Controls on Submarine Canyon Activity During Sea-Level Highstands: the Biobío Canyon System Offshore Chile GEOSPHERE; V

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Controls on Submarine Canyon Activity During Sea-Level Highstands: the Biobío Canyon System Offshore Chile GEOSPHERE; V Research Paper GEOSPHERE Controls on submarine canyon activity during sea-level highstands: The Biobío canyon system offshore Chile GEOSPHERE; v. 11, no. 4 Anne Bernhardt1, Daniel Melnick1, Julius Jara-Muñoz1, Boris Argandoña2, Javiera González2, and Manfred R. Strecker1 1Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Universität Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Strasse 24-25, 14476 Potsdam, Germany doi:10.1130/GES01063.1 2Servicio Hidrográfico y Oceanográfico de la Armada de Chile, Errázuriz 254 - Playa Ancha, 237-0168 Valparaíso, Chile 15 figures; 1 supplemental file ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION CORRESPONDENCE: anne .bernhardt@ geo .uni -potsdam .de Newly acquired high-resolution bathymetric data (with 5 m and 2 m grid Submarine canyons serve as the most important conduits for terrestrial sizes) from the continental shelf off Concepción (Chile), in combination with sediments, including their associated pollutants, nutrients, and organic car- CITATION: Bernhardt, A., Melnick, D., Jara-Muñoz, J., Argandoña, B., González, J., and Strecker, M.R., seismic reflection profiles, reveal a distinctly different evolution for the Biobío bon, from the continental shelf to the abyssal ocean sink, bridging the sedi- 2015, Controls on submarine canyon activity during submarine canyon compared to that of one of its tributaries. Both canyons are ment trap formed by the continental shelf and any intraslope accommodation sea-level highstands: The Biobío canyon system off- incised into the shelf of the active margin. Whereas the inner shelf appears to spaces (Shepard and Dill, 1966; Normark, 1974; Normark and Carlson, 2003; shore Chile: Geosphere, v. 11, no. 4, p. 1226–1255, doi:10.1130/GES01063.1. be mantled with unconsolidated sediment, the outer shelf shows the influ- Normark et al., 2009; Hung et al., 2012). As with rivers, submarine canyons are ence of strong bottom currents that form drifts of loose sediment and transport dynamic systems that adapt to changes in sediment supply, sea-level change, Received 22 April 2014 material into the Biobío submarine canyon and onto the continental slope. and tectonic forcing, by altering their courses and/or profiles, by becoming Revision received 13 March 2015 The main stem of the Biobío Canyon is connected to the mouth of the more or less active, and filling up with sediment or becoming more deeply Accepted 11 June 2015 Biobío River and currently provides a conduit for terrestrial sediment from incised. Although the latest generation of multibeam technology has recently Published online 15 July 2015 the continental shelf to the deep seafloor. In contrast, the head of its tributary enabled considerable advances in imaging the morphology of submarine can- closest to the coast is located ~24 km offshore of the present-day coastline yons (e.g., Greene et al., 2002; Lastras et al., 2007, 2009; Mountjoy et al., 2009; at 120 m water depth, and it is subject to passive sedimentation. However, Paull et al., 2010, 2011, 2013; Babonneau et al., 2013), a significant gap remains canyon activity within the study area is interpreted to be controlled not only between the spatial resolution of most bathymetric maps and the level of de- by the direct input of fluvial sediments into the canyon head facilitated by the tail and resolution required to understand the processes that shape submarine river-mouth to canyon-head connection, but also by input from southward- canyon systems, and how they respond to external influences. directed bottom currents and possibly longshore drift. In addition, about 24 km Most of the submarine canyons identified in the global compilation of offshore of the present-day coastline, the main stem of the Biobío Canyon Harris and Whiteway (2011) were interpreted to have been established during has steep canyon walls next to sites of active tectonic deformation that are periods of sea-level lowstands, and now constitute low-activity relict features prone to wall failure. Mass-failure events may also foster turbidity currents and on continental slopes that were cut off from any direct supply of fluvial sedi- contribute to canyon feeding. In contrast, the tributary has less steep canyon ments by the rapid Holocene sea-level rise. Most deep-sea terrigenous depos- walls with limited evidence of canyon-wall failure and is located down-system its have therefore formed during sea-level fall, lowstands, and periods of trans- of bottom currents from the Biobío Canyon. It consequently receives neither gression, but specific tectonic and climatic circumstances can also promote fluvial nor longshore sediments. Therefore, the canyon’s connectivity to fluvial deposition of terrigenous sediments on the deep seafloor, regardless of sea or longshore sediment delivery pathways is affected by the distance of the level (Covault and Graham, 2010). Canyons that extend across the shelf and canyon head from the coastline and the orientation of the canyon axis relative act as submarine continuations of terrestrial sediment sources may be able to to the direction of bottom currents. maintain sediment-gravity flow during sea-level highstands (e.g., Walsh and The ability of a submarine canyon to act as an active conduit for large quan- Nittrouer, 2003; Covault and Graham, 2010). Shelf-incising canyons commonly tities of terrestrial sediment toward the deep sea during sea-level highstands develop across tectonically active continental margins and are most abundant may be controlled by several different conditions simultaneously. These include along the western margins of both South America and North America (Harris bottom current direction, structural deformation of the seafloor affecting canyon and Whiteway, 2011), where active faulting has formed narrow shelves and location and orientation as well as canyon-wall failure, shelf gradient and asso- controls the location of submarine canyons (e.g., Covault and Graham, 2010). ciated distance from the canyon head to the coast, and fluvial networks. The Two key controls have been proposed for terrigenous sediment delivery to the For permission to copy, contact Copyright complex interplay between these factors may vary even within an individual deep seafloor: (1) the tectono-morphologic character of the continental margin Permissions, GSA, or [email protected]. canyon system, resulting in distinct levels of canyon activity on a regional scale. (e.g., the width of the continental shelf), and (2) climatic factors, for example, © 2015 Geological Society of America GEOSPHERE | Volume 11 | Number 4 Bernhardt et al. | Controls on canyon activity during sea-level highstands Downloaded from http://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geosphere/article-pdf/11/4/1226/3336134/1226.pdf 1226 by guest on 30 September 2021 Research Paper inflow of subglacial meltwater, intensified monsoons, and variations in the levels within the two arms during the current sea-level highstand, which would magnitude and frequency of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) (Walsh have been difficult or even impossible to recognize and analyze without the and Nittrouer, 2003; Romans et al., 2009; Covault and Graham, 2010; Covault new data. et al., 2010; Puig et al., 2014) . Sediment-gravity flows within a submarine canyon, however, can be sus- tained during sea-level highstands if a connection is maintained between a BACKGROUND river mouth and the canyon head. This phenomenon has been observed in the Var Canyon off the French coast (Khripounoff et al., 2009), the Gaoping Submarine Geomorphology and Terminology Canyon off Taiwan (C. Liu et al., 1993; J. Liu et al., 2002), and the Congo (Zaire) Canyon (Heezen et al., 1964; Babonneau et al., 2002; Khripounoff et al., 2003; Submarine canyons sensu stricto (Shepard, 1963) are defined as deep, Vangriesheim et al., 2009). However, river connection is not the only way of steep-sided and relatively narrow submarine valleys. Canyons are cut into the maintaining canyon activity during sea-level highstands. For example, the bedrock or partially indurated sediments of continental shelves and/or slopes. Monterey Canyon offshore central California, several canyons along They are characterized by V-shaped cross sections with occasional narrow flats the southern California Borderland (e.g., the La Jolla, Hueneme, and Mugu at the base of the V, and may extend all the way down a continental slope to the canyons), and the Nazaré Canyon off Portugal are not primarily dependent on basin plain (Shepard, 1963, 1972; Normark et al., 1993). Canyons are formed by fluvially transported detritus, but instead act as traps for longshore-transported erosive processes and are devoid of levees (Normark et al., 1993). A canyon sediment, or for shelf sediments resuspended by wave action (Covault et al., thalweg is the line that connects the deepest points along the length of the can- 2007; de Stigter et al., 2007; Greene et al., 2002; Lastras et al., 2009; Oliveira yon floor (e.g., Baztan et al., 2005; for a full review of the relevant terminology, et al., 2007; Paull et al., 2003, 2005, 2011; Xu et al., 2010). Sediment-gravity see Normark et al., 1993). flows can also be maintained during sea-level highstands by the funneling of Submarine canyons are considered to be active when gravity flows trans- dense shelf water, as in the Cap de Creus Canyon in the northwestern Mediter- port sediment along the conduit and modify canyon morphology by erosion ranean, other canyons in that vicinity, and the Halibut Canyon off Newfound- and deposition (e.g., Weber et al., 1997; Normark and Carlson, 2003; Paull et al., land (Canals et al., 2006; Lastras et al., 2011; Puig et al., 2013), by capturing 2003; Covault et al., 2007; Khripounoff et al., 2009; Romans et al., 2009; Mount- deep-sea currents such as in the Portimão Canyon off Portugal (Marchès et al., joy et al., 2014). Canyons with no sediment-gravity flows and the prevalent SUPPLEMENTALMATERIAL Submarine Geomorphology -Terminology 2007), or through the liquefaction of canyon-head sediments by storm events, occurrence of general background sedimentation are considered to be inactive Submarine canyons sensu stricto ( Shepard, 1963; page 312) are defined as submarine, deep, and relatively narrow valleys with high steep walls.
Recommended publications
  • Influence of a Dam on Fine-Sediment Storage in a Canyon River Joseph E
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 111, F01025, doi:10.1029/2004JF000193, 2006 Influence of a dam on fine-sediment storage in a canyon river Joseph E. Hazel Jr.,1 David J. Topping,2 John C. Schmidt,3 and Matt Kaplinski1 Received 24 June 2004; revised 18 August 2005; accepted 14 November 2005; published 28 March 2006. [1] Glen Canyon Dam has caused a fundamental change in the distribution of fine sediment storage in the 99-km reach of the Colorado River in Marble Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona. The two major storage sites for fine sediment (i.e., sand and finer material) in this canyon river are lateral recirculation eddies and the main- channel bed. We use a combination of methods, including direct measurement of sediment storage change, measurements of sediment flux, and comparison of the grain size of sediment found in different storage sites relative to the supply and that in transport, in order to evaluate the change in both the volume and location of sediment storage. The analysis shows that the bed of the main channel was an important storage environment for fine sediment in the predam era. In years of large seasonal accumulation, approximately 50% of the fine sediment supplied to the reach from upstream sources was stored on the main-channel bed. In contrast, sediment budgets constructed for two short-duration, high experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam indicate that approximately 90% of the sediment discharge from the reach during each release was derived from eddy storage, rather than from sandy deposits on the main-channel bed.
    [Show full text]
  • Continental Shelf the Last Maritime Zone
    Continental Shelf The Last Maritime Zone The Last Maritime Zone Published by UNEP/GRID-Arendal Copyright © 2009, UNEP/GRID-Arendal ISBN: 978-82-7701-059-5 Printed by Birkeland Trykkeri AS, Norway Disclaimer Any views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP/GRID-Arendal or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this book do not imply the expression of any opinion on the part of the organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authority, or deline- ation of its frontiers and boundaries, nor do they imply the validity of submissions. All information in this publication is derived from official material that is posted on the website of the UN Division of Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS), which acts as the Secretariat to the Com- mission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS): www.un.org/ Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm. UNEP/GRID-Arendal is an official UNEP centre located in Southern Norway. GRID-Arendal’s mission is to provide environmental informa- tion, communications and capacity building services for information management and assessment. The centre’s core focus is to facili- tate the free access and exchange of information to support decision making to secure a sustainable future. www.grida.no. Continental Shelf The Last Maritime Zone Continental Shelf The Last Maritime Zone Authors and contributors Tina Schoolmeester and Elaine Baker (Editors) Joan Fabres Øystein Halvorsen Øivind Lønne Jean-Nicolas Poussart Riccardo Pravettoni (Cartography) Morten Sørensen Kristina Thygesen Cover illustration Alex Mathers Language editor Harry Forster (Interrelate Grenoble) Special thanks to Yannick Beaudoin Janet Fernandez Skaalvik Lars Kullerud Harald Sund (Geocap AS) Continental Shelf The Last Maritime Zone Foreword During the past decade, many coastal States have been engaged in peacefully establish- ing the limits of their maritime jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 4: Sediment Deposition and River Structures
    LESSON 4: SEDIMENT DEPOSITION AND RIVER STRUCTURES ESSENTIAL QUESTION: What combination of factors both natural and manmade is necessary for healthy river restoration and how does this enhance the sustainability of natural and human communities? GUIDING QUESTION: As rivers age and slow they deposit sediment and form sediment structures, how are sediments and sediment structures important to the river ecosystem? OVERVIEW: The focus of this lesson is the deposition and erosional effects of slow-moving water in low gradient areas. These “mature rivers” with decreasing gradient result in the settling and deposition of sediments and the formation sediment structures. The river’s fast-flowing zone, the thalweg, causes erosion of the river banks forming cliffs called cut-banks. On slower inside turns, sediment is deposited as point-bars. Where the gradient is particularly level, the river will branch into many separate channels that weave in and out, leaving gravel bar islands. Where two meanders meet, the river will straighten, leaving oxbow lakes in the former meander bends. TIME: One class period MATERIALS: . Lesson 4- Sediment Deposition and River Structures.pptx . Lesson 4a- Sediment Deposition and River Structures.pdf . StreamTable.pptx . StreamTable.pdf . Mass Wasting and Flash Floods.pptx . Mass Wasting and Flash Floods.pdf . Stream Table . Sand . Reflection Journal Pages (printable handout) . Vocabulary Notes (printable handout) PROCEDURE: 1. Review Essential Question and introduce Guiding Question. 2. Hand out first Reflection Journal page and have students take a minute to consider and respond to the questions then discuss responses and questions generated. 3. Handout and go over the Vocabulary Notes. Students will define the vocabulary words as they watch the PowerPoint Lesson.
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphic Classification of Rivers
    9.36 Geomorphic Classification of Rivers JM Buffington, U.S. Forest Service, Boise, ID, USA DR Montgomery, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA Published by Elsevier Inc. 9.36.1 Introduction 730 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification 730 9.36.3 Types of Channel Classification 731 9.36.3.1 Stream Order 731 9.36.3.2 Process Domains 732 9.36.3.3 Channel Pattern 732 9.36.3.4 Channel–Floodplain Interactions 735 9.36.3.5 Bed Material and Mobility 737 9.36.3.6 Channel Units 739 9.36.3.7 Hierarchical Classifications 739 9.36.3.8 Statistical Classifications 745 9.36.4 Use and Compatibility of Channel Classifications 745 9.36.5 The Rise and Fall of Classifications: Why Are Some Channel Classifications More Used Than Others? 747 9.36.6 Future Needs and Directions 753 9.36.6.1 Standardization and Sample Size 753 9.36.6.2 Remote Sensing 754 9.36.7 Conclusion 755 Acknowledgements 756 References 756 Appendix 762 9.36.1 Introduction 9.36.2 Purpose of Classification Over the last several decades, environmental legislation and a A basic tenet in geomorphology is that ‘form implies process.’As growing awareness of historical human disturbance to rivers such, numerous geomorphic classifications have been de- worldwide (Schumm, 1977; Collins et al., 2003; Surian and veloped for landscapes (Davis, 1899), hillslopes (Varnes, 1958), Rinaldi, 2003; Nilsson et al., 2005; Chin, 2006; Walter and and rivers (Section 9.36.3). The form–process paradigm is a Merritts, 2008) have fostered unprecedented collaboration potentially powerful tool for conducting quantitative geo- among scientists, land managers, and stakeholders to better morphic investigations.
    [Show full text]
  • Trip Planner
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Grand Canyon National Park Grand Canyon, Arizona Trip Planner Table of Contents WELCOME TO GRAND CANYON ................... 2 GENERAL INFORMATION ............................... 3 GETTING TO GRAND CANYON ...................... 4 WEATHER ........................................................ 5 SOUTH RIM ..................................................... 6 SOUTH RIM SERVICES AND FACILITIES ......... 7 NORTH RIM ..................................................... 8 NORTH RIM SERVICES AND FACILITIES ......... 9 TOURS AND TRIPS .......................................... 10 HIKING MAP ................................................... 12 DAY HIKING .................................................... 13 HIKING TIPS .................................................... 14 BACKPACKING ................................................ 15 GET INVOLVED ................................................ 17 OUTSIDE THE NATIONAL PARK ..................... 18 PARK PARTNERS ............................................. 19 Navigating Trip Planner This document uses links to ease navigation. A box around a word or website indicates a link. Welcome to Grand Canyon Welcome to Grand Canyon National Park! For many, a visit to Grand Canyon is a once in a lifetime opportunity and we hope you find the following pages useful for trip planning. Whether your first visit or your tenth, this planner can help you design the trip of your dreams. As we welcome over 6 million visitors a year to Grand Canyon, your
    [Show full text]
  • Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California S
    LITTORAL CELLS, SAND BUDGETS, AND BEACHES: UNDERSTANDING CALIFORNIA’ S SHORELINE KIKI PATSCH GARY GRIGGS OCTOBER 2006 INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF BOATING AND WATERWAYS CALIFORNIA COASTAL SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline By Kiki Patch Gary Griggs Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz California Department of Boating and Waterways California Coastal Sediment Management WorkGroup October 2006 Cover Image: Santa Barbara Harbor © 2002 Kenneth & Gabrielle Adelman, California Coastal Records Project www.californiacoastline.org Brochure Design & Layout Laura Beach www.LauraBeach.net Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, and Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline Kiki Patsch Gary Griggs Institute of Marine Sciences University of California, Santa Cruz TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 7 Chapter 1: Introduction 9 Chapter 2: An Overview of Littoral Cells and Littoral Drift 11 Chapter 3: Elements Involved in Developing Sand Budgets for Littoral Cells 17 Chapter 4: Sand Budgets for California’s Major Littoral Cells and Changes in Sand Supply 23 Chapter 5: Discussion of Beach Nourishment in California 27 Chapter 6: Conclusions 33 References Cited and Other Useful References 35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he coastline of California can be divided into a set of dis- Beach nourishment or beach restoration is the placement of Ttinct, essentially self-contained littoral cells or beach com- sand on the shoreline with the intent of widening a beach that partments. These compartments are geographically limited and is naturally narrow or where the natural supply of sand has consist of a series of sand sources (such as rivers, streams and been signifi cantly reduced through human activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Inner Sound of Stroma, Pentland Firth (Scotland, UK)
    3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October, Bilbao An Operational Hydrodynamic Model of a key tidal-energy site: Inner Sound of Stroma, Pentland Firth (Scotland, UK) M.C. Easton 1, D.K. Woolf 1, and S. Pans 2 1 Environmental Research Institute North Highland College, UHI Millenium Institute Thurso, Caithness, KW14 7JD, Scotland Email: [email protected] 2 DHI Representative UK (Scotland) DHI Agern Allé 5, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark E-mail: [email protected] Abstract mutual influence of tidal ranges and phases between North Atlantic to the West and the North Sea to the As a result of significant progress towards the East act to setup strong currents [2] where spring tides delivery of tidal-stream power the industry is commonly exceed 5 ms-1 [3-4]. moving swiftly towards the deployment of pre- Seeking to capitalise on these unique conditions and commercial arrays. Meanwhile important sites, accelerate the delivery of large-scale tidal-stream such as the Pentland Firth, are being made available energy, in March 2010 the organisation controlling the for development. It is now crucial that we consider seabed in the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate, how the installation of tidal-stream devices will awarded leases for up to 600 MW of installed tidal interact with their host environment. Surveying energy capacity within the Pentland Firth-Orkney and modelling of the marine system prior to region [5]. An additional 200 MW is expected to be development is a prerequisite to identifying any awarded later in 2010 [6]. This announcement of the significant changes associated with tidal energy first large-scale deployment of tidal energy devices deployment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas
    OCS Study BOEM 2019-045 Proceedings: The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Gulf of Mexico OCS Region OCS Study BOEM 2019-045 Proceedings: The Gulf of Mexico Workshop on International Research, March 29–30, 2017, Houston, Texas Editors Larry McKinney, Mark Besonen, Kim Withers Prepared under BOEM Contract M16AC00026 by Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Drive Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Published by U.S. Department of the Interior New Orleans, LA Bureau of Ocean Energy Management July 2019 Gulf of Mexico OCS Region DISCLAIMER Study collaboration and funding were provided by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Environmental Studies Program, Washington, DC, under Agreement Number M16AC00026. This report has been technically reviewed by BOEM, and it has been approved for publication. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the opinions or policies of the US Government, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. REPORT AVAILABILITY To download a PDF file of this report, go to the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management website at https://www.boem.gov/Environmental-Studies-EnvData/, click on the link for the Environmental Studies Program Information System (ESPIS), and search on 2019-045. CITATION McKinney LD, Besonen M, Withers K (editors) (Harte Research Institute for Gulf of Mexico Studies, Corpus Christi, Texas).
    [Show full text]
  • Our Ocean Backyard –– Santa Cruz Sentinel Columns by Gary Griggs, Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, UC Santa Cruz
    Our Ocean Backyard –– Santa Cruz Sentinel columns by Gary Griggs, Director, Institute of Marine Sciences, UC Santa Cruz. #45 January 2, 2010 Why Monterey Submarine Canyon? Monterey Submarine Canyon forms a deep gash beneath the waters of Monterey Bay. At the risk of beating submarine canyons to death, I’m going to try to wrap up this discussion with some final thoughts on why we have one of the world’s largest submarine canyons in our backyard. Monterey Submarine Canyon has been known for over a century, and as with other offshore drainage systems, there has been considerable speculation over the years as to why we have this huge chasm cutting across the seafloor. Most submarine canyons align with river systems, but Elkhorn Slough hardly provides an adequate onshore source for such a massive feature. We do know that prior to 1910 the Salinas River discharged six miles north of its present mouth into Elkhorn Slough, closer to the head of Monterey Submarine Canyons. But even the Salinas River is not of the scale we would expect for an offshore feature as large as the Grand Canyon. Over 50 years ago, two geologists discovered the presence of a deep buried inland canyon beneath the Santa Cruz Mountains from oil company drill holes. This combined with other geological and geophysical observations strongly suggested that this canyon was eroded by an ancient river drainage system that played a critical role in the initial formation of the Monterey Submarine Canyon. This buried canyon, named Pajaro Gorge by some, was the route that the drainage from California’s vast Central Valley followed to the ocean for million of years.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetland Loss in the Lower Galveston Bay Watershed
    Galveston Bay Wetland Permit and Mitigation Assessment Lisa Gonzalez Dr. Erin Kinney Dr. John Jacob Marissa Llosa Transportation Stream & Wetland Mitigation Peer Exchange – June 5-6, 2018 Galveston Bay Watershed ~24,000 square miles ~Half of Texas’ population of 28M TXDOT Districts Beaumont Houston Population Growth 213 % 59 % 65 % * 119 % * 54 % 239 % 106 % 89 % % Change in Population 1990 to 2017 Data Source: U.S. Census, *Texas Demographic Center Population Projection Regional Habitat H-GAC Eco-Logical Map; Wetland Mitigation Opportunities white paper, 2014 Regional Land Cover Change; 1996-2010 • Growth in impervious (107K acres) & developed (254K acres) areas • Wetland net change -54K acres NLDC, NOAA C-CAP Coastal Bottomlands and Blue Elbow Mitigation Banks Mitigation Bank Mitigation Bank HUC8 ORMII Permits ORMII Permits Galveston Bay Mitigation Banks TCWP Ground-truth Wetland Mitigation Assessment • 17 sites: 4 permit mitigation sites not accessible, leaving 13 permits for site review (8 PRM, 5 MB). • Assessment criteria based on three-fold definition of a wetland (Tiner, 1989): – Hydrophytic vegetation (partially or completely submerged in water), – Evidence of hydrology, – Soil indicators consistent with wetland hydrology. • Conservative assessment: – Success: “reasonably wet” with recognizable wetland plants and hydric soils. – Failure: substandard compensatory mitigation site with a lack of any evidence for wetland mitigation TCWP Ground-truth Wetland Mitigation Assessment • Minimum 5% of the total mitigation site inventoried. • Plots (10 m x 10 m) representatively within the tract. • Plant species presence and percent cover assessed. • Cover of various biotic and abiotic surface materials collected in each plot. • Comprehensive list of species compiled. • Pictures of the site and the sample plot taken along with any notable site features.
    [Show full text]
  • Feasibility Study of an Artifical Sandy Beach at Batumi, Georgia
    FEASIBILITY STUDY OF AN ARTIFICAL SANDY BEACH AT BATUMI, GEORGIA ARCADIS/TU DELFT : MSc Report FEASIBILITY STUDY OF AN ARTIFICAL SANDY BEACH AT BATUMI, GEORGIA Date May 2012 Graduate C. Pepping Educational Institution Delft University of Technology, Faculty Civil Engineering & Geosciences Section Hydraulic Engineering, Chair of Coastal Engineering MSc Thesis committee Prof. dr. ir. M.J.F. Stive Delft University of Technology Dr. ir. M. Zijlema Delft University of Technology Ir. J. van Overeem Delft University of Technology Ir. M.C. Onderwater ARCADIS Nederland BV Company ARCADIS Nederland BV, Division Water PREFACE Preface This Master thesis is the final part of the Master program Hydraulic Engineering of the chair Coastal Engineering at the faculty Civil Engineering & Geosciences of the Delft University of Technology. This research is done in cooperation with ARCADIS Nederland BV. The report represents the work done from July 2011 until May 2012. I would like to thank Jan van Overeem and Martijn Onderwater for the opportunity to perform this research at ARCADIS and the opportunity to graduate on such an interesting subject with many different aspects. I would also like to thank Robbin van Santen for all his help and assistance for the XBeach model. Furthermore I owe a special thanks to my graduation committee for the valuable input and feedback: Prof. dr. ir. M.J.F. Stive (Delft University of Technology) for his support and interest in my graduation work; Dr. ir. M. Zijlema (Delft University of Technology) for his support and reviewing the report; ir. J. van Overeem (Delft University of Technology ) for his supervisions, useful feedback and help, support and for reviewing the report; and ir.
    [Show full text]
  • Hells Canyon 5 Day to Heller
    Trip Logistics and Itinerary 5 days, 4 nights Wine & Food on the Snake River in Hells Canyon Trip Starts: Minam, OR Trip Ends: Minam, OR Put-in: Hell’s Canyon Dam, OR Take-out: Heller Bar, WA (23 miles south of Asotin, WA) Trip length: 79 miles Class III-IV rapids Each Trip varies slightly with size of group, interests of guests, etc. This is a “typical” trip itinerary that will vary. Day before Launch: Stop at Minam on your way to your motel in Wallowa or Enterprise to pick up your dry bag and go over the morning itinerary. Day 1: If staying in Wallowa at the Mingo Motel we will pick you up at 6:15 am. If staying in Enterprise we will pick you up at the Ponderosa Motel in our shuttle van at 6:45 am. Travel to Hells Canyon Dam Launch site (3hr drive from Minam) with a bathroom break at the Hells Canyon Overlook. Meet your guides, go over basic safety talk, and load into rafts between 10 and 11 am. Lunch will be served riverside. Enjoy awe inspiring geology, spot wildlife. Run some of the biggest whitewater of the trip, first up Wild Sheep Rapid. Stop to scout Granite Rapid and view Nez Perce pictographs. Arrive in camp between 3-4pm. Evening camp time: swim, hike, play games, relax! Approximately 6pm: Wine and Hor D’oevres presented by Chef Andrae and the featured Winery. Approximately 7 pm dinner presented by chef Andrae Bopp. Day 2: Coffee is ready by 6 am. Leisurely breakfast between 7 and 8 am.
    [Show full text]