DOCSLIB.ORG

Landforms Along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans Charles Matthew Ac Nnon Portland State University

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Landforms Along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans Charles Matthew Ac Nnon Portland State University Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses Winter 4-10-2015 Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans Charles Matthew aC nnon Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Recommended Citation Cannon, Charles Matthew, "Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans" (2015). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2231. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Landforms along the Lower Columbia River and the Influence of Humans by Charles Matthew Cannon A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Geology Thesis Committee: Andrew G. Fountain, Chair Jim E. O’Connor Scott F. Burns Portland State University 2015 Abstract River systems, such as the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest, USA have been influenced by human activities, resulting in changes to the physical processes that drive landform evolution. This work describes an inventory of landforms along the Columbia River estuary between the Pacific Ocean and Bonneville Dam in Oregon and Washington. Groupings of landforms are assigned to formative process regimes that are used to assess historical changes to floodplain features. The estuary was historically a complex system of channels with a floodplain dominated by extensive tidal wetlands in the lower reaches and backswamp lakes and wetlands in upper reaches. Natural levees flank most channels in the upper reaches, locally including areas of ridge and swale topography and crevasse splays that intrude into backswamps. Other Holocene process regimes affecting floodplain morphology have included volcanogenic deltas, tributary fans, dunes, and landslides. Pre-Holocene landforms are locally prominent and include ancient fluvial deposits and bedrock. Historical changes to streamflow regimes, floodplain isolation by flood-control systems, and direct anthropogenic disturbance have resulted in channel narrowing and limited the amount of floodplain that can be shaped by flowing water. Floodplain isolation has caused relative subsidence of tidal floodplains along much of the lower estuary. Most extant landforms are on trajectories controlled by humans and new landforms are mostly created by humans. i Acknowledgements Charles (“Si”) Simenstad, Jennifer Burke, Mary Ramirez, and Danelle Heatwole at University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences; Jim O’Connor at USGS; and Keith Marcoe at Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership were collaborators on the Classification mapping. Jonathon (“Eric”) Stautberg, Jim O’Connor, Xavier Rodriguez Lloveras, and Joseph (“JoJo”) Mangano assisted with fieldwork. Lighthawk Aviation volunteer pilots Jim Richards and Jane Rosevelt provided flights over the estuary for oblique aerial photography. Reviews by Paul Pedone, John Christy, and Mackenzie Keith improved the Classification mapping on which this thesis is based. ii Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables .................................................................................................................................... x Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification ........................................................................ 1 Setting of the Columbia River Basin and Estuary ......................................................................... 3 Drainage Basin and Geologic Setting ........................................................................................ 3 Late Quaternary Geologic Setting ............................................................................................. 7 Hydrology .................................................................................................................................. 7 Basin hydrology ..................................................................................................................... 7 Historical Floods .................................................................................................................... 9 Tides .................................................................................................................................... 12 Flow Regime Changes and Modern Hydrology ................................................................... 14 Sediment ................................................................................................................................. 15 Hydrogeomorphic Reaches ..................................................................................................... 16 Reach A ............................................................................................................................... 17 Reach B ............................................................................................................................... 19 Reach C .............................................................................................................................. 21 Reach D ............................................................................................................................... 22 Reach E ............................................................................................................................... 23 Reach F ............................................................................................................................... 24 iii Reach G .............................................................................................................................. 25 Reach H ............................................................................................................................... 25 Chapter 2: Geomorphic Mapping .................................................................................................... 27 Source Data for Geomorphic Mapping ........................................................................................ 27 Topography and Bathymetry ................................................................................................... 27 Columbia River Datum ............................................................................................................ 30 Mapping methods ....................................................................................................................... 31 Mapping Extent ....................................................................................................................... 31 Geomorphic Catenae and Ecosystem Complexes .................................................................. 33 Cultural Features ..................................................................................................................... 41 Chapter 3: Description and Interpretation of Mapping .................................................................... 42 Channel and Backwater Complexes ........................................................................................... 42 Primary channel ...................................................................................................................... 42 Permanently flooded ............................................................................................................ 42 Deep channel ...................................................................................................................... 43 Intermittently exposed .......................................................................................................... 43 Tributary delta ...................................................................................................................... 44 Intermittently exposed bedrock ............................................................................................ 44 Secondary channel .................................................................................................................. 45 Backwater embayment ............................................................................................................ 46 Tributary Channel .................................................................................................................... 47 Deep Channel ...................................................................................................................... 47 Side channel ........................................................................................................................ 48 iv Channel bar ......................................................................................................................... 48 Intermittently exposed bedrock ............................................................................................ 49 Tributary secondary channel ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Taphonomy of the Sun River Bonebed, Late Cretaceous
    TAPHONOMY OF THE SUN RIVER BONEBED, LATE CRETACEOUS (CAMPANIAN) TWO MEDICINE FORMATION OF MONTANA by Benjamin Andrew Scherzer A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Earth Sciences MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY-BOZEMAN Bozeman, Montana April 2008 © COPYRIGHT by Benjamin Andrew Scherzer 2008 All Rights Reserved ii APPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Benjamin Andrew Scherzer This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis committee and has been found to be satisfactory regarding content, English usage, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and is ready for submission to the Division of Graduate Education. Dr. David J. Varricchio Approved for the Department of Earth Sciences Dr. Stephan G. Custer Approved for the Division of Graduate Education Dr. Carl A. Fox iii STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment for the requirements for a master’s degree at Montana State University, I agree that the Library shall make it available to borrowers under rules of the Library. If I have indicated my intention to copyright this thesis by including a copyright notice page, copying is allowed only for scholarly purposes, consistent with “fair use” as prescribed in the U.S. Copyright Law. Request for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this thesis in whole or in parts may be granted only by the copyright holder. Benjamin Andrew Scherzer April 2008 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis would not have come to completion without the help of each member of my committee: Dave Varricchio, Jack Horner, and Jim Schmitt.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tropical Skies: Falsifying Climate Alarm (Pdf)
    THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm John Christy The Global Warming Policy Foundation GWPF Note 17 THE TROPICAL SKIES Falsifying climate alarm John Christy © Copyright 2019 The Global Warming Policy Foundation Contents About the author vi 1 Measuring the greenhouse effect 1 2 The importance of the troposphere 2 3 Another metric 4 4 Hiding the problem 7 About the author Dr John R. Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Profes- sor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he has been employed for over 30 years. His responsibilities include managing a science centre with over 80 employees, working on several research projects ranging from developing and launching space-based instruments to studying impacts of significant weather events in developing countries, to high-resolution studies of air pollu- tion (air-chemistry and meteorology). His own research concerns developing, constructing and refining global and regional climate data records that can be used to test claims ofcli- mate variability and change and to understand the climate’s sensitivity to various forcing factors. This work has resulted in almost 100 peer-reviewed publications. This paper is based a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019. vi 1 Measuring the greenhouse effect When I grew up, science was defined as a method of discovering information. You would make a claim or a hypothesis, and then you would test that claim against independent data. If it failed, you rejected your claim and you started over again.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 18-1451 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- NATIONAL REVIEW, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAEL E. MANN, Respondent. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The District Of Columbia Court Of Appeals --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE AND BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KIMBERLY S. HERMANN HARRY W. MACDOUGALD SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL Counsel of Record FOUNDATION CALDWELL, PROPST & 560 W. Crossville Rd., Ste. 104 DELOACH, LLP Roswell, GA 30075 Two Ravinia Dr., Ste. 1600 Atlanta, GA 30346 (404) 843-1956 hmacdougald@ cpdlawyers.com Counsel for Amicus Curiae June 2019 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM 1 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.2, Southeast- ern Legal Foundation (SLF) respectfully moves for leave to file the accompanying amicus curiae brief in support of the Petition. Petitioner has consented to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Respondent Michael Mann has withheld consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief. Accordingly, this motion for leave to file is necessary. SLF is a nonprofit, public interest law firm and policy center founded in 1976 and organized under the laws of the State of Georgia. SLF is dedicated to bring- ing before the courts issues vital to the preservation of private property rights, individual liberties, limited government, and the free enterprise system. SLF regularly appears as amicus curiae before this and other federal courts to defend the U.S. Consti- tution and the individual right to the freedom of speech on political and public interest issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing
    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri River Floodplain from River Mile (RM) 670 South of Decatur, Nebraska to RM 0 at St
    Hydrogeomorphic Evaluation of Ecosystem Restoration Options For The Missouri River Floodplain From River Mile (RM) 670 South of Decatur, Nebraska to RM 0 at St. Louis, Missouri Prepared For: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Minneapolis, Minnesota Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 15-02 Mickey E. Heitmeyer Joseph L. Bartletti Josh D. Eash December 2015 HYDROGEOMORPHIC EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOR THE MISSOURI RIVER FLOODPLAIN FROM RIVER MILE (RM) 670 SOUTH OF DECATUR, NEBRASKA TO RM 0 AT ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI Prepared For: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 Refuges and Wildlife Minneapolis, Minnesota By: Mickey E. Heitmeyer Greenbrier Wetland Services Advance, MO 63730 Joseph L. Bartletti Prairie Engineers of Illinois, P.C. Springfield, IL 62703 And Josh D. Eash U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3 Water Resources Branch Bloomington, MN 55437 Greenbrier Wetland Services Report No. 15-02 December 2015 Mickey E. Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Route 2, Box 2735 Advance, MO 63730 www.GreenbrierWetland.com Publication No. 15-02 Suggested citation: Heitmeyer, M. E., J. L. Bartletti, and J. D. Eash. 2015. Hydrogeomorphic evaluation of ecosystem restoration options for the Missouri River Flood- plain from River Mile (RM) 670 south of Decatur, Nebraska to RM 0 at St. Louis, Missouri. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3, Min- neapolis, MN. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 15-02, Blue Heron Conservation Design and Print- ing LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Photo credits: USACE; http://statehistoricalsocietyofmissouri.org/; Karen Kyle; USFWS http://digitalmedia.fws.gov/cdm/; Cary Aloia This publication printed on recycled paper by ii Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Groundwater Quality and Hydrodynamics of an Acid Sulfate Soil Backswamp
    Chapter 5 Groundwater Quality and Hydrodynamics of an Acid Sulfate Soil Backswamp 5.1 Introduction Intensive drainage of coastal floodplains has been the main factor contributing to the oxidation of acid sulfate soils (ASS) (Indraratna, Blunden & Nethery 1999; Sammut, White & Melville 1996). Drainage of backswamps removes surface water, thereby increasing the effect of evapotranspiration on watertable drawdown (Blunden & Indraratna 2000) and transportation of acidic salts to the soil surface through capillary action (Lin, Melville & Hafer 1995; Rosicky et al. 2006). During high rainfall events the oxidation products (i.e. metals and acid) are mobilised into the groundwater, and acid salts at the sediment surface are dissolved directly into the surface water (Green et al. 2006). The high efficiency of drains readily transports the acidic groundwater and surface water into the estuary and can have a detrimental impact on downstream habitats (Cook et al. 2000). The quality of water discharged from a degraded ASS wetland is controlled by the water balance, which over a given time period is: P + I + Li = E + Lo + D + S (Equation 5.1) where P is precipitation, I is irrigation, Li is the lateral inflow of water, E is evapotranspiration, Lo is surface and subsurface lateral outflow of water, D is the drainage to the watertable and S is the change in soil moisture storage above the watertable (Indraratna, Tularam & Blunden 2001; Sammut, White & Melville 1996; White et al. 1997). While this equation may give a general overview of sulfidic floodplain hydrology, an understanding of site-specific details is required for effective remediation and management of degraded ASS wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Response to Request for Input from Commissioner Allison Herron Lee, Securities and Exchange Commission
    Response to Request for Input from Commissioner Allison Herron Lee, Securities and Exchange Commission on Climate Risk Disclosures Benjamin Zycher Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute June 10, 2021 Estimation of climate “risks” by public companies would be futile, politicized, distorted by an imperative to avoid regulatory and litigation threats, and largely arbitrary, and thus would not serve the traditional goal of the provision of material information to investors. Submitted by webform: https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/ruling-comments This comment letter responds to a request for input from Securities and Exchange Commissioner Allison Herren Lee on the topic of climate “risk” disclosures by public companies.1 It is organized as follows: Summary I. Climate Uncertainties and Choices Among Crucial Assumptions. II. The Evidence on Climate Phenomena and the Effects of Climate Policies in the EPA Climate Model. III. Observations on the Materiality of Climate “Risks.” IV. Additional Observations and Conclusions. 1 See https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/lee-climate-change-disclosures#. The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) educational organization and does not take institutional positions on any issues. The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author. 2 Summary • No public company and few, if any, government administrative agencies are in a position to evaluate climate phenomena, whether ongoing or prospective, with respect to which the scientific uncertainties are vastly greater than commonly asserted. • The range of alternative assumptions about central parameters is too great to yield clear implications for the climate “risks” facing specific public companies, economic sectors, and geographic regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Variable Hydrologic and Geomorphic Responses to Intentional Levee Breaches Along the Lower Cosumnes River, California
    Received: 21 April 2016 Revised: 29 March 2017 Accepted: 30 March 2017 DOI: 10.1002/rra.3159 RESEARCH ARTICLE Not all breaks are equal: Variable hydrologic and geomorphic responses to intentional levee breaches along the lower Cosumnes River, California A. L. Nichols1 | J. H. Viers1,2 1 Center for Watershed Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, USA Abstract 2 School of Engineering, University of The transport of water and sediment from rivers to adjacent floodplains helps generate complex California, Merced, California, USA floodplain, wetland, and riparian ecosystems. However, riverside levees restrict lateral connectiv- Correspondence ity of water and sediment during flood pulses, making the re‐introduction of floodplain hydrogeo- A. L. Nichols, Center for Watershed Sciences, morphic processes through intentional levee breaching and removal an emerging floodplain University of California, Davis, California, USA. restoration practice. Repeated topographic observations from levee breach sites along the lower Email: [email protected] Cosumnes River (USA) indicated that breach architecture influences floodplain and channel hydrogeomorphic processes. Where narrow breaches (<75 m) open onto graded floodplains, Funding information California Department of Fish and Wildlife archetypal crevasse splays developed along a single dominant flowpath, with floodplain erosion (CDFW) Ecosystem Restoration Program in near‐bank areas and lobate splay deposition in distal floodplain regions. Narrow breaches (ERP), Grant/Award Number: E1120001; The opening into excavated floodplain channels promoted both transverse advection and turbulent Nature Concervancy (TNC); Consumnes River Preserve diffusion of sediment into the floodplain channel, facilitating near‐bank deposition and potential breach closure. Wide breaches (>250 m) enabled multiple modes of water and sediment transport onto graded floodplains.
    [Show full text]
  • Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois
    Hydrogeomorphic Evaluation of Ecosystem Restoration Options for Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Illinois Prepared For: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Refuges, Region 3 Minneapolis, Minnesota Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 12-05 Mickey E. Heitmeyer Karen E. Mangan July 2012 HYDROGEOMORPHIC EVALUATION OF ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION OPTIONS FOR CYPRESS CREEK NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, ILLINOIS Prepared For: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System, Region 3 Minneapolis, MN and Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge Ullin, IL By: Mickey E. Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Rt. 2, Box 2735 Advance, MO 63730 and Karen E. Mangan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge 0137 Rustic Campus Drive Ullin, IL 62992 Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 12-05 July 2012 Mickey E Heitmeyer, PhD Greenbrier Wetland Services Route 2, box 2735 Advance, MO. 63730 Publication No. 12-05 Suggested citation: Heitmeyer, M. E., K. E. Mangan. 2012. Hy- drogeomorphic evaluation of ecosystem restora- tion and management options for Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge,Ullin Il.. Prepared for U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3, Minne- apolis, MN and Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge,Ullin,Il. Greenbrier Wetland Services Report 12-05, Blue Heron Conservation Design and Printing LLC, Bloomfield, MO. Photo credits: COVER: Limekiln Slough by Michael Jeffords Michael Jeffords, Jan Sundberg, Cary Aloia (Gardners- Gallery.com), Karen Kyle This publication printed on recycled paper by ii
    [Show full text]
  • Full Transcript of Inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 Pm
    social epistemology, 2000, vol. 14, nos. 2}3, 131–180 A public debate on the science of global warming: is there su¶ cient evidence which proves we should limit greenhouse gas emissions because of climate change? Full transcript of inaugural AARST Science Policy Forum, New York Hilton, Friday 20 November 1998, 7–9 pm. JAMES E. HANSEN (aµ rmative) PATRICK J. MICHAELS (negative) 1. Moderator’s introductory remarks Dr Gordon R. Mitchell : … You know, it’s been said that rhetoric of science is nothing more than a bunch of covert neo-Aristotelians blowing hot air. Tonight, we plan to test that hypothesis when AARST hosts a public debate about global warming. Before the evening’s arguments cool o¶ , it is our hope that some of the heat and the light produced by this debate will start to melt away a few of the doubts that the rhetoric of science enterprise is a rare ed and detached scholarly project, of little relevance to con- temporary science policy discussions … But before I lay out tonight’s debate format and introduce the participants, I want to talk brie y about the origins of this event. At last year’s AARST preconference gathering in Chicago, Michael Hyde and Steve Fuller issued a charge to those gathered in the audience. This charge basically involved a call for relevance, a plea for ‘measurable outcomes ’ and ‘public engagement ’ in rhetoric of science scholarship. This call to action resonated deeply with my own political commitments, because I believe that privileged members of the academy shoulder a double-sided obligation.
    [Show full text]
  • Floodplain Geomorphic Processes and Environmental Impacts of Human Alteration Along Coastal Plain Rivers, Usa
    WETLANDS, Vol. 29, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 413–429 ’ 2009, The Society of Wetland Scientists FLOODPLAIN GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF HUMAN ALTERATION ALONG COASTAL PLAIN RIVERS, USA Cliff R. Hupp1, Aaron R. Pierce2, and Gregory B. Noe1 1U.S. Geological Survey 430 National Center, Reston, Virginia, USA 20192 E-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Biological Sciences, Nicholls State University Thibodaux, Louisiana, USA 70310 Abstract: Human alterations along stream channels and within catchments have affected fluvial geomorphic processes worldwide. Typically these alterations reduce the ecosystem services that functioning floodplains provide; in this paper we are concerned with the sediment and associated material trapping service. Similarly, these alterations may negatively impact the natural ecology of floodplains through reductions in suitable habitats, biodiversity, and nutrient cycling. Dams, stream channelization, and levee/canal construction are common human alterations along Coastal Plain fluvial systems. We use three case studies to illustrate these alterations and their impacts on floodplain geomorphic and ecological processes. They include: 1) dams along the lower Roanoke River, North Carolina, 2) stream channelization in west Tennessee, and 3) multiple impacts including canal and artificial levee construction in the central Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana. Human alterations typically shift affected streams away from natural dynamic equilibrium where net sediment deposition is, approximately, in balance with net
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners
    EPA’s Response to the Petitions to Reconsider the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act Volume 3: Process Issues Raised by Petitioners U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Atmospheric Programs Climate Change Division Washington, D.C. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 3.0 Process Issues Raised by Petitioners............................................................................................5 3.1 Approaches and Processes Used to Develop the Scientific Support for the Findings............................................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Overview..............................................................................................................5 3.1.2 Issues Regarding Consideration of the CRU E-mails..........................................6 3.1.3 Assessment of Issues Raised in Public Comments and Re-Raised in Petitions for Reconsideration...............................................................................7 3.1.4 Summary............................................................................................................19 3.2 Response to Claims That the Assessments by the USGCRP and NRC Are Not Separate and Independent Assessments.........................................................................20 3.2.1 Overview............................................................................................................20 3.2.2 EPA’s Response to Petitioners’
    [Show full text]