, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 745–753 | Cite as

Lateral migration and bank erosion in a saltmarsh tidal channel in San Francisco Bay, California

  • Emmanuel J. Gabet


Saltmarsh tidal channels have often been recognized as being stable landscape features, despite highly sinous planforms, severely undercut banks, and high rates of bank erosion. In an effort to solve this paradox, a saltmarsh tidal channel in the San Francisco Bay was monitored from March 1995 to March 1996. The short-term rate of bank erosion was measured using erosion pins and found to be 57 ± 10 mm yr−1 on the outside banks of meander bends. In addition, a long-term maximum lateral migration rate of 23 ± 23 mm yr−1 was estimated from aerial photos, producing a dimensionless channel migration rate (defined as the rate of migration divided by channel with), of 0.5% yr−1. The difference in the rates of lateral migration and bank erosion is attributed to the persistence of failed bank material (slump blocks) in the channel. The slump blocks induce sedimentation, protect the banks, and prevent further bank erosion. A published stability analysis method for undercut banks is applied to determine a maximum overhanging width. Using the measured compressive and tensile strengths of rooted bank material, 16.55 ± 1.16 kPa and 2.93 ± 0.71 kPa, respectively, the maximum width of an undercut bank is calculated to be 0.69 m. The average width of slump blocks measured in the field is 0.67 ± 0.25 m. A simple numerical model predicting the rate of lateral migration is derived using the results from the stability analysis and data from sedimentation and erosion pins inserted throughout the channel. This model accurately predicts a rate of 23 ± 3 mm yr−1.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Abbe, T., and Bennett, A. 1991. China Camp State Park Site. Map of China Camp Park produced by Phillip Williams and Associates, Limited, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  2. Ahnert, F. 1960. Estuarine meanders in the Chesapeake Bay area.The Geographical Review 50:390–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayliss-Smith, T. P., R. Healey, R. Lailey, T. Spencer, andD. R. Stoddart. 1979. Tidal flows in salt marsh creeks.Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 9:235–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Collins, L. M., J. N. Collins, andL. B. Leopold. 1986. Geomorphic processes of an estuarine marsh: Preliminary results and hypotheses, p. 1049–1072.In V. Gardiner (ed.), International Geomorphology, 1. John Wiley and Sons Limited, London, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
  5. Faber, P. M. 1993. Common Wetland Plants of Coastal California. Pickleweed Press, Mill Valley, California.Google Scholar
  6. Garofalo, D. 1990. The influence of wetland vegetation on tidal stream channel migration and morphology.Estuaries 3:258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geyl, W. F. 1976. Tidal neomorphs.Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie 20:308–330.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, G. K. 1917. Hydraulic mining debris in the Sierra Nevada.United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 105:1–154.Google Scholar
  9. Goldthwait, J. W. 1937. Unchanging meanders of tidal creeks.Proceedings of the Geological Society of America (1936) 1:73–74.Google Scholar
  10. Healey, R. G., K. Pye, D. R. Stoddart, andT. P. Bayliss-Smith. 1981. Velocity variations in salt marsh creeks, Norfolk, England.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 13:535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Larsen, E. W. 1995. Mechanics of modeling of river meander migration. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California.Google Scholar
  12. Lawler, D. M. 1993. The measurement of river bank erosion and lateral channel change: A review.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 18:777–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leopold, L. B., J. N. Collins, andL. M. Collins. 1993. Hydrology of some tidal channels in estuarine marshland near San Francisco.Catena 20:469–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, andJ. P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  15. Mitsch, W. J., andR. F. Wilson. 1996. Improving the success of wetland creation and restoration with know-how, time, and self-design.Ecological Applications 6:77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pestrong, R. 1965. The development of drainage patterns on tidal marshes.Stanford University Publications: Geological Sciences 10:1–87.Google Scholar
  17. Pethick, J. 1984. An Introduction to Coastal Geomorphology. Edward Arnold, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
  18. Redfield, A. C. 1972. Development of a New England salt marsh.Ecological Monographs 42:201–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. San Francisco Association of Bay Area Governments. 1991. Status and Trends on Wetlands in the San Francisco Estuary. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
  20. Thorne, C. R., andN. K. Tovey. 1981. Stability of composite river banks.Earth Surfaces Processes and Landforms 6:469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van Eerdt, M. M. 1985. Salt marsh cliff stability in the Oosterschelde.Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 10:95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zedler, J. 1996. Coastal mitigation in southern California: The need for a regional restoration strategy.Ecological Applications 6:84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmanuel J. Gabet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of California BerkeleyBerkeley
  2. 2.Department of GeologyUniversity of California Santa BarbaraSanta Barbara

Personalised recommendations