DOCSLIB.ORG

San Acacia Reach San Acacia Dam to Escondida Bridge Hydraulic Modeling Analysis 1918-2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Acacia Reach San Acacia Dam to Escondida Bridge Hydraulic Modeling Analysis 1918-2006 San Acacia Reach San Acacia Dam to Escondida Bridge Hydraulic Modeling Analysis 1918-2006 Middle Rio Grande, New Mexico September 2011 Prepared For: US Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque, New Mexico Prepared By: Seema C. Shah-Fairbank, PE Jaehoon Kim Dr. Pierre Julien Colorado State University Engineering Research Center Department of Civil Engineering Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 Abstract Human influence on the Middle Rio Grande has resulted in major changes throughout the Middle Rio Grande region in central New Mexico. Many of these changes are associated with erosion and sedimentation. Therefore, hydraulic modeling analyses have been performed on the San Acacia reach to determine the changes in morphology and other important parameters. This study is an extension of the previous reach report developed by Reclamation on the San Acacia reach. The 11.6 mile long reach extends from the San Acacia Diversion dam (River Mile 116.2) to the Escondida Bridge (104.6). Spatial and temporal trends in channel geometry, discharge and sediment have been analyzed. In addition, historical bedform data were analyzed and potential equilibrium conditions were predicted. Aerial photographs, GIS active channel planforms, cross section surveys, hydraulic model analysis and channel classification methods were used to analyze spatial and temporal trends in channel geometry and morphology. Narrowing of the channel was observed from the GIS active channel planforms from 1918 to 2006. There is fluctuation in the channel properties (geometry) associated with complex channel response. There has been significant degradation in this reach due to channelization and the construction of the diversion dam. Due to the degradation, the particle diameter has coarsened from about 0.1 mm in 1972 to 0.36 mm in 2002. Field observation of bedforms were compiled and compared to the bedforms predicted by the van Rijn and the Simons and Richardson methods. Both methods produced a large amount of scatter, which can be associated with the cross section variability and the variability in the bedform observations. However, the predicted dune formation was correct approximately 75% of the time. The methods were not as accurate for ripple and upper regime prediction. A variety of approaches were used to predict future equilibrium width and slope conditions. The approaches used include hydraulic geometry equations, hyperbolic and exponential regressions, stable channel geometry, and sediment transport relationships. The equilibrium widths predicted ranged from 150 to 450 feet, and the predicted equilibrium slope ranged from 0.0003 to 0.00156. The equilibrium width seems to provide a reasonable estimate of the future trend because the tends are consistent with the current channel conditions which show a river, which is narrowing. ; However, the relocation of the LFCC, near RM 111 and 114, increases the potential meander length and channel width, which could change the prediction. In addition, there is a wide range of variability in the predicted equilibrium slopes. ii Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... ii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................. v 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1 2. Site Description and Background ......................................................................... 4 2.1. Subreach definition ............................................................................................ 7 2.2. Available Data .................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1. Water and Suspended Sediment Data ........................................................ 8 2.2.2. Bed Material .............................................................................................. 11 2.2.3. Tributary and Arroyo Information ............................................................... 11 2.2.4. Survey Lines and Dates ............................................................................. 11 2.3. Channel Forming Discharge ............................................................................. 15 3. Channel Classification ......................................................................................... 16 3.1. Channel Planform Methods .............................................................................. 16 3.1.1. Slope-Discharge Methods ......................................................................... 16 3.1.2. Channel Morphology Methods ................................................................... 18 3.1.3. Stream Power Methods ............................................................................. 20 3.2. Channel Planform Results................................................................................ 21 3.3. Sinuosity........................................................................................................... 25 3.3.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 25 3.3.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 25 3.4. Longitudinal Profile ........................................................................................... 26 3.4.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 26 3.4.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 27 3.5. Channel Geometry ........................................................................................... 32 3.5.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 32 3.5.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 32 3.6. Bed Material Analysis ....................................................................................... 37 3.6.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 37 3.6.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 37 4. Bedforms .............................................................................................................. 40 4.1. Methods ........................................................................................................... 40 4.2. Results ............................................................................................................. 42 5. Equilibrium State Predictors ............................................................................... 45 5.1. Hydraulic Geometry ......................................................................................... 45 5.1.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 45 5.1.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 49 5.2. Width Regression Model .................................................................................. 52 5.2.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 52 5.2.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 54 5.3. Sediment Transport .......................................................................................... 58 5.3.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 58 ii 5.3.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 59 5.4. SAM ................................................................................................................. 62 5.4.1. Methods ..................................................................................................... 62 5.4.2. Results ....................................................................................................... 62 6. Discussion ............................................................................................................ 64 6.1. Historic Trends and Current Conditions ........................................................... 64 6.2. Channel response models................................................................................ 68 6.2.1. Schumm’s (1969) river metamorphosis model .......................................... 68 6.2.2. Lane’s Balance (1955) .............................................................................. 70 6.3. Future Dynamic Equilibrium Conditions ........................................................... 72 6.3.1. Equilibrium Width ....................................................................................... 72 6.3.2. Equilibrium Slope ....................................................................................... 72 7. Summary ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2. Action Area: Overview of Project Components and Water Operations 2.1 Action Area
    Joint Biological Assessment Part I – Water Management 2. Action Area: Overview of Project Components and Water Operations 2.1 Action Area The project area is the area where Reclamation’s and the non-Federal entities’ proposed actions occur, while the action area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 402.02). For this BA, the project area and action area are considered to be the same. The action area for this consultation includes Heron Reservoir and Willow Creek downstream from Heron Dam, the Rio Chama downstream from the confluence with Willow Creek, and in the Rio Grande from the Velarde downstream to San Marcial above the full reservoir pool of Elephant Butte Reservoir (figure 1). The lateral extent of the action area generally is defined by the riverside drains and associated levees located to the east and west of the main stem of the river. In situations where levees do not exist on either or both sides, the lateral extents are confined by the historical flood plain (geological constraints, such as terraces and rock outcroppings or anthropogenic constraints, such as irrigation facilities). The river mile (RM) designations used in this document are those included in the 2002 controlled aerial photography. Caballo Dam is considered RM 0, and mile designations increase in an upstream direction. 2.2 Overview of Project Components This section provides background on the SJC Project and the MRG Project, which is necessary to identify the nature and limitations of both Reclamation’s discretionary actions and non-Federal actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources of the Middle Rio Grande 38 Chapter Two
    THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE TODAY 37 Infrastructure and Management of the Middle Rio Grande Leann Towne, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation any entities are involved in water management lands within the Middle Rio Grande valley from M in the Middle Rio Grande valley from Cochiti to Cochiti Dam to the Bosque del Apache National Elephant Butte Reservoir. These entities own and Wildlife Refuge. The four divisions are served by operate various infrastructure in the Middle Rio Middle Rio Grande Project facilities, which consist of Grande valley that are highly interconnected and ulti- the floodway and three diversion dams, more than mately affect water management of the Rio Grande. 780 miles of canals and laterals, and almost 400 miles This paper describes major hydrologic aspects of the of drains. Users are served by direct diversions from Middle Rio Grande valley, including water manage- the Rio Grande and from internal project flows such ment activities of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, as drain returns. These irrigation facilities are operated major infrastructure of the Middle Rio Grande Project and maintained by MRGCD. (including the Low Flow Conveyance Channel), and focusing on issues downstream of San Acacia COCHITI DIVISION Diversion Dam. Although other entities such as municipalities have significant water management Project diversions from the Rio Grande begin at responsibilities in the Middle Rio Grande valley, they Cochiti Dam, through two canal headings that serve will not be addressed in this paper. the Cochiti Division. The Cochiti East Side Main and The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, a Sile Main canals deliver water to irrigators on both political subdivision of the state of New Mexico, was sides of the Rio Grande.
    [Show full text]
  • San Acacia Levee Project)
    New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 2105 Osuna Road NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113 Phone: (505) 346-2525 Fax: (505) 346-2542 February 28, 2013 Consultation No. 02ENNM00-2012-F-0015 Previous Consultation No. 2-22-95-F-0180 Julie A. Alcon, Acting Chief Planning Branch, Albuquerque District Department of the Army Corps of Engineers 4101 Jefferson Plaza NE Albuquerque, New Mexico 87109-3435 Dear Ms. Alcon: This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) final programmatic biological opinion (Opinion) on effects of the U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Albuquerque District (Corps) proposed action of construction, operation and maintenance of the Rio Grande Floodway, San Acacia to Bosque del Apache Unit, in Socorro County, New Mexico (i.e., proposed action or San Acacia Levee Project). The Corps proposes construct a new 43- mile levee by replacing an existing, earthen spoil bank in order to better protect nearby communities from a 100-year flood. The levee plan was divided into six segments, with construction occurring within those segments at approximately two miles per year, over a period of 20 years. Some of the excavated spoil bank material will be used in the construction of the new levee, but a large amount of excavated material will be transported and disposed on a 300- acre location at the south end of the project area. With continued operations and maintenance, the new levee will have a functional regional flood control life of 50 years. Construction is estimated to occur over the next 20 years, so this project will continue to at least 2082.
    [Show full text]
  • Middle Rio Grande Project, New Mexico,” Vol
    Middle Rio Grande Project Andrew H. Gahan Historic Reclamation Projects Bureau of Reclamation May 2013 Table of Content Table of Content .............................................................................................................................. i Middle Rio Grande Project ............................................................................................................. 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Location .......................................................................................................................... 1 Historic Setting ............................................................................................................................ 2 Project Authorization .................................................................................................................. 8 Project Construction .................................................................................................................. 12 Post Construction ...................................................................................................................... 17 Use of Project Water ................................................................................................................. 19 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 23 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Recovery Plan
    RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW RECOVERY PLAN DRAFT DR AFT RIO GRANDE SILVERY MINNOW (Hybognathus amarus) RECOVERY PLAN Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Regional Director, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: DR AFT Disclaimer/Literature Citation Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans published by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Services. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Services. Objectives of the plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. They represent the official position of the-National Marine Fisheries Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Assistant Administrator/ Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. By approving this document, the Director/Regional Director/Assistant Administrator certifies that the data used in its development represents the best scientific and commercial data available at the time it was written.
    [Show full text]
  • CHANNEL CHANGES and MAINTENANCE on the SAN ACACIA REACH of the MIDDLE RIO GRANDE Robert Padilla, River Analysis Group Leader, Al
    2nd Joint Federal Interagency Conference, Las Vegas, NV, June 27 - July 1, 2010 CHANNEL CHANGES AND MAINTENANCE ON THE SAN ACACIA REACH OF THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE Robert Padilla, River Analysis Group Leader, Albuquerque Area Office, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 555 Broadway NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87102, 505-462-3626, [email protected]; and Drew C. Baird, Hydraulic Engineer, Technical Service Center, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225, 303-445-2564, [email protected] Abstract The reach of the Rio Grande from San Acacia Diversion Dam downstream to the Narrows of Elephant Butte Reservoir, a distance of about 70 miles, has changed significantly through recorded history from the early 1900’s to the present. Many significant changes occurred during the period from the 1980’s to 2008. Because of high water years beginning in 1979, Elephant Butte Reservoir filled to capacity in 1985. This led to delta sediments being deposited (aggradation) in the channel for a distance of about 40 miles upstream of the full reservoir pool location. Aggradation at the USGS San Marcial Gage amounted to about 15 ft during this period. The river channel and riparian zone in many reaches is perched above the valley floor. During this same period, the reach from San Acacia Diversion Dam downstream for about 12-13 miles has experienced bed lowering (degradation). Maximum degradation or bed lowering has been about 12 ft. Bed level profiles, discharge, peak flows, reservoir contents, and river bed elevations at the San Marcial Gage and in the river near San Acacia are shown to illustrate these changes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities March 2011
    RECLAMATION Managing Water in the West Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities March 2011 Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities Prepared by United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Power Resources Office U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver, Colorado March 2011 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Disclaimer Statement The report contains no recommendations. Rather, it identifies a set of candidate sites based on explicit criteria that are general enough to address all sites across the geographically broad scope of the report. The report contains limited analysis of environmental and other potential constraints at the sites. The report must not be construed as advocating development of one site over another, or as any other site-specific support for development. There are no warranties, express or implied, for the accuracy or completeness of any information, tool, or process in this report. Contents Hydropower Resource Assessment at Existing Reclamation Facilities Contents Page Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Final Rule
    Wednesday, February 19, 2003 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Final Rule VerDate Jan<31>2003 16:12 Feb 18, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\19FER2.SGM 19FER2 8088 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 33 / Wednesday, February 19, 2003 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Environmental Policy Act Rio Grande (Pflieger 1980). The silvery (NEPA) and a new proposed rule minnow is extirpated from the Pecos Fish and Wildlife Service designating critical habitat for the River and also from the Rio Grande silvery minnow. downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir 50 CFR Part 17 DATES: This final rule is effective March and upstream of Cochiti Reservoir RIN 1018–AH91 21, 2003. (Bestgen and Platania 1991). The current ADDRESSES: Comments and materials distribution of the silvery minnow is Endangered and Threatened Wildlife received, as well as supporting limited to the Rio Grande between and Plants; Designation of Critical documentation used in the preparation Cochiti Dam and Elephant Butte Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery of this final rule, are available for public Reservoir. Throughout much of its Minnow inspection, by appointment, during historic range, the decline of the silvery normal business hours at the New minnow has been attributed to AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, modification of the flow regime Interior. Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, NM (hydrological pattern of flows that vary ACTION: Final rule; notice of availability.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Proposed Rule
    Thursday, June 6, 2002 Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow; Proposed Rule VerDate May<23>2002 18:22 Jun 05, 2002 Jkt 197001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06JNP3.SGM pfrm17 PsN: 06JNP3 39206 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 109 / Thursday, June 6, 2002 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: 1. Send your comments on fishes in the Rio Grande Basin, this proposed rule, the draft economic occurring from Espan˜ ola, NM, to the Fish and Wildlife Service analysis, and draft EIS to the New Gulf of Mexico (Bestgen and Platania Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 1991). It was also found in the Pecos 50 CFR Part 17 2105 Osuna Road NE, Albuquerque, River, a major tributary of the Rio RIN 1018–AH91 NM, 87113. Written comments may also Grande, from Santa Rosa, NM, be sent by facsimile to (505) 346–2542 downstream to its confluence with the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife or through the Internet to Rio Grande (Pflieger 1980). The silvery and Plants; Designation of Critical [email protected]. You may also minnow is completely extirpated from Habitat for the Rio Grande Silvery hand-deliver written comments to our the Pecos River and from the Rio Grande Minnow New Mexico Ecological Services Field downstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir Office, at the above address. You may and upstream of Cochiti Reservoir AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, obtain copies of the proposed rule, the (Bestgen and Platania 1991).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Potential Barriers to Fish Movement Above and Below San Acacia Diversion Dam
    EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO FISH MOVEMENT ABOVE AND BELOW SAN ACACIA DIVERSION DAM Project Completion Report Submitted to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque Area Office Albuquerque, NM by Thomas A. Wesche HabiTech, Inc. Laramie, WY and Sterling Grogan Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District Albuquerque, NM September 1, 2003 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Upstream movement is likely an important phase of the Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybognathus amarus) life cycle. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in its' March 17, 2003 Biological Opinion, ordered that fish passage for the minnow be provided around San Acacia diversion dam by 2008. In light of this mandate and the large capital expenditure required, the San Acacia Fish Passage Workgroup, at the request of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, felt it judicious to conduct an appraisal study to first determine if the minnow would be able to move upstream in the degraded middle Rio Grande channel to use such a passage facility, and if successful in passing, would they be able to move further upstream. This study addresses these information needs. Aerial reconnaissance followed by ground-truthing and field investigations were conducted from June 2002 to January 2003 to identify, describe and evaluate potential physical barriers to silvery minnow upstream movement within the Rio Grande from San Marcial upstream to Isleta, a study area of about 110 river miles. The "physical barriers" to be evaluated included man-made structures across the channel (other than the major diversion dams), hydraulic features such as steep, turbulent, high velocity chutes, and locations with dramatic changes in bed relief Once identified, field data were collected and habitat modeling conducted to evaluate the suitability of these potential barriers for minnow passage.
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar Year 2017 Report to the Rio Grande Compact Commission
    Calendar Year 2017 Report to the Rio Grande Compact Commission Colorado New Mexico Texas Kevin Rein Tom Blaine Patrick R. Gordon Federal Chairman Hal Simpson U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Albuquerque Area Office Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2018 MISSION STATEMENTS The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Cover photo – Eric Gonzales (Reclamation) and Eileen Henry (USFWS) seine for silvery minnows while Josh Grant (USFWS) takes notes, during Reclamation's annual fall fish surveys in the San Marcial Delta Water Conveyance Channel, within the boundaries of Elephant Butte Reservoir. (Liza Yazzie, Reclamation) Calendar Year 2017 Report to the Rio Grande Compact Commission U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation March 2018 Information contained in this document regarding commercial products or firms may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of Reclamation. Table of Contents Table of Contents ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • One-Dimensional Modeling of the Middle Rio Grande River
    2nd Joint Federal Interagency Conference, Las Vegas, NV, June 27 - July 1, 2010 ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODELING OF THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE RIVER David R. Varyu, M.S. P.E., Hydraulic Engineer, Reclamation Technical Service Center, Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Denver, CO, [email protected] Robert S. Padilla, M.S. P.E. Supervisory Hydraulic Engineer, Albuquerque Area Office, River Analysis Group, Albuquerque, NM, [email protected] Abstract A one-dimensional, mobile bed sediment routing model was utilized to obtain the future equilibrium slope of the Middle Rio Grande from Cochiti Dam downstream approximately 190 miles to Elephant Butte Reservoir. This information will be used by water managers to evaluate long term maintenance methods for the Middle Rio Grande. Modeling results are separated into 8 reaches for the purposes of this study. Water year 1975 is representative of the gage records for the Middle Rio Grande for the post-1973 (Cochiti Dam) hydrology and this water year was repeated for numerical stability. Model geometry data is comprised of 234 cross sections, based on 105 representative sections and 129 interpolated cross sections incorporated to improve model numerical stability. The 78 available bed material grain size distributions were spatially applied to 78 of the 105 representative cross sections. Parker’s transport equation coupled with Engelund-Hansen (Parker-EH) with a reference shear stress of 0.02 and a hiding factor of 0.2 was found to show the best fit to the sediment discharge Bureau of Reclamation Automated Modified Einstein Procedure (Holmquist-Johnson et al. 2009) data. Fine material was included in this modeling effort, as fine materials in large part dictate the properties in the downstream portion of the Middle Rio Grande, particularly those areas influenced by Elephant Butte Reservoir.
    [Show full text]