Restoration River Design for Reach 4B of the San Joaquin...
Transcript of Restoration River Design for Reach 4B of the San Joaquin...
Restoration River Design for Reach 4B of the San Joaquin River from GIS and Aerial
Photographs
A Capstone Project Presented to the Faculty of Science and Environmental Policy
in the College of Science, Media Arts, and Technology
at California State University, Monterey Bay in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science
By
Crystal E. Forman
May 6, 2009
Crystal Forman
Capstone
2
Abstract:
The San Joaquin River in the Central Valley of California is to be restored to allow
both the reintroduction of Chinook salmon and a stable water supply for water local
farmers. This study will use natural channel design methods of river restoration to find a
restoration design for a section known as Reach 4B to the restoration project. Aerial
photographs, ArcGIS v. 9.2, and Bluebeam PDR Revu were used to find the river geometries
necessary to develop a blueprint for a restored channel. The San Joaquin River watershed
was sampled for river geometries, from which three regional curves of bankfull geometry
were constructed (Estimated Bankfull width, Radius of Curvature, and Meander Length).
Sections of Reach 4B examined but not included in finally analysis. Bankfull width was
estimated from meander length. Through a regression conducted on each regional curve
data was found significant enough to design a preliminary river channel design. The
drainage area for Reach 4B was found to be 5900 km2 and this was the drainage area used
to calculate bankfull and planform geometries. It was found that bankfull width was 55m,
meander length was 360m, and radius of curvature was 120m. From DEMs it was found
that valley slope was 0.0004. Sinuosity was estimated to be 1.5 from the blueprint made
from the calculated geometries. When the blueprint was compared to the area of Reach 4B
it appeared to be similar to relic meanders. It is highly suggested that extensive field work
should be done to assess the validity of the regional curves.
Crystal Forman
Capstone
3
Introduction:
River Health
Very few rivers in the world have escaped alterations by anthropogenic influence.
Humans for centuries have directly altered rivers to ensure that communities have
drinking water, water for irrigation and livestock as well as water storage for dry years and
flood protection in wet years (Cech 2005, Wohl 2004). Examples of these alterations are
damming, channelization, flow diversion and rerouting, and debris removal. If these direct
alterations are done without much thought to how a river functions, they can have
devastating effects on the health of the river and the ecosystem that depends on it (Wohl
2004).
Like all geomorphic systems, rivers function within a self established, self regulated
steady state equilibrium for a certain tectonic and climatic setting (Ward & Trimble 2004,
Schumm 1977). A multitude of factors, such as discharge, sediment supply, and valley and
channel slope, shape and maintain the equilibrium of a river system (Ward & Trimble
2004). When one or more of the factors are changed due to anthropogenic alterations a
river could be thrown out of equilibrium (Rosgen 1994, Ward & Trimble 2004, Wohl 2004).
Damming, for instance, can change flow regime, discharge, sediment and bed load supply,
water temperature, water chemistry, and bank vegetation type (Cech 2005, Wohl 2004).
These kinds of disturbances to the equilibrium can lead to ecological degradation over
time. Plant and animal species within localized riparian and freshwater ecosystem have
adapted over time to the flow regime of the river they depend on. These systems depend
on the seasonal flow regime that the river has established. Probably one of the most
profound examples of this is the life cycle of salmon.
Salmon Life History
The life cycle of salmon include three interesting characteristics: anadromy, homing,
and semelparity. Andromy refers to salmon mitigation from their natal fresh water streams
Crystal Forman
Capstone
4
to the ocean to mature then back again to reproduce. Homing refers to the salmons’ ability
to find their natal stream for reproduction. Semelpartiy is the characteristic that applies to
the death of the salmon after it reproduces (Quinn 2005). These characteristics make
salmon an important part of freshwater ecosystems.
Salmon provide an important food source to predatory birds, fish and mammals.
Migration patterns of salmon over time have influenced the distribution and reproductions
cycles of other animals (Wilson and Halupka 1995). Predatory animals exploit all parts of
the salmon life cycle from eggs, fry and smolts on their journey to the sea, adults migration
to reproduce and the carcasses (Quinn 2005, Cederholm et al. 1999). The carcasses also
provide important nutrients, such as marine forms of nitrogen and phosphorus, for
terrestrial plants (Cederhom et al. 1999).
Over time, damming, water diversions and overfishing have caused many salmon
populations to decline significantly along the west coast of North America. Overfishing
decreases the number of adults that are able to spawn. Damming and water diversions
block salmon from their spawning grounds (Wohl 2004). The homing instinct is so strong
that salmon will die trying to reach their natal streams (Quinn 2005). Populations have
declined so much due to these influences that many of the salmon species and runs have
been put on the endangered species list (NOAA 2008).
History of the San Joaquin River and the Central Valley Chinook Salmon
The San Joaquin River (Figure 1) once hosted the southernmost Chinook salmon run
on the west coast of North America. This population has declined significantly because of
anthropogenic efforts to tame the river for agricultural use. The Central Valley Project
(CVP) is the largest State/Federal water project ever implemented; it was this project that
had the most devastating effects on the salmon population (Wagner 1995, Yoshiyama et al.
1998). The Friant Division of this project caused 60 miles of the San Joaquin River to dry up
and along with it the Upper San Joaquin River Chinook population (Wagner 1995; Figure
2).
The fate of the San Joaquin River Chinook salmon population was tied to the
proliferation of agriculture in the Central Valley along the San Joaquin River. The practice of End of Dry Channel
Crystal Forman
Capstone
5
irrigation started right after the Gold Rush; the ditches that once provided miners with
water became canals for agriculture. During this slice in time, about 20 years, agriculture
developed slowly. Agriculture did not begin to expand in the Central Valley until the
transcontinental railroad allowed access to the eastern markets (Taylor 1949). From 1900
to 1939 the amount of irrigated farm land increased from under a million acres to 2.75
million acre and that number would increase to 5.25 million acres by 1947 (Taylor 1949).
Even though the San Joaquin River was the life blood of the valley’s agriculture it
was also its greatest destroyer. Farmers in the valley never knew what the river had in
store for them each year. This river rarely had a ‘normal’ year of runoff. Normal runoff
year produces about 1.7 million acre feet of water. Drought years produced about 362,000
acre feet with flood years producing about 4.6 million acre feet (Rose 2000). Whether it
was drought or flood, both would spell disaster for live stock or crops.
After World War I, California experienced a drought and a severe decline in
groundwater that caused many crops to fail and water from the Sacramento Delta could not
be used because the salinity rose. These circumstances lead to the California water
regulatory agencies to come to the conclusion that a state wide water system was needed
to be able to supply farmers with water year around and help prevent flooding (Taylor
1949). Thus the States Water Plan was born and accepted into California legislation in
1933 (Taylor 1949). Eventually this plan became the Central Valley Project (CVP).
The main dam that was constructed to tame the San Joaquin River was the Friant
Dam (Figure 2). The completion of this dam and the Madera Canal was in 1944. At this
time only 10% of the water that would naturally flow down the San Joaquin River travelled
its natural course (Rose 2000). Once the Friant-Kern Canal was completed in 1948 the
natural flow amount was reduced even further. At this point 95% of the San Joaquin River’s
water was being put to irrigation use (NRDC 2007).
It was not until the late 1930’s that the California Fish and Game started to notice
there was a decline in the Chinook salmon population that utilized the Upper San Joaquin
River. A fyke netting program was conducted and it was found that there was a “significant
loss of salmon during the irrigation season”(Warner 1991). Research on the declining
Crystal Forman
Capstone
6
salmon population was halted due to World War II (Rose 2000). In 1946 research began
again; the spring run count of the Upper San Joaquin River population of Chinook salmon of
that year was 56,000 adults and 1947 spring run was 26,000 adults. In 1948, the majority
of water leaving the Friant Dam was sent down the newly constructed Friant Kern canal
despite the pleas of sportsman and the California Fish and Game (Rose 2000). This water
diversion caused 60 miles of the river to run dry. From 1948 to 1950 Fish and Game
workers and some local sportsman took on the task of trucking the salmon from the
confluence of the Merced River to the Outer Canal so the salmon could make it to the base
of the Friant Dam to spawn (Warner 1991). Their efforts did not save the natural resource;
it took five years to destroy an entire localized population of Chinook salmon (Warner
1991).
Fight for the Fish
In 1988 the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) with a coalition of
environmentalist and other interests filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamations and
the Friant Division water users, at the time headed by Roger Patterson (Kirk Rodgers in
subsequent cases). They stated that the Friant’s long-term federal water service contracts
violated the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), the Endangered Species Act
(ESA), Administration Procedure Act (APA) and California Department of Fish and Game
Code § 5937 and caused loss of economic and recreational benefits by not allowing enough
water past the dam (National Resources Defense Council et al... v. Roger Patterson et al...
1992). When the long term water contracts came up for renewal in 1988 the Friant
Division of the Central Valley Project (CVP) failed to perform an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR); this was a violation of the NEPA, ESA, and APA (National Resources Defense
Council et al... v. Houston et al..., 1998). The California Department of Fish and Game Code §
5937 was violated when the Chinook salmon fishery collapsed. Code § 5937 states that the
owner and operator of any dam must allow sufficient water below that dam to keep all
fisheries, planted or natural, in ‘good condition’.
The lawsuit for the return of the Chinook salmon to the San Joaquin River took 18
years and ended in a compromise between the environmentalist and farmers. In the
Crystal Forman
Capstone
7
summer of 2005 Judge Lawrence Karlton told the parties that all he could do is release the
water being stored behind Friant Dam to resolve this case. The release of the water from
Friant Dam without any regulation would have caused the farmers of the Friant Division of
CVP to lose 50% of their water and with it their ability to farm. He suggested that two sides
needed to come to a compromise because he knew his judgment would lead to the
destruction of the Central Valley economy (FWUA 2006). This is when two congressional
leaders stepped in. Senator Diane Feinstein and Representative George Radanovich went
to both parties and pleaded with them to go back to the negotiation table (The San Joaquin
River Restoration Settlement Act… 2006). On September 12, 2006 both sides reached a
compromise that guaranteed that farmers would only lose 15% of their water to the river
restoration; this ensured that they could continue earning their livelihood as well as allow
for the reintroduction of a fall-run population of Chinook salmon (FWUA 2006). From this
settlement the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) was created.
San Joaquin River Restoration Project and Reach 4B
For the reintroduction of the Chinook salmon to be successful the river must be
restored in a way that ensures the needs of the salmon are met at certain stages of the
salmons’ life cycle (Montgomery 2004). At this stage of restoration the most important
issue is to reconnect the river so there is a fish-friendly pathway to and from the spawning
grounds. A few of the sections need little work to get the channel back to good health, but
there is one reach in particular that will take much of the SJRRP’s time and funding. That is
Reach 4B (SJRRP 2008; Figure 3).
Reach 4B is a section of the river that runs from the Sandy Slough Control Structure
downstream to the confluence of Bear Creek. It must be able to carry 4,500 cubic feet per
second (cfs) discharge (FWUA 2006). This is considered to be one of the most degraded
reaches; in its present condition is will not carry the desired rate of water flow. This
channel has not seen a constant flow of water since 1958 (Subcommittee on Water and
Power 2006). There are sections of the river that are completely clogged with tullies or the
channel banks and bed have eroded down to nothing more than a ditch that is now used by
farmers to circulate their used irrigation water for future reuse (Subcommittee on Water
Crystal Forman
Capstone
8
and Power 2006, Mooney 2008, personal observation). The condition of this reach has
caused the SJRRP to develop an alternative channel if it is found that the original river
channel is not feasible to be restored (SJRRP 2008).
If it is found that restoration of the original river channel is infeasible, a section of
the Eastside Flood Control Bypass will be used for fish passage (Figure 3). The section of
the Eastside Bypass that will be used runs from the Sandy Slough Control Structure to the
Mariposa Bypass (SJRRP 2008, Mooney 2008). The channel is deep with no riparian
vegetation on its banks. It can carry the amount of water necessary to facilitate salmon
migration (Subcommittee on Water and Power 2006), but without a vegetative canopy the
water temperature will vary widely which will stress the salmon (Quinn 2005).
Environmentalist and the landowners of along the river are at odds over which
alternative should be used. The environmentalists and others working with the SJRRP
want to see the original river channel restored believing this will be a more fish-friendly
alternative (Subcommittee on Water and Power 2006). Landowners want the Eastside
bypass to be used because they believe that it will be more economically feasible and they
do not want to lose any of their land. Also they do not want to be forced to make changes
that will be necessary to accommodate the endangered species that will be introduced to
their backyard (Subcommittee on Water and Power 2006). Their opposition to the original
river restoration plans is so strong they will not let officials on their land to assess the river.
Until recently the San Joaquin River Restoration Program did not have the political
or financial backing needed to persuade these farmers to comply. The regulatory agency
for SJRRP is the Bureau of Reclamation thus the program could not move forward on the
project officially until federal legislation was passed (SJRRP 2008). It took three years for
congress to pass the appropriate bills. As of March 2009 President Barak Obama just
signed a massive public lands bill, which included the San Joaquin River Restoration
Program, into law (Doyle 2009). This will finally get the restoration project underway.
River Restoration Theory
There are several theories on how a river can be successfully restored. Each river
restoration project starts with certain goals in mind that guide the project from start to
Crystal Forman
Capstone
9
finish as well as continued monitoring methods that will be applied once the river is
restored (Rogen 1994, Wohl 2004, Montgomery 2004). This project will rely heavily on
David Rosgen’s (1994, 2006) restoration method in order to find a restoration plan form
for the SJRRP’s Reach 4B with the goal of providing a clear passage way for Chinook Salmon
to their spawning grounds. Rosgen (1994, 2006) has developed a method that is a step by
step process to channel design for river restoration. He focuses on developing plans for a
river by using natural channels blueprints for constructed channels. This approach entails
analyzing detailed geometry of a reference reach or several reference reaches; these are
existing river segments that provide a physical model for designing a new channel.
Reference river reaches are selected because they exist in similar geologic settings and
watershed conditions presented at the restoration site. Natural channel design is an
extensive method that catalogues everything from valley morphology, river morphology,
and flow regime to human activities that will influence how the river works.
Ellen Wohl and Dorothy Morriettes (2007) and Montgomery (2008) do not believe
that natural river restoration may be not possible in some case. However, their definition
of what constitutes a natural river restoration differs from Rosgen. They believe that a
natural river restoration means that the restoration project will return a river to its
pristine, pre-human influenced conditions (Wohl 2004; Montgomery 2008). However,
Rosgen’s method uses the natural river design to create a channel that is best suited for an
area and the process does allow for modifications what that can be used to accommodate
anthropogenic influences (Rosgen 1994).
Even though Wohl and Montgomery are opponents to the method this project will
use, they do present issues that will need to be taken into consideration to ensure a
successful restoration. Wohl (2004) has studied the anthropogenic effects on river form
and function over time. Understanding how these influences have changed the river can
help in restoration plans as well as setting up monitoring protocols. Montgomery (2004)
has studied the effects geomorphology has played in the Pacific Coast salmon evolution. He
points out that a river restoration effort with salmon restoration as a goal needs to take
into consideration the life cycle of the salmon population that is being helped.
Crystal Forman
Capstone
10
The main focus of the project is to find the necessary river geometry to produce
blueprint of the San Joaquin River channel at Reach 4B using a natural channel design
principles. Since access to most of the river is restricted in this area, aerial photographs and
digital elevation models (DEM) will be used to find meander length, sinuosity, radius of
curvature, and drainage area for several reaches along the San Joaquin River and its
tributaries. The critical parameter of bankfull width will be calculated from meander
length and an average measurement will be estimated. Meander length, radius of curvature,
and bankfull width will be plotted, and regressed, against the drainage area of the
watershed above each reference reach. These plots and equations are called “regional
curves of bankfull geometry” (Smith et al. 2009). They will be used to estimate the channel
design parameters created for Reach 4B. Since most of Reach 4B is highly degraded and to
test the validity of the regional curves sections of Reach 4B will not be used in the final
regression analysis. The regional curves should be able to predict the geometry of Reach
4B from its drainage area even without data from this section of the channel.
Methods:
In order to find a natural river channel design for river restoration understanding
the past behavior of the channel and its natural geometry is essential. Aerial photographs,
photo reconnaissance (in areas that could be accessed), and historical accounts were used
to classify Reach 4B within the Rosgen (1994) river classification system. An analysis of
river geometries was done by the using aerial photographs, DEMs in ArcGIS 9.2 and
Bluebeam PDF Revu. Aerial photo graphs from 1998 and 2004 were obtained from the
SJRRP and DEMs were taken from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) seamless 10
meter DEM website. Sections of the San Joaquin River and its tributaries were analyzed for
river geometry. Sections were chosen for their relative geometric likeness to the whole of
the channel within the river’s natural (or anthropogenic) geomorphic breaks (Table 1).
The river geometry measurements that were taken directly from the aerial photos in
ArcGIS v. 9.2 were radius of curvature, meander width, meander length and channel and
valley length. Sinuosity and bankfull width were calculated from the measured geometries.
Slope was calculated using DEMs in ArcGIS. Arc length was calculated from central angle
measurements; central angles were measured using Bluebeam PDF Revu. Even though
Crystal Forman
Capstone
11
Reach 4B is not part of the analysis sections were analyzed for possible comparison to
calculated geometries.
Calculated geometries were found using hydrologic equations and standards.
Meander length was found by averaging the meander lengths of each section. Sinuosity (K)
was found by dividing channel length by valley length (K= CL/VL). Bankfull width was
estimated from meander length. Typically for meandering rivers one meander length is
equal to 10 to 14 bankfull widths (Rosgen 1994, Ward & Trimble 2004). Thus to find an
average bankfull width from this geomorphic standard, the meander length was divided by
10, 12 and 14, then the arithmetic average was taken of the three outcomes.
Once the bankfull widths were estimated a regional curve was created by finding the
drainage area of each reference reach. Drainage area was found by delineating watersheds
in ArcGIS by using of DEMs (Figure 12). When the drainage area for reach was found the
drainage area and bankfull width pairs were plotted to see if there was a statistically
significant mathematical relationship between the variables. Regional curves are
constructed to assess if the drainage area can predict the bankfull width of a river.
Microsoft Excel was used to find the power function that would explain the mathematic
relationship between drainage area and bankfull width. A regression was then conducted
to see if this relationship was significant. This was also done for radius of curvature and
meander length.
After the hydrologic geometries were assessed for the overall San Joaquin River
system the specific geometries for Reach 4B were teased out to draft a plan form for this
section of the river. The regional curves that were constructed were used to find radius of
curvature, meander length, and bankfull width. Valley slope was determined from DEMs.
Depth was found by using Manning’s equation (Manning’s roughness coefficient estimated
from photos), discharge equation (Q=VA) and the design discharge (4500 cfs; Appendix
III). All other dimensions were calculated using hydraulic standards and constants.
Results
Review of historic maps, historical written accounts and aerial photos indicate that
this section of the San Joaquin River was an anastamosing river before channelization.
Crystal Forman
Capstone
12
Anastamosing rivers are multichannel river with stable vegetated islands and very low
valley slope (>0.5%) (Rosgen 1994). This geometry is still visible from aerial photographs
of the section of the San Joaquin River that runs through the San Luis Wildlife Reserve
(Figure 4). Rose (2000) mentions that many of journals of frontiersman that helped settle
California mentioned that it was a maze of water ways for this area. Also, theses journals
and historical accounts state that this area once was a vast wet land habitat. This lends
support to the idea that this section of the river is anastamosing because wetland habitats
are generally associated with this type of river (Rosgen 1994; Figure 5). Even more
substantial evidence is that this area is part of the Pacific Flyway (Rose 2000).
It was found that estimated bankfull width, radius of curvature, and meander length
could be predicted by drainage area (bankfull width: y=3.625x0.316, R2 =0.484, p= 0.002;
Radius of curvature: y=2.479x0.452. R2= 0.593, p= 0.0007; meander length: y=42.69x0.316,
R2= 0.484, p= 0.002; Table 2). Since nine of the data points had similar drainage areas
(~4.99 x 103 km2 through ~ 5.94 x 103 km2), those points were averaged into one point to
avoid weighting or (leveraging) any specific part of the data set. It is common for bankfull
geometry and drainage area to be best related by a power function, so the variables are,
when plotted, a linear relationship on logarithmic axes (Figure 6-8).
When initial graphs were plotted it was revealed that the Bear Creek reaches were
outside the main cluster of data points. The data were then reanalyzed with the two points
from Bear Creek removed to assess if the data set would still produce a significant result.
Since the data set without Bear Creek was found to be significant we can conclude that
even though these two data points are not part of the main cluster of data they still fit
within the data set (bankfull width: p= 0.015; Radius of curvature: p= 0.035; meander
length: p= 0.015; Table 3; Figure 8-10)
The drainage area that was found from ArcGIS for Reach 4B was 5900 km2. From
this drainage area it was found that bankfull width was 56m, radius of curvature was
130m, and meander length was 660m. The average of meander widths was 350 m and arc
length was 250m (central angle was 120°). These measurements were then used to draft a
blueprint of a plan form for Reach 4B (Figure 14). From the blueprint sinuosity was found
Crystal Forman
Capstone
13
to be 1.5. To find depth, 4,500 cfs was converted into m3/s (130) then calculated using the
equation: 𝑑𝑑 = �( 𝑄𝑄∗𝑛𝑛
𝑆𝑆12∗𝑤𝑤
)35 . Slope for this equation is channel slope (0.0003) which was
derived from valley slope (0.0004) divided by sinuosity. Manning’s n was assessed from
photographs (Figure 13). Depth was found to be 2.50m which would make the width to
depth ratio 22 (Table 3).
In comparing three sections of Reach 4B it was found that the calculated dimension
were larger then what was there (Figure 27, 28; Table 4). However, it matches well with
other relic meanders in the area.
Discussion:
Results suggest that the restored section of the San Joaquin River, Reach 4B, is a C5
channel (Rosgen 1994 classification). Turning this section of the river into a single thread
meandering channel will provide a channel that will not take up as much land as a DA6
(anastamosed river) which in turn maybe more beneficial for the farmers in the area
(Rosgen 1994). The classification of 5 was assigned because the bed load will consist
mostly of sand. Moreover, C5 rivers are most commonly associated with wetland
complexes, which is fitting considering this is the environment Reach 4B was historically
and currently (Rose 2000, personal observation). Geomorphically the valley slope,
sinuosity and width to depth (w/d) ratio also suggest a C type channel as well. Rosgen
(1994) states that C type channels have a slope of < .02, a sinuosity of > 1.4 and a w/d
ratio of >12. It was found that the valley slope of the area is 0.0004, with an average
sinuosity 1.5 and a w/d of 22. When the blueprint was drafted for the area of Reach 4B it
matched closely to relic meanders present in that area (Figure 14).
In order to maintain the channel a riparian corridor needs to be established to
minimize erosion and to stabilize the banks (Rosgen 1994). Since the banks and the bed
are made mostly of mud and clay it is suggested that the riparian vegetation is given time to
grow so it can protect the new formed banks from erosion. It does not take much shear
stress to mobilize mud and clay particles and erosion of the banks could throw the river out
of equilibrium (Rosgen 1994). Also an increase amount of suspended sediment could
Crystal Forman
Capstone
14
inhibit the reintroduction of the Chinook salmon; high amounts of suspended sediment not
only decrease water quality it can foul the gills of the salmon and other fish species (Quinn
2005). Moreover, riparian corridor help keep water temperature stable. The canopy keeps
water from heating up too quickly during the day and losing heat too quickly at night. If
Chinook salmon were to be reintroduced without the channel being well shaded the
temperature variability would stress the salmon (Quinn 2005).
Rivers are dynamic and mobile geomorphic landforms thus ways to keep the new
channel within a confined area must be put in place. A buffer zone on either side of the
river needs to be established to give the river some room to migrate and to protect the
river from agricultural runoff. However, the river must be kept within the buffer zone to
protect agricultural land. This can be done by armoring areas that will be more susceptible
to erosion, such as the outer edge of meander loops. Armoring could be done with buried
boulders, or other barriers that are erosion resistant. The boulders would act almost like
bedrock and prevent the channel from migrating further (Rosgen 1994). This will be
necessary to protect the farmers that live along Reach 4B that do not want the channel
restored.
Even though the statistics support that the regional curves created from analyses of
aerial photographs to be used to design a blueprint for restoration of this section of the San
Joaquin River they should not completely be relied on. Extensive field work needs to be
done to validate the regional curves further. In addition to field work on the regional curves
a reference reach should be found to take hydrological dimension from for a more reliable
restoration blueprint (Rosgen 1994). This study only gives a starting point for
understanding the San Joaquin River’s watershed and approximated estimate of what the
channel for Reach 4B might look like.
Another problem with using this study for a restoration plan for Reach 4B is that all
measurements were taken from a watershed that has been heavily impacted by
anthropogenic activities. All major tributaries and the main truck of the river have been
dammed. Adding to the complexity of this river, the water in the channel past Mendota
pools comes from the Sacramento Delta. This water is delivered to the channel via the
Crystal Forman
Capstone
15
Delta-Mendota Canal in order to provide farmers along the river with water since the water
from Friant Dam no longer reached Mendota (Rose 2000). These and other changes could
cause immeasurable amounts of error in the data. It is likely that the watershed is still
adjusting to the human imposed barriers and diversions. Finding historical records and
photographs may add to the knowledge base needed to create a restoration plan for Reach
4B that will be successful.
It is important that the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) take great
care in the development of a restoration blueprint and plan not just for Reach 4B but for
the entirety of the Upper San Joaquin River. A tremendous amount of effort has gone into
ensuring the restoration of the San Joaquin River for the reintroduction of the Chinook
salmon. The compromise between environmentalist and farmer that created this
opportunity is one of the first of its kind in the Central Valley of California. This may be the
beginning of a new relationship between these two groups and the success or failure of this
project will be the foundation of their future relationship. The success in this project is
paramount to the initiation of good relations between environmentalist and farmers. Thus
the SJRRP must be diligent in designing a restoration plan that is more like to be successful.
This study may provide the initial steps in this process.
Acknowledgments:
First and for most I would like to thank my mentor Dr. Douglas Smith. Without his
wisdom, guidance and personal effort this project would have never gotten off the ground.
I would like to personally thank the San Joaquin River Restoration Program for giving me
the resource I needed to complete the project and the opportunity to join them on one of
their field trips to Reach 4B. For academic support I would like to recognize the California
State Univeristy Monterey Bay Ronald E. McNair Post Baccalaureate Program. And last but
not least I would like to acknowledge my family and friend for supporting and putting up
with me during this process.
Crystal Forman
Capstone
16
Crystal Forman
Capstone
17
References:
Cech TV. 2005. Principles of Water Resources: History, Development, Management, and Policy. 2 edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Cederholm CJ, Kunze MD, Murota T, Sibatani A. 1999 Pacific salmon carcasses. Fisheries. 26(10): 6-15.
[FWUA] Friant Water User Authority. (2006). Summary of the stipulation of settlement of Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., v. Kirk Rodgers, et al. United States District Court [Internet].[Cited 2008 April 14]. Available from: http://www.fwua.org/settlement/supplemental/docs/Summary_of_the_Settlement.pdf
Montgomery DR. November 2004. Geology, geomorphology, and the restoration ecology of salmon. GSA Today 14(11): 4-12.
Montgomery DR. (2008). Dreams of Natural Streams. Science. 319(1):291-292.
Mooney, D. 2008, July 28. C. Forman, Interviewer
National Resources Defense Council et al... v. Roger Patterson et al..., No. Civ. S-188-1658 LKK United States District Court for the Eastern District of California April 30, 1992.
National Resources Defense Council et al... v. Houston et al..., 146 F.3d 1118 (United State Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit June 24, 1998).
[NOAA] NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region Office. (February 20, 2008). Recovery of salmon and steelhead in California and Southern Oregan. [Interenet]. [Cited 2008 April 17]. Available from: http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/recovery/Chinook_CVSR.htm.
Quinn TP. 2005. The Behavior and Ecology of Pacific Salmon and Trout. 1st edition. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
Rose G. 2000. The San Joaquin a river betrayed. 2nd edition. California: Word Dancer Press.
Rosgen D. 1994. Applied River Morphology. 1st edition. Colorado: Wildland Hydrology.
Rosgen DL. 2006. River restoration using a geomorphic approach for natural channel design. In: Eighth Federal interagency Sedimentation Conference; 2006 April 2-6; Reno, NV.; p. 394-401.
[SJRRP] San Joaquin River Restoration Program. (February 2008). Temperature model sensitivity analyses set 1 &2. [Internet]. [cited 2008 21]. Available from: http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/bayfund/pdfs/01_13SJRRestorationObjectivesIntro.pdf .
Shumm,SA. 1977. The Fluvial System. In: Ritter DF, Kochel RC, Miller JR. 2002. Process Geomorphology. 4th edition. Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Smith, D.P., Diehl, T., Turrini-Smith, L.A., Maas-Baldwin, J, and Croyle, Z., 2009, River restoration strategies within channelized, low-gradient landscapes of West
Crystal Forman
Capstone
18
Tennessee, USA; in James, A., Rathburn, S., and Whittecar, R., eds, Management and Restoration of Fluvial Systems with Broad Historical Changes and Human Impacts: Geological Sciety of America Special Paper 451., p. 000-000; doi: 10.1130/2009.245(14).
Taylor PS. June 1949. Central Valley Project: water and land. The Western Political Quarterly. 2 (2): 228-253.
The San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act: oversight hearing before the subcomm. on Water and Power of the Comm. on Natural Resources, 109th Cong. 2nd Sess. (September 21,2006).
Ward AD and Trimble SW. 2004. Environmental Hydrology. 2nd edition. New York: CRC press.
Warner G. Remember the San Joaquin. In: Lufkin A, editors. 1991. California’s salmon and steelhead: The struggle to restore an imperiled resource. 1st edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Willson MF and Halupke KC. 1995, Anadromous fish as keystone species in vertebrate communities. Conservation Biology 9: 489- 497
Wohl E, Merritts DJ. 2007. What is a natural river?. In: Geography Compass: Journal compilation. New York: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; p. 871-901.
Wohl EW. 2004. Disconnected Rivers. 1st edition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Yoshiyama RM, Fisher FW, Moyle PB. (August 1998). Historical Abundance and Decline of Chinook Salmon in the Central Valley Region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 3 (18): 487-521.
Crystal Forman
Capstone
19
Appendix I: Figures
Figure 1: State of California. San Joaquin River marked in dark blue. Marking exaggerated for clarity.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_2001/california_ref_2001.jpg
Crystal Forman
Capstone
20
Figure 2: Close up of the San Joaquin River. The Friant Dam is marked along with begins and end of the dry
channel. The start of the dry channel begins near Gravelly Ford and ends after Mendota Pools once the Delta-
Mendota Canal starts to feed the channel. Image from
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/us_2001/california_ref_2001.jpg
Friant Dam
Gravelly Ford
Mendota-
Delta Canal
Crystal Forman
Capstone
21
Figure 3: Aerial Photograph of Reach 4B
Crystal Forman
Capstone
22
Figure 4: San Joaquin River distributaries. The interconnected channels create stable islands. The blue lines
are sloughs that are distributaries from the main channel San Joaquin River in this area.
Main Channel
Crystal Forman
Capstone
23
Figure 5: This is possibly how the area of Reach 4B should have looked historically. Photo by Crystal E.
Forman
Figure 6: Estimated Bankfull Width Regional Curve.
y = 3.6253x0.3169
R² = 0.4844
10.00
100.00
1000.00
1.0000E+02 1.0000E+03 1.0000E+04 1.0000E+05
Wid
th (m
)
Drainage Area (km2)
Crystal Forman
Capstone
24
Figure 7: Radius of Curvature Regional Curve
Figure 8: Meander Length Regional Curve
y = 2.4798x0.4526
R² = 0.5936
10
100
1000
1.0000E+02 1.0000E+03 1.0000E+04 1.0000E+05
Radi
us o
f Cur
vatu
re (m
)
Drainage Area (km2)
y = 42.69x0.3169
R² = 0.4844
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
1.0000E+02 1.0000E+03 1.0000E+04 1.0000E+05
Mea
nder
Len
gth
(m)
Drainage Area (km2)
Crystal Forman
Capstone
25
Figure 9: Estimated Bankfull Width Regional curve without Bear Creek data
Figure10: Radius of Curvature Regional curve without Bear Creek data
y = 0.2332x0.6241
R² = 0.5746
10.00
100.00
1000.00
1.0000E+03 1.0000E+04 1.0000E+05
Wid
th (m
)
Drainage Area (km2)
y = 0.3812x0.6623
R² = 0.4963
10
100
1000
1.0000E+03 1.0000E+04 1.0000E+05
Radi
us o
f Cur
vatu
re (m
)
Drainage Area (km2)
Crystal Forman
Capstone
26
Figure 11: Meander Length regional curve without Bear Creek data
Figure 12: Watersheds of the San Joaquin Watershed
y = 2.7456x0.6241
R² = 0.5746
100.00
1000.00
10000.00
1.0000E+03 1.0000E+04 1.0000E+05
Mea
nder
Len
gth
(m)
Drainage Area (km2)
Crystal Forman
Capstone
27
Figure 13: Part of Reach 4B.2 in the San Luis Wildlife Preserve. Photo used to asses Manning’s n. Many
riparian areas along the San Joaquin are similar to this. Not shown in photo, banks and channel are formed
from mud and silt. Photo by: Crystal Forman
Crystal Forman
Capstone
28
Figure 14: Rough Draft of plane form of Reach 4B with comparison to relic meanders
Crystal Forman
Capstone
29
Figure 15: San Joaquin River downstream from Friant Dam
Crystal Forman
Capstone
30
Figure 16: Bear Creek
Crystal Forman
Capstone
31
Figure 17: San Joaquin River upstream from the confluence of the Merced River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
32
Figure 18: Merced River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
33
Figure 19: Merced River downstream from section 5
Crystal Forman
Capstone
34
Figure 20: San Joaquin River below the confluence of Merced River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
35
Figure 21: San Joaquin River below the Sandy Slough Control Structure. Part of Reach 4B
Crystal Forman
Capstone
36
Figure 22: San Joaquin River below the confluence of the Delta Mendota Canal
Crystal Forman
Capstone
37
Figure 23: San Joaquin River below confluence of the Stanislus River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
38
Figure 24: San Joaquin River below the Chowchilla Bypass.
Crystal Forman
Capstone
39
Figure 25: San Joaquin River below the confluence of the Delta Mendota Canal downstream from section #13
Crystal Forman
Capstone
40
Figure 26: San Joaquin River above the Sandy Slough Control Structure
Crystal Forman
Capstone
41
Figure 27: San Joaquin River above the Mariposa Bypass. Reach 4B
Crystal Forman
Capstone
42
Figure 28: San Joaquin River below the Mariposa Bypass. Reach 4B.2
Crystal Forman
Capstone
43
Figure 29: San Joaquin River below the confluence of Bear Creek. Pass the end of Reach 4B
Crystal Forman
Capstone
44
Figure 30: San Joaquin River above the confluence Tuolumne River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
45
Figure 31: Tuolumne River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
46
Figure 32: San Joaquin River below the confluence of the Tuolumne River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
47
Figure 33: Stanislaus River
Crystal Forman
Capstone
48
Figure 34: Stanislaus River downstream from section #24
Crystal Forman
Capstone
49
Appendix II: Tables
Table 1: Sections of the San Joaquin River that were analyzed for geometry. Note #12 is missing because this section on closer inspection was on a section of the river that looks like there is a high rate of bank erosion. “Above” means upstream and “Below” means downstream.
Site
ID
Site Description Distance (km)
to nearest
feature
Nearest feature Figure
1 San Joaquin River Below Friant Dam
30.50 Friant Dam 15
2 Bear Creek 12.00 Confluence with SJR 16
3 Bear Creek 11.00 Confluence with SJR 16
4 Above Merced River
1.90 Confluence with the Merced River 17
5 Merced River 10.40 Confluence with SJR 18
6 Merced River 3.50 Confluence with SJR 19
7 Below Merced River
5.90 Confluence with the Merced River 20
8 Below Merced River
8.50 Confluence with the Merced River 20
9 Below Sandy Slough Control Stucture
1.40 Sandy Slough Control Sturcture 21
10 Below Delta-Mendota Canal
11.90 Chowchilla Bypass 22
11 Below Stanislaus River
1.50 Confluence with Stanislaus River 23
13 SJR Below Chaowchilla Bypass
2.70 Chowchilla Bypass 24
14 Below Delta-Mendota Canal
22.00 Chowchilla Bypass 25
15 Above Sandy Slough Control Stucture
4.40 Sandy Slough Control Sturcture 26
16 Above Sandy Slough Control Stucture
3.25 Sandy Slough Control Sturcture 26
17 Above Mariposa Bypass
3.80 Mariposia Bypass 27
18 Below Mairposa Bypass
1.30 Mariposia Bypass 28
19 Below Mairposa Bypass
4.30 Mariposia Bypass 28
20 Below Bear Creek
1.10 Confluence with Bear Creek 29
21 Above Tuolumne River
11.60 Confluence with Tuolumne River 30
Crystal Forman
Capstone
50
22 Tuolumne River 5.20 Confluence with SJR 31
23 Below Tuolumne River
0.15 Confluence with Tuolumne River 32
24 Stanislaus River 9.00 Confluence with SJR 33
25 Stanislaus River 5.00 Confluence with SJR 34
Table 2: Statistics for Estimated Bankfull Width, Radius of Curvature, and Meander Length. Skew of the
residuals was used to assess for normality.
Skew of
Residuals
Equation R2 p-value Figure
Estimated
Bankfull Width
-0.778 y=3.625x0.316 0.484 0.002 #6
Radius of
Curvature
-0.150 y=2.479x0.452 0.593 0.0007 #7
Meander
Length
-0.778 y=42.69x0.316 0.484 0.002 #8
Table3: Statistics for Estimated Bankfull Width, Radius of Curvature, and Meander Length without the data
from Bear Creek. Skew of Residuals was used to assess normality.
Skew of
Residuals
Equation R2 p-value Figure
Estimated
Bankfull Width
-0.826 y=0.233x0.624 0.574 0.015 #9
Radius of
Curvature
-0.272 y=0.381x0.662 0.496 0.035 #10
Meander
Length
-0.826 y=2.745x0.624 0.574 0.015 #11
Table 4: Dimensions for planform for restoration of Reach 4B
Measurement How measurement was calculated
Drainage Area (km2) 5900 ArcGIS (Figure 12)
Crystal Forman
Capstone
51
Bankfull Width (m) 56.0 y=3.668x0.312
Radius of Curvature (m) 130 y=2.579x0.442
Meander Length (m) 660 y=43.43x0.312
Meander Width (m) 350 Average of all sections
Sinuosity 1.5 From Blueprint
Valley Slope 0.0004 ArcGIS
Channel Slope 0.0003 Valley Slope/Sinuosity
Manning’s n 0.035 Chosen from Manning’s n Reference Table
(Figure 13)
Discharge (Q) (m3/s) 130 Converted from 4500 ft3/s as set by SJRRP
Depth (m) 2.60 𝑑𝑑 = �( 𝑄𝑄∗𝑛𝑛
𝑤𝑤∗𝑠𝑠12)35 Q=discharge,
n= Manning Coefficient, w=width, s=slop Width/depth 22 Width/depth
Arc Length (m) 250 Using Bluebeam PDF Revu to find central angle (C)
then using the equation 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝑛𝑛𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿ℎ = 2𝜋𝜋𝐴𝐴( 𝐶𝐶360
)
Crystal Forman
Capstone
52
Appendix III: Depth Calculation from Manning’s and Discharge Equation
V= velocity S= channel slope R= hydraulic radius n= manning’s coefficient
Manning’s Equation
𝑉𝑉 = 𝑆𝑆1/2∗𝑅𝑅2/3
𝑛𝑛
If we assume that the hydraulic radius (R) is equal to average depth (d) of the channel the equation becomes:
𝑉𝑉 =𝑆𝑆1/2 ∗ 𝑑𝑑2/3
𝑛𝑛
Q= Discharge V=Velocity A= Area w= width d= depth
Discharge:
Q=V*A
Since Area is equal to width * depth then the equation becomes:
Q=V*(w*d)
Since Manning’s equation equals velocity then the equation becomes:
𝑄𝑄 = �𝑆𝑆12∗𝑑𝑑
23
𝑛𝑛� ∗ (𝑤𝑤 ∗ 𝑑𝑑)
To find depth (d) the equation needs to be solved for d:
𝑄𝑄 = �𝑆𝑆
12 ∗ 𝑑𝑑
23
𝑛𝑛 � ∗ (𝑤𝑤 ∗ 𝑑𝑑) => 𝑄𝑄 = �𝑆𝑆
12 ∗ 𝑑𝑑
53 ∗ 𝑤𝑤𝑛𝑛 �
=> 𝑑𝑑5/3 =𝑄𝑄 ∗ 𝑛𝑛
𝑆𝑆12 ∗ 𝑤𝑤
=> 𝑑𝑑5 = (𝑄𝑄 ∗ 𝑛𝑛
𝑆𝑆12 ∗ 𝑤𝑤
)3 => 𝑑𝑑 = �(𝑄𝑄 ∗ 𝑛𝑛
𝑆𝑆12 ∗ 𝑤𝑤
)35