Sedimentological Response of the 2007 Removal of a Low-Head Dam, Ottawa River, Toledo, Ohio
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SEDIMENTOLOGICAL RESPONSE OF THE 2007 REMOVAL OF A LOW-HEAD DAM, OTTAWA RIVER, TOLEDO, OHIO Nathan Harris A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE August 2008 Committee: James E. Evans, Advisor Enrique Gomezdelcampo Sheila J. Roberts ii ABSTRACT James E. Evans, Advisor The Secor dam was a low-head dam that was 17m wide and 2.5 m tall on the Ottawa River in Toledo, Ohio. The dam was removed for liability reasons and to facilitate improvements in water quality and fisheries habitat on November 19, 2007. This study documents the fluvial response of dam removal using: (1) repeated high resolution channel surveying with a total station, (2) differential GPS measurements of bedform migration, (3) bedload sampling using a Helley-Smith bedload trap, (4) multiple cores and (5) grain size analyses of the channel substrate. The research also examined the applicability of the conceptual channel evolution model of Doyle et al. (2003) and the predictive success of Dam Removal Express Assessment model (DREAM-1) of Cui et al. (2006). The results highlight the impact of reservoir sediment characteristics in fluvial responses to dam removal. The Secor dam only trapped sand-sized bedload, thus rather than the initial flush of suspended load sediment, the response was rapid incision and mobilization of the material from the upstream delta of the former impoundment. The breaching of the dam resulted in rapid upstream migration of a diffuse nick-zone approximately 10-m in length and downstream migration of a sediment wave that translated at rates up to 0.5 m/hr. Within five months, an estimated 514-m3 of sediment had been removed from the former delta and was redistributed into pools immediately upstream and downstream of the former dam. Channel incision was the dominate process over the first two weeks of the study, with net incision as much as approximately 1-m in some locations. One month after removal, the channel iii began to slowly widen and widening has been the dominate process during the subsequent 4 months. The Secor dam removal differed fundamentally from other dam removals in the literature for the following reasons: (1) the impounded sediment was relatively homogenous, (2) a well defined channel already existed behind the impoundment, (3) the substrate was cohesionless and (4) incision was dominated by nick-zone migration not nick-point migration. As a result, channel evolution occurred quickly, mobilizing sediment from the former delta almost immediately, as opposed to other studies which have reported erosion from the upstream delta taking years to decades. Thus, the channel evolution model proposed by Doyle et al. (2003) failed to predict the initial phases of removal of the Secor dam, which was dominated by uniform degradation of the channel bed behind the dam instead of evolving via nick-point migration. The DREAM model adequately predicted the net volume of sediment removed from the former impoundment, only differing from the estimated value by -1.7 % The model, however, may not be used during the later phases of dam removal because the model failed to predict channel widening which may result in an underestimation of the volume of sediment removed from the former impoundment. iv For my wife and parents. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I wish to thank God for directing me to Bowling Green State University in the first place; completion of this thesis is a living example that with God all things are possible. Secondly, I wish to thank my wife, Kylie, for her constant patience and understanding as we completed this next phase of our life together. I would also like to thank my parents, David and Alena Harris, who first gave me the opportunity to attend college 6 years ago and continue to inspire me in so many areas of my life. The completion of this project was made possible through the dedicated efforts of my advisor, Dr. James E. Evans and committee members Dr. Enrique Gomezdelcampo and Dr. Shelia J. Roberts. Thank you, also, to the following research partners: The Village of Ottawa Hills, Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Governments, University of Toledo, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, US Army Corps of Engineers, and Ohio Department of Transportation, as well as to the Ohio Geological Survey for use of the vibracorer. In addition, I would like to thank the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, the Geological Society of America, and Bowling Green State University for the funding of this project. I would also like to extend special gratitude to all those who graciously dedicated countless hours to assist me with data collection. Without the selfless giving of these people, the completion of this project would not have been possible: Dr. James Evans, Andrew Clark, Steve Sabo, Jessica Lawrence, Steven King, Mary Scanlan, Allen Adams, Chris Pepple, Thor Zednik , Kylie Harris, Matt Bradford, Zach Mueller, and Colleen O’Shea. It is the time spent with the people listed previously that truly made my graduate experience at Bowling Green State University unforgettable. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 Implications of dam emplacement and removal……………………………………. 2 Modeling dam removal……………………………………………………………… 10 Purpose……………………………………………………………………………… 10 BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………… 12 Bedrock Geology…………………………………………………………………... 12 Structural Geology…………………………………………………………………. 12 Glacial Geology……………………………………………………………………. 14 METHODS…………. ...................................................................................................…… 17 Ottawa River……………………………………………………………………….. 17 Secor Dam…………………………………………………………………………. 22 Previous Work……………………………………………………………………… 25 Secor Dam Removal………………………………………………………………... 28 Field Survey Methods................................................................................................ 30 Analysis of Survey Data……………………………………………………. 32 Error Analysis………………………………………………………………. 33 Sediment Cores……………………………………………………………………… 40 Bedload Traps ............................................................................................................ 41 Grain Size Analysis.................................................................................................... 41 DREAM-1 Model...................................................................................................... 47 Zero Process................................................................................................... 57 vii Description of model input............................................................................ 57 RESULTS…………… .......................................................................................................... 64 Lithofacies…….......................................................................................................... 64 Fluvial Pavement Facies................................................................................ 64 Interpretation...................................................................................... 64 Cross bedded facies........................................................................................ 64 Interpretation...................................................................................... 64 Rippled Sand Facies....................................................................................... 66 Interpretation...................................................................................... 66 Inundite Facies............................................................................................... 66 Interpretation...................................................................................... 66 Mud Drape Facies.......................................................................................... 67 Interpretation...................................................................................... 67 Bioturbated Sand Facies................................................................................ 67 Interpretation...................................................................................... 67 Massive Sand Facies...................................................................................... 68 Interpretation...................................................................................... 68 Overbank mud Facies.................................................................................... 68 Interpretation...................................................................................... 68 Reservoir Sediment Characteristics ........................................................................... 68 Former Ottawa River Channel Characteristics .......................................................... 74 Downstream Channel Characteristics........................................................................ 77 Dam Removal Observations ...................................................................................... 78 viii Week 1........................................................................................................... 78 Week 2........................................................................................................... 82 Week 4........................................................................................................... 94 Week 6..........................................................................................................