sign in sign up
<<
Home , Revetment

Geomorphic Continuity: Longterm RfthLYbRiResponses of the Lower Yuba to Hydraulic Mining Allan James University of South Carolina

2012 Lower Yuba River Symposium July 11, 2012, Sacramento Introduction • Historical fluvial changes, drawn from and illustrated by examples of newly developed cartographic and aerial photographic data, are examined. • The Lower Yuba River (LYR) is a poster child for anthroppgogenic chang e. It is one of the most heavily changed known, due to hydraulic mining sediment (HMS), dredging, and engineering works. • KithhitfhiKnowing the history of change is essenti tiltal to understanding river dynamics as responses to a complex of processes and trends.

Water canon used for hyygdraulic mining. North Bloomfield, Malkoff Diggings. Objectives • Combine historical map & air photo evidence with stratigraphic, sedimentological, geochemical, field, & hithistori cal ld dat a t o d ocument tLYR LYR ch annel l&fl & pl ai n initial (pre-European) conditions and changes over historical period. • Document specific changes caused by hydraulic mining sediment (HMS), gold dredging, and engineering to LYR, especially prior to ca . 1950 . •Many aerial photographs have been rectified and examined for geomorphic change . Most LYR changes occurred before air photos, however, so this presentation emphasizes early chhlllddhanges that are less well documented. Scope

• PrePre--settlementsettlement Conditions • Initial Influx of Hydraulic Mining Sediment (HMS) • The Era : incision, dredging, & protection. • Adjustments to Longitudinal Profile • Base Level Control Below the Feather Pre-settlement Conditions

• LYR had deep, clear , with abundant salmon and high cohihesive b bklidanks lined wi ihith ripari an vegetation. • on low , aka, the ‘low bottoms’: • Dark soil with tall trees, brush , and vines. • Away from channels, an older terrace rose above floodplains: • Reddish soil with fewer trees.

• “In the early days, all the territory south of the present north channel of the Yuba River at the D Street Bridggfe was a vast wilderness of trees and underbrush, wild grape and blackberry vines, this dense forest extending down to Eliza Bend on the south and upstream on the Yuba River for many miles... The southerly boundary of this forest was the higher ridge of red dirt land…” W.T. Ellis, 1939. Longitudinal Transition: Floodppglain Widening at ColluvialLimit • Late Quaternary terraces dip below historical alluvium near Parks . Earlier terraces and colluvium ((p)with well developed soils) dip beneath historical alluvium in YGF. • Quaternary terraces idddin YGF were dredged. • bottoms widen in YGF where modern alluvium emerge from older surfaces. Thi s i s where begin.

Generalized from USDA digital soils data. 1844 • Early maps lack details of channels • Sacramento Valley: topographically challenged • Extensive basins and wetlands were sites of flooding and sediment . • In LYR, this was greatly exacerbated by HMS and later engineering works.

Sacramento Valley (Bidwell 1844) PrePre--miningmining Channels

• Sedimentation in Valley prior to 1862 flood was negligible. • Channels on 1859 map represent pre-mining chlhannels. • Although single channel is shown, other maps indicate a southhlidhern channel existed that was not mapped in 1859.

RMSE=43.7 m North half 1859 Von 29 GCPs Schmidt map. Map of Yuba County, Anastomosing channel 1861 (multithread)

Of Note: • Two channels from YGF to Simpson FtbiddFerry; not braided. • Former channel to south with slough to north near Marysville • Cutoff to Feather confluence existed prior to dredging Westcoat, 1861, map of Yuba County 5.5 m historic

Pre- settlement alluvium

LYR at Marysville, right bank exposure. Pre-settlement soil i s d ark b rown silt (f orest soil) b uri ed b y >5 m HMS. Bank Stratigraphy at Marysville Bank exposure

• Bank exposure was not on main channel during pre-settlement time. HMS has high Hg concentrations Influx of HMS • Auriferous paleochannel gravels on Foothill ridgetops were washed into below.

North Columbia Mine, San Juan Rdg. Photo by A.James, Oct., 2003. Brief History of Hydraulic Mining • 1853 – Invented in upper Yuba basin near Nevada City. • 18621862--1880s1880s – Extreme sedimentation in Valley. • 1884 – Hydraulic mining to navigable rivers enjoined. • 1893 – Caminetti Act creates California Debris Commission (CDC) & legalizes permitted mining . Relatively small volumes mined but actions of CDC and small important. • 1917 – Gilbert’s classic treatise on hydraulic mining sediment, b ased on Y ub a Ri ver. AifAuriferous pa leoch annel s on rid idtgetops.

Placer & River Mining Sediment Produced by Hydraulic Mining (Adapted from Gilbert , 1917)

Volume Percent of total River (106 m3) Production Basin 523 49.0 % Yuba River 271* 25.4% Bear River 76.5 7.2% Feather River 871 81.6% SubTotal 197 18.4% AiRiAmerican River 1,067 100% Total

*Pro duct ion i n B ear revi sed up to Gilbert’s original estimate (James, 1989). Patterns of Sediment Storage Two Storage Zones: • Near mines on flat ridges • Little storage in steep canyons. • Most sediment delivered to Sacramento Valley. Valley storage was reported by Gilbert.

View up James, 2006, ESPL Middle Yuba Storage of Hydraulic Mining Sediment in Valley Fans

Storage Storage as % Production (million m3) Individual Basin Lower Yuba 253 48.4 Feather River below Yuba 24.6 32.2

>1 billion m3 produced in Yuba, Bear, Feather & American Rivers, 1853-1884. Yuba drainage area: 3499 km2. Data from Gilbert, 1917. First accurate survey and map in 1880

1880 paleo-channel is 1859 pre-miiining ch annel . South bend failed in 1997.

1859

Marysville, 1880. Channel & Morphogenesis to 1880s

Mendell, 1882 • Max occurred at most LYR sites by 1900. Previously, little if any dre dg ing or vi abl e d ams. • Multi-thread channel system with braided main channel and secondary channels to north and south.

1891 USGS Quad sheet The River Engineering Era: Channe l Inc is ion, Dre dg ing, Levees & Bank Protection Brief history of Federal funding for river improvements: • Began for Sacramento & Feather Rivers in 1875 – Dredging, snag removal & construction of ‘brush ’ • Modified by River and Harbor Act of 1882 - construction of brush dams on lower Yuba, Bear & American Rivers. • River and Harbor Act of 1892 – funds for LYR near Marysville and for dredging a cut -off of Shanghai Bend on Feather River . • Caminetti Act (1893) created CDC with broad environmental & flood mgt powers. Powers not used until 20th century but early studies, maps, and flood mgt. coordination important. History of LYR Needs Updating

• The LYR was made famous as an example of extreme river alteration byy()y G.K. Gilbert’s classic (1917) study of HMS. • Since Gilbert, many changes: – Channel incision & return to a single-thread system in response to lowering sediment loads, – Mining: • Blue Pt. hydraulic mine ( Smartville) produced sediment below Englebright; • Dredggging for gold greatl y altered channels in the Yuba Gold Fields (YGF) – Engineering works: dams, levees, wing dams, walls, d red gi ng, and b ank revet ment . Contrasting Styles of 19th Century River Mgt & Response: Feather vs. Yuba Rivers Earliest case of large river-basin mgt West of Miss. R: • Early engineering Goals: – Arrest sediment in Yuba with dams – Protect navigable Feather & Sacramento Rivers • Broad levee setbacks & dams in Yuba contrasted with narrow setbacks and dredging in Feather. • After brush dams in Bear and Yuba failed (1880s) and Barrier failed in LYR (()1907) plans for LYR resorted to wide levee setbacks with boulder wing dams on main channel. • Apparent manipulations of designed inlets encouraged moderate to disperse from YGF onto floodplain. Barrier No.1 Dam Site

• Built 1904; filled with sediment first winter. • Dam raised 2.4 m but also filled quickly. • Filled with ~1.3 x 106 m3 HMS • 20-ft d rop over d am i n 1906 • Failed in 1907 flood. • Channel from here to DPD has not incised or returned to pre- mining levels. Excerpt from CDC 1906 map; 1:9600; 0.6-m contours. RMSE ~12 m; ~12 GCPs Channel System

Multi-thread channel system from mining period persists as high- water chlhannel system. Wing dams & revetment in main channel protected banks & encouraged incision. Inlet structures controlled inflows to distributary systems. Mapping the Distributary Channel System

• High-water channels have very sandy soils. • Soil maps distinguish these soils as Xero-psamments. • Other HMS soil units mapped as Xero-fluvents and Riverwash .

Generalized soil units from digital USDA map data. Mapping Distributary Channels

Digitized geomorphic fblYGFfeatures below YGF: • Dark blue: main channel • Light blue: high -water channels • Brown: stable terrace surfaces (former floodplain deposits during peak aggradation period. When & How were Distributary Channels Abandoned by Moderate Flows? Distributary channels (red arrows) north of main channel below YGF. Development suggests flood risks are decreasing by 1938. • Broad channel abuts north levee (brown line) . 1938 • (A&B) Large islands with young orchards. • (C ) Road incroaches on channel suggesting flood hazards were no longer an issue. • These channels fed by inlets in next two figures. 1938 airphoto; USACE film archives DaGuerre Pt Before Extensive Dredging DPlifdiihlhdhfDaguerre Pt was loci of diversionary channels north and south of main channel. Single channel flows south of DP splits. • NW training wall built by 1906; cuts 1906 off upper inlet to north ch annel . • No east walls. • SW wall sketched • Blue – channels • Purple - dredged • Yellow – recent alluvium • Green –vegetated; historical stable • Orange – old colluvial soils CDC 1906 Sheet 3. Georegistered; colorized. Below DaGuerre Pt., 1906 • Early wall cut off moderate floods to north channel system prior to 1906. • NW training wall cut off flow to north channel. • Dam on southhh channel partly diverted flows from south channel system. • South training walls constructed shortly CDC 1906, Sheet 2; Diversionary channels after 1907. Manipulating Flows to Highwater Channels • Inlets to high-water channels were being blocked by 1930s. • (A) Opening of broad , leveed channel constructed to encourage flows into north channel system. • (B) in north channel limiting inflows; appears recent. • (C) Dredge spoils largely block inlet . • (D) Gold dredge. • Blockage of inlets indicates efforts to 1938 reduce flooding on terraces; perhaps main channel now incised & stable? Inlet to north channel system, near west end of NW training wall, 1938; (source: USACE film archives) Wing Dams • At least two sets by 1947: • 12 on right bank below YGF, to divert flow away from tight 1st bend. • 11 on left bank to prevent bank and avu lsion into south channel (now a • Constrain lateral migration & high-water channel). widening of belt. Should promote incision. • Built by 1947; probably ca. 1906-1912 when DPD training walls constructed. • KKidtldtinowing date could constrain timing of channel incision. Adjustments to Longitudinal Profile • Profiles extracted from 3-m DEMs interpolated from 1906 contours & 1999 sonar

1906: CDC bathymetric maps 1999: Sonar (DWR) • Little or no incision in YGF below Barrier No.1. • Immediately below dam, channel already adjusted in 1906. • Lack of incision further down to DPD may be due to DPD backfill, coarse material from training walls, & material from Barrier No1. • Why so little incision below DPD? – Incision < incision further downstream . – Dams usually generate incision; also training walls narrow flows, which increases tractive forces and flow competence. • Could be armoring by coarse material eroded from training walls. Base Level Control Below the Feather Confluence

• During extreme fl ood s, l evee constri cti on at Marysvill e retard s conveyance & promotes deposition in LYR. • During moderate -magnitude floods , however , base -level control may be further downstream. • Stratigraphic evidence indicates Feather channel above Shanghai Bend has not returned to pre-mining base levels. • Breaching of Shanghai last January could rejuvenate fluvial incision and increase sediment loads to lower Feather & Sacramento Rivers. • Best understood by history of channel changes at Shanghai Bend. Feather River at 1859 Shanghai Bend • Pre-mining Feather R. flowed NE into Eliza Bend. Eliza Bend • Channel destablized by dredging ca.1905.

1906 CDC map “Sutter Dredge ” 1859 Shanghai Bend map

Eliza Bend

• Dredged channel shows incipient on 1909 CDC map. • Quickly migrates laterally to form Shanghai Bend. • 1938 a ir ph ot o sh ows smaller horseshoe bend. Eliza Bend

Shanghai Bend, 1999

Shaded relief map from 1999 Lidar (USACE) Shoals & Sonar (CDWR) data. Below Shanghai • Redil3d soil ~3.5m hi hihibkgh in bank, because channel avulsed then incised. • Onlhlly 3.3 m HMS at channel.

Hg verifies HMS ID above red soil.

James et al., 2009 • In contrast, Feather R. bed above Shanghai remains above pre -mining base level. Hg (ppm) • Hg shows HMS ~5.5 m thick. 0.18 • Stumps rooted in pre-mining soil at base of HMS exposure. 14C: 65 +- 35 yr ~1885 +-35 0470.47 0.35

•Stumps immersed by ~1885 stump 0.05 low-flow stage. 65 +- 35 yr •Prere--sesettlement 14C banks were below modern low flow stages above shoalsshoals. James et al., 2009 • Shanghai Shoals breached in January, 2012. • HMS stored upstream likely to be remobilized; could destabilize channels. • Large amounts ofdif sediment, rich in hg, could be evacuated.

knickpoint YbYuba R. side ch annel near FthRFeather R. confluence Conclusions

• Historical data, used with stratigraphic, sedimentologic & gg,gpg,peochemical studies, can document geomorphic changes, map locations of former channels and HMS, & ID areas of likely channel instability. • Adjustments of channel morphology & during period of HMS recovery were strongly influenced by both ad hoc and coordinated engineering works and dredging. – LYR incision began early in response to decreased HMS in late 1880s, but was limited in YGF and above Shanghai Bend. – Meander-belt widening normally follows incision; but this is not possible where bank protection armors banks . – Effects of extensive channelization (dredging), training walls, dams, wing dams, and revetment should be recognized to underst and ri ver d ynami cs and ch angi ng h abit at conditi ons. Acknowledgements • Yuba County Water Agency provided funding for historical aerial photograph and cartographic acquisition and geoprocessing. • USACE provided LiDAR and photogrammetric data and Aerial photographs. • Calif. DWR provided SONAR data: Yuba & Feather R. • Several students assisted with data processing: Dr. Subhajit Ghoshal, Kirsten Hunt (M.S.), Brian Davidson, Dan Dieter , Matt Upchurch , and Ed Walsh .

Rose Bar tailings fan below Blue Point hydraulic mine. Sample from this fan had 7.6 ppm hg