4.1 Existing Channel Conditions 4.2 Preliminary Design for Habitat Improvements 4.2.1 St. Mary’s College High School 4.2.1.1 Proposed Bank Stabilization 4.3 Preliminary Design for Fish Barrier Modifications 4.3.1 Culvert Modifications 4.3.1.1 Evaluation of Culvert Barrier Modifications under Flood Flow Conditions 4.3.1.2 Previous Hydraulic Analysis of Culverts 4.3.1.3 Results of the Hydraulic Modeling of Baffled Culverts 4.3.2 Albina Street Bridge 4.3.2.1 Proposed Barrier Modification 4.3.2.2 Results of Flood Modeling 4.3.3 Concrete Channel Section Upstream from Albina Street Bridge 4.3.3.1 Proposed Barrier Modification 4.3.3.2 Results of Hydraulic Modeling 5.0 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES 6.0 COMMUNITY OUTREACH 6.1 CCWRAP Working Group 6.2 Community Meetings 6.3 Homeowner Interaction 6.4 Media 7.0 NEXT STEPS 8.0 REFERENCES i LIST of FIGURES Figure 1: Codornices Creek Watershed Map Figure 2: Flood Indicator Debris Line along Cornell Avenue Figure 3: O.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Mitigation Plan
    Flood Mitigation Plan (June 2008) CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN CITY OF NOVATO FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ........................................................ 2 SECTION I - PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................... 17 Part 1 - Process Organization .................................................................................................................................... 17 Planning Process Documentation ............................................................................................................................. 17 Jurisdictional Participation ........................................................................................................................................ 17 Process Description ................................................................................................................................................... 18 Part 2 - Public Outreach ............................................................................................................................................. 22 Flood Mitigation Planning Committee .................................................................................................................... 22 Public Participation Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 48 Results and Recommendations from Community & Stakeholders ........................................................................ 48
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds
    Salmon and Steelhead in Your Creek: Restoration and Management of Anadromous Fish in Bay Area Watersheds Presentation Summaries (in order of appearance) Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries Service Steelhead as Threatened Species: The Status of the Central Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit Under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), a "species" is defined to include "any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature." To assist NMFS apply this definition of "species to Pacific salmon stocks, an interim policy established the use of "evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) of the biological species. A population must satisfy two criteria to be considered an ESU: (1) it must be reproductively isolated from other conspecific population units; and (2) it must represent an important component in the evolutionary legacy of the biological species. The listing of steelhead as "threatened" in the California Central Coast resulted from a petition filed in February 1994. In response to the petition, NMFS conducted a West Coast-wide status review to identify all steelhead ESU’s in Washington, Oregon, Idaho and California. There were two tiers to the review: (1) regional expertise was used to determine the status of all streams with regard to steelhead; and (2) a biological review team was assembled to review the regional team's data. Evidence used in this process included data on precipitation, annual hydrographs, monthly peak flows, water temperatures, native freshwater fauna, major vegetation types, ocean upwelling, and smolt and adult out-migration (i.e., size, age and time of migration). Steelhead within San Francisco Bay tributaries are included in the Central California Coast ESU.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment for Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project
    Environmental Assessment For Partial Funding for the Sears Point Restoration Project September 2014 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Need 1.2 Public Participation 1.3 Organization of this EA 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Alternatives Considered 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Protected and Special-Status Species 3.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 3.1.2 Special Status Fish 3.2.3 Special Status Plants 3.2 Climate 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4.1.1 Special Status Wildlife 4.1.2 Special Status Fish 4.1.3 Special Status Plants 4.2.1 Climate 5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING 6.0 CUMULATIVE AND INDIRECT IMPACTS 6.1 Baseline Conditions for Cumulative Impacts Analysis 6.2 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 6.3 Resources Discussed and Geographic Study Areas 6.4 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis 7.0 AGENCY CONSULTATIONS 2 I. Executive Summary Ducks Unlimited requested funding through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program (CRP) for restoration of a 960 acre site that is part of Sears Point Wetlands and Watershed Restoration Project . The Sonoma Land Trust (SLT), a non-profit organization, purchased the 2,327-acre properties collectively known as Sears Point in 2004 and 2005, and is the recipient of a number of grants for its restoration. In April of 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the STL and the California Department of Fish and Game published a final Sears Point Wetland and Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Impact Report (SPWWRP) / Environmental Impact Statement that assess the environmental impacts of restoration of Sears Point (State Clearinghouse #2007102037).
    [Show full text]
  • 12 Hydrology, Flooding and Water Quality
    12 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING AND WATER QUALITY This chapter describes local and regional hydrology, flooding and water quality in and around Novato, as well as the applicable federal, State and local regulations. A. Regulatory Framework 1. Federal Regulations a. Federal Water Pollution Control Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), also known as the CWA, was enacted in 1972 to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The two-phase National Stormwater Program was established as part of the CWA. Phase 1 of the program requires discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) serving over 100,000 people to be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City of Novato is considered a permittee under California’s statewide general permit (Water Quality Order No. 2003-0005-DWQ) for MS4s. Permitees must develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) with the goal of reducing discharged pollutants to the maxi- mum extent. The City of Novato’s NPDES Storm Water Program prevents illicit discharges into drains, waterways and wetlands, and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 16, Utilities. b. National Flood Insurance Program Congress passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 to address the increasing cost of flood-related disaster relief. The intent of National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is to reduce the need for large, publicly-funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations and limit development on floodplains.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Control & Water Conservation District
    Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Zone 3 Advisory Board Meeting May 28, 2009 6:30 – 8:30 pm Mill Valley City Hall Council’s Chambers Meeting Agenda Approval of Meeting Minutes: November 8, 2007 Introduction of New Advisory Board Member Gary Lion Review of Brown Act and Form 700 Requirements Open Time for Items Not on the Agenda Project Status Reports A) Bothin Marsh – Coyote Creek Restoration and Flood Control Project B) Seminary Dr. Pump Station C) SCADA System D) Crest Marin Creek Flood Study E) Richardson Bay Tidal Flood Study F) Zone 3 Stormwater Master Plan Update G) Arroyo Corte Madera del Presidio Flood Study Advance Flood Warning Notification - ACMdP Sea-level Rise Discussion Maintenance Activities Update Zone 3 Budget FY 2008-2009 Schedule Next Meeting Brown Act & Form 700 Requirements Brown Act – What is it? Authored by Ralph M. Brown, an Assemblyman from Turlock, and enacted in 1953 by the California State Legislature in an effort to safeguard the public's right to access and participate in government meetings within the State. o Specifies advance notice for open public meetings. o Dictates to District staff specific administrative requirements for meetings. o Sets provisions on how board members can communicate information with one another. o Board members are asked to view County of Marin – Boards and Commissions Training Video highlighting important points of the Brown Act. Acknowledgement form must also be signed and returned. Brown Act & Form 700 Requirements Brown Act & Form 700 Requirements “The Mission of the FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION is to promote the integrity of representative state and local government in California through fair, impartial interpretation and enforcement of political campaign, lobbying, and conflict of interest laws.” www.fppc.ca.gov o Forms are to be filled out each year and submitted to the Clerk of the Marin County Board of Supervisors.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion
    June 4, 2020 Refer to NMFS No: WCRO-2020-00090 James Mazza Regulatory Division Chief San Francisco District Corps of Engineers 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4th Floor San Francisco, California 94102-3406 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response for the Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s Novato Creek 2020 Maintenance Sediment Removal and Wetland Enhancement Project (Corps File No. 2004-28601N) Dear Mr. Mazza: Thank you for your letter of January 13, 2020, requesting initiation of consultation with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.), for the Novato Creek 2020 Maintenance Sediment Removal and Wetland Enhancement Project (Project). This consultation was conducted in accordance with the 2019 revised regulations that implement section 7 of the ESA (50 CFR 402, 84 FR 45016). NMFS also reviewed the likely effects of the proposed action on essential fish habitat (EFH), pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)), and concluded that the action would adversely affect the EFH of federally managed fish species under the Pacific Salmon, Coastal Pelagic, and Groundfish Fishery Management Plans. Therefore, we have included the results of that review in Section 3 of this document. The enclosed biological opinion is based on our review of the proposed Project and describes NMFS’ analysis of potential effects on threated Central California Coast (CCC) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), the Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of North American green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), and designated critical habitat for those species, in accordance with section 7 of the ESA.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Water Bodies
    Attachment A: Detailed list of receiving water bodies within the Marin/Sonoma Mosquito Control District boundaries under the jurisdiction of Regional Water Quality Control Boards One and Two This list of watercourses in the San Francisco Bay Area groups rivers, creeks, sloughs, etc. according to the bodies of water they flow into. Tributaries are listed under the watercourses they feed, sorted by the elevation of the confluence so that tributaries entering nearest the sea appear they first. Numbers in parentheses are Geographic Nantes Information System feature ids. Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County north of Bodega Head, listed from north to south:W The Gualala River and its tributaries • Gualala River (253221): o North Fork (229679) - flows from Mendocino County. o South Fork (235010): Big Pepperwood Creek (219227) - flows from Mendocino County. • Rockpile Creek (231751) - flows from Mendocino County. Buckeye Creek (220029): Little Creek (227239) North Fork Buckeye Crcck (229647): Osser Creek (230143) • Roy Creek (231987) • Soda Springs Creek (234853) Wheatfield Fork (237594): Fuller Creek (223983): • Sullivan Crcck (235693) Boyd Creek (219738) • North Fork Fuller Creek (229676) South Fork Fuller Creek (235005) Haupt Creek (225023) • Tobacco Creek (236406) Elk Creek (223108) • )`louse Creek (225688): Soda Spring Creek (234845) Allen Creek (218142) Peppeawood Creek (230514): • Danfield Creek (222007): • Cow Creek (221691) • Jim Creek (226237) • Grasshopper Creek (224470) Britain Creek (219851) • Cedar Creek (220760) • Wolf Creek (238086) • Tombs Crock (236448) • Marshall Creek (228139): • McKenzie Creek (228391) Northern Sonoma Coast Watercourses which feed into the Pacific Ocean in Sonoma County between the Gualala and Russian Rivers, numbered from north to south: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Codornices Creek Was Used for Dairying and Haying
    A Walk in the Upper Codornices Watershed by Susan Schwartz, President, Friends of Five Creeks Codornices is one of many small creeks flowing from the geologically young Berkeley Hills to San Francisco Bay. It is unusual only because is the only creek from Oakland into South Richmond to retain a substantially continuous channel from hills to Bay. This may be because the creek became the Berkeley-Albany border, making it bureaucratically difficult to bury most of it in pipes. Probably because of this relatively continuous open channel, Codornices the only creek from Oakland to North Richmond with a population of steelhead – ocean-going rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; the two are the same species). Since steelhead are listed as threatened, great effort has gone into improving and expanding their habitat, particularly in the lower reaches, where the creek forms the border between Berkeley and Albany. The hills where Codornices rises are a geologic jumble. Some of the oldest rocks date from the age of dinosaurs. Formed far away, they were scraped from the Pacific Plate as it was forced beneath North America. One example is Pinnacle Rock in Remillard Park; its lavas erupted in distant tropical seas some 160 million years ago. By contrast, Indian, Mortar, and Grotto Rocks are bits of a much younger volcano that erupted somewhere near today’s Hollister much more recently, perhaps 13 million years ago. They were dragged north on the more recent sideways motion of clashing plates. Sediments washed from the Sierras and deposited at different times also have been mixed and pushed into odd angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase 3 Feasibility Report (Sections 1 & 2)
    Section 1 Introduction This report, prepared in coordination with the North Bay Water Reuse Authority (Authority), presents an engineering evaluation and an economic and financial analysis of a proposed project for a regional approach to recycled water distribution in the North San Pablo Bay area of California. The report has been prepared by the Authority’s consultant, Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the U. S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation Public Law 102-575, Title XVI (the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992, as amended). Title XVI provides a mechanism for Federal participation and cost-sharing in approved recycled water projects and provides general authority for appraisal and feasibility studies. The Authority, established under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in August 2005, is comprised of the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), as Administrative Agency, together with four wastewater utilities as member agencies – the Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (LGVSD), the Novato Sanitary District (Novato SD), the Sonoma Valley County Sanitation District (SVCSD), and the Napa Sanitation District (Napa SD). North Marin Water District (NMWD) and Napa County are providing technical and financial support to the Authority. Under the MOU and its amendment, the Authority is exploring “the feasibility of coordinating interagency efforts to expand the beneficial use of recycled water in the North Bay Region thereby promoting the conservation of limited surface water and groundwater resources.” The proposed North San Pablo Bay Restoration and Reuse Project (Project), the subject and intended outcome of the Authority’s work, would alter the disposition of wastewater in the North Bay Region by reducing the volume of treated wastewater discharged into San Pablo Bay and its tributaries and instead providing increased recycled water supply to agricultural, urban, and environmental uses.
    [Show full text]