Walnut Creek Sediment Study Final

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more

Walnut Creek Sedimentation Study January 10, 2012 Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Prepared by: Ronald R. Copeland, Ph.D., P.E. Mobile Boundary Hydraulics, PLLC P.O. Box 264 Clinton MS 39060 1 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ 4 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 6 LIST OF PLATES .............................................................................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Purpose ..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Study Area ................................................................................................................................................. 8 Study Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Numerical Model Description ................................................................................................................... 9 NUMERICAL MODEL .................................................................................................................................... 11 Geometry ................................................................................................................................................ 11 Model Network ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Hydrographs ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Downstream water surface elevation..................................................................................................... 13 Temperature ........................................................................................................................................... 14 Sediment Removal Templates ................................................................................................................ 15 Sediment Data / Characteristics of Deposit ............................................................................................ 18 Sediment Data / Bed Material ................................................................................................................ 18 Bed-Material Transport Function ........................................................................................................... 21 Silt and Clay Transport Functions ........................................................................................................... 22 Sediment Data / Inflow ........................................................................................................................... 26 Sediment Inflow / Tributaries ................................................................................................................. 28 MODEL CALIBRATION.................................................................................................................................. 30 Sediment Inflow – USGS Sediment Load Curve ...................................................................................... 30 Sediment Inflow – Adjusted Rating Curve .............................................................................................. 35 Deposition and Erosion Limits ................................................................................................................ 37 Sensitivity of Input Parameters ............................................................................................................... 42 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 44 Channel Stability ..................................................................................................................................... 44 2 Model Performance ................................................................................................................................ 44 Boundary Condition Issues ..................................................................................................................... 45 Model Application ................................................................................................................................... 46 Recommendations for Additional Data and Modeling ........................................................................... 47 APPENDIX A: HYDROLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 48 Daily Hydrologic Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 48 Sub-daily Hydrologic Analysis ................................................................................................................. 50 APPENDIX B: Sediment Data Analysis and Suggested Sediment Model Parameters ................................ 52 Project Setting ......................................................................................................................................... 52 Estuarine Aspects of the System ............................................................................................................. 52 Some Field Observations ........................................................................................................................ 56 Summary of Core Sediment Data ........................................................................................................... 58 Sediment Transport Parameters ............................................................................................................. 77 Sediment Transport Parameters ............................................................................................................. 77 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 80 3 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. HEC-6T model schematic showing segments and control points. .............................................. 12 Figure 2. USGS reported water temperatures for Alameda Creek at Niles, Napa River at Napa, and Walnut Creek at Concord. Solid lines are daily data, points are individual measurements. ..................... 15 Figure 3. Calculated cross section changes at Station 16+00. ................................................................... 16 Figure 4. Calculated geometry before and after sediment removal in 1986 and 1989 at Station 276+46. .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5. Calculated geometry before and after sediment removal in 1993 and 1995 at Station 330+61. .................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6. 2009 Bed material gradations between Suisun Bay and Pacheco Creek. ................................... 19 Figure 7. Initial bed material gradations used in HEC-6T model between Suisun Bay and Pacheco Creek normalized to 0.008mm. ............................................................................................................................. 19 Figure 8. Initial bed material gradations used in HEC-6T model between Pacheco Creek and Grayson Creek normalized to 0.008mm. .................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 9. Initial bed material gradations used in HEC-6T model upstream from Grayson Creek normalized to 0.008mm. ............................................................................................................................. 20 Figure 10: Erosion Rate Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 25 Figure 11: Deposition rate characteristics .................................................................................................. 25 Figure 12. Sediment inflow on Walnut Creek from Porterfield 1972 report. Total and sand load curves were scaled from report. Sand size class data and Concord 1970 data are reported measurements. ..... 28 Figure13. Annual sediment Inflow calculated using HEC-6T sediment inflow curve and 1965-2005 hydrograph at Concord. .............................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 14. Calculated Change in cross section shape at Station 378+82 during 40-year simulation. ....... 38 Figure 15. Calculated Change in cross section shape at Station 304+69 during 40-year simulation. ....... 39 Figure B-1. Bathymetry of Suisun Bay (Walnut Creek enters near the “Southern Channel” label). ......... 54 Figure B-2. Historical
Recommended publications
  • REDESIGN of a FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT by CITIZEN INITIATIVE1 Bev Ortiz2

    REDESIGN of a FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT by CITIZEN INITIATIVE1 Bev Ortiz2

    REDESIGN OF A FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT BY CITIZEN INITIATIVE1 Bev Ortiz2 Abstract: This paper describes the process used to Associates, Inc. 1977). The latter had been rejected redesign a flood control project on three creeks in central by the 1977 Pleasant Hill City Council "...because it Contra Costa County, California, about 15 miles east of would remove considerable land from tax increment." San Francisco. Involved was door-to-door organizing to (See 1985) form a neighborhood group which in turn used a county- appointed committee, a city-appointed committee, a The watershed of the affected creeks fell within the State grant and a private consultant working with the jurisdiction of several governmental bodies: three cities county staff to help achieve an acceptable project. It was (Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, and Layfayette), one redesigned to preserve the riparian and environmental school district, one water company, two State Assem- values of the urban creeks while providing 25-year flood bly districts, two Contra Costa County supervisorial dis- protection. Detention basins and bypass pipes are key tricts, and the Contra Costa County Flood Control Dis- components of the project. On-going volunteer projects trict which developed the plan. The creeks were also are planned involving channel clearing, revegetation, adjacent to about 300 households, many of which owned and bank stabilization. portions of the creeks. A broad-based citizen effort to seek ecologically viable alternatives to creek channelization began the following August when one of the adjacent homeowners, the author, contacted the Urban Creeks Task Force of the "When all other factors are omitted from the prob- Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay Chapter to receive a lem, flood control, or the regulation of the flow of wa- subscription to its Creekwalker's Journal.
  • Floodplain Evaluation

    Floodplain Evaluation

    City of Pleasant Hill—Oak Park Properties Specific Plan Draft EIR Appendix H: Floodplain Evaluation FirstCarbon Solutions THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Oak Park Properties Specific Plan City of Pleasant Hill, California Draft Revised Floodplain Evaluation Report Prepared for: Prepared by: August 2019 BN 37454543v2 Oak Park Properties Specific Plan City of Pleasant Hill, California Draft Revised Floodplain Evaluation Report Submitted to: City of Pleasant Hill This report has been prepared by or under the supervision of the following Registered Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer attests to the technical information contained herein and has judged the qualifications of any technical specialists providing engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are based. ________________________________________ Han-Bin Liang, Ph.D., P.E. Registered Civil Engineer ________________________________________ Date August 2019 BN 37454543v2 Draft Revised Floodplain Evaluation Report Oak Park Properties Specific Plan City of Pleasant Hill, California Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... iii 1 General Description ............................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Purpose of Study ................................................................................................
  • Contra Costa County, California

    Contra Costa County, California

    VOLUME 12 OF 45 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND INCORPORATED AREAS Community Community Name Number ANTIOCH, CITY OF 060026 BRENTWOOD, CITY OF 060439 CLAYTON, CITY OF 060027 CONCORD, CITY OF 065022 DANVILLE, TOWN OF 060707 EL CERRITO, CITY OF 065027 HERCULES , CITY OF 060434 LAFAYETTE , CITY OF 065037 MARTINEZ , CITY OF 065044 MORAGA , TOWN OF 060637 OAKLEY , CITY OF 060766 ORINDA, CITY OF 060722 PINOLE, CITY OF 060032 PITTSBURG, CITY OF 060033 PLEASANT HILL, CITY OF 060034 RICHMOND, CITY OF 060035 SAN PABLO, CITY OF 060036 SAN RAMON, CITY OF 060710 WALNUT CREEK, CITY OF 065070 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY (UNINCORPORATED AREAS) 060025 REVISED March 21, 2017 Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 06013CV002C NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. Part or all of this FIS may be revised and republished at any time. In addition, part of this FIS may be revised by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS. It is, therefore, the responsibility of the user to consult with community officials and to check the community repository to obtain the most current FIS components. Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: June 16, 2009 Revised Countywide FIS Dates: September 30, 2015 March 21, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 – March 21, 2017 Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................
  • Briones Regional Park ~ East Sa Y Regional Park District

    Briones Regional Park ~ East Sa Y Regional Park District

    1981 RESOURCE ANALYSIS / . " MANAGEMENT P'LAN ___d - ..-..-'--- ."--- '.­ _.' -: ....... · .. ·-.. · __ .....;.r~- ... -.. ' .~~.- " -:;~"""''::-.~'''- ._......... >1 ..... .... 7. • "'._........ : .... .....-'1.... ...-;-"7 '" •••~..;~/j, .... -~-...:"..~ .-.-~ .... ,,;.: ..•.. ~ ... -.-- -._--------- ., BRIONES REGIONAL PARK ~ EAST SA Y REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BRIONES REGIONAL PARK RESOURCE ANALYSIS Adopted: September 22, 1981 Resolution No: 1981-9-262 Prepared by: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 .Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605 (510) 635-0135 .... TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued PAGE VII. REPORT PREPARATION AND PERSONS CONTACTED 84 A. REPORT PREPARATION 84 B. PERSONS' CONTACTED 85 VIII. BIBLIOGRAPHY- FIGURE I. C-l: LOCATION 5 '.. FIGURE I. D-2 : AER~ PHOTOGRAPH 6 FIGURE I. E-l: MAJOR FEATURES· AND PARK NAMES 7 FIGURE III. :8-1: MASTER PLAN UNITS 14 FIGURE tV. A-I: TOPOGRAPHY 19 FIGliM tV. A-2: ASPECT 20 FIGIJRE IV. A-3: SLOPE' 21 FIGURE IV. A-4: GEOLOGY 22 FIGURE IV. A-5: GEtiLOGIC CROSS~SECTIONS 23 FIGURE IV. A-6: LANDSLIDE SUSCEPTIBILITY 24 FIGURE IV. A-7: BEDROCK DEPTH 25 FIQURE IV. A-8: EROSIO:N 26 FIGURE IV. B-1: HYDROLOGY 27 FIGURE IV. F-l: VEGETATION 44 FIGtmE IV. F-2: GRASSLAND MANAGEMENT STRATA 53 FIGURE IV. H-l: RANGE CAPABILITY 64 FIGUlm IV. I-I: wiLDFIRE-REST 'WIND 68 FIGURE IV. 1-2: WILDFlRE-NORTHEAST WIND 68 FIGURE IV. K-l: ARCHAEOLOGY -71 FIGURE V. A-I: IMPROVEHENTS 75 FIGUlm V. A-2: ROAD CROSS SECTIONS 77 FIGURE V. B-1: POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES 79 FlGURE VI. A-I: ACQUISITION 81 . TABLES TABLE IV. A-I: SOIL PROFILES 24 TABLE IV. B.... l: WATERSHEDS 28 TABLE IV. B"..2: AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS.