Quantifying the Risk of Floodplain Mine Pit Capture
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
QUANTIFYING THE RISK OF FLOODPLAIN MINE PIT CAPTURE Andrew Nelson, Dave McLean, Peter Brooks, Karen Hodges Yakima County Water Resources water resource specialists What are Floodplain Mine Pits? Collins (1995) Pit Capture Hazards • Avulsion and Channel Abandonment 1995 Channel 2000 Channel Lewis River, WA 2000 Aerial Photo (USGS) via Google Earth Pit Capture Hazards • Avulsion and Channel 4 m of Scour Abandonment • Upstream Knickpoint Migration and Downcutting Tujunga Wash, CA (Bull and Scott 1973) Tujunga Wash, CA (Bull and Scott 1974) Pit Capture Hazards • Avulsion and 1962 2001 Channel Abandonment • Upstream Knickpoint Migration • Sediment Rio Paraiba do Sol, Brazil (NHC 2014) Starvation Downstream Restoration Opportunity • Riparian Surface Area • Off-channel rearing habitat • Channel Complexity Terrace Heights Pit, Yakima, WA 41 years after capture (Bing Maps Birds-Eye Image) Quantify Hazards to Manage Pit Connections Empirical Approach • 31 Pit Captures and Connections • February 1996 Floods • Supplemented with 5 examples of meander cutoffs and base level fall. (Bull and Scott, 1974; Collins, 1995; Cui et al., 2014; Czuba et al., 2011; Dunne et al., 1980; Hilldale and Godaire, 2010; Kelly, 2003; Kondolf, 1994, 1997; Major et al., 2012; NHC, 1995, 2005, 2012, 2014a, 2014b; Norman et al., 1998; Scott, 1973; Wampler et al., 2007; Weatherly and Jakob, 2014; Yakima River Floodplain Mining Impact Study Team, 2004) Avulsion vs Connection Channel Shortened, Channel Expansion Steepened, & offset by Expanded Lengthening Major Disturbance Less Disturbance Potential Potential Connection Connection Primary Hazard Local Channel Migration Avulsion Avulsion Primary Hazard Upstream Channel Incision Avulsion vs Connection Channel Shortened, Channel Expansion Steepened, & offset by Expanded Lengthening Major Disturbance Less Disturbance Potential Potential Predicting Avulsion: Theory • Slope Ratio: 퐴푣푢푙푠표푛 푃푎푡ℎ 푆푙표푝푒 > 3 to 5 퐶ℎ푎푛푛푒푙 푆푙표푝푒 • Superelevation: 퐿푒푣푒푒 퐻푒ℎ푡 퐴푏표푣푒 퐹푙표표푑푝푙푎푛 > 0.5 to 1.1 퐶ℎ푎푛푛푒푙 퐷푒푝푡ℎ Will a Connection Evolve into Avulsion: Empirical Data N=23 Slope Ratio >1.7 Channel-Pit favors Connection With: avulsions No Avulsion through Avulsion pits Logistic Regression Avulsion Likelihood Avulsion Slope Ratio Knickpoint Height: Theory • Knickpoint Height (z) governed by change in hydraulic base-level (NOT pond depth) • This can be predicted by the geometry of the avulsion path 풛 = 푺풊(푳풊 + 푳풑 − 푳풂) Knickpoint Height: Theory • Knickpoint Height (z) governed by change in hydraulic base-level (NOT pond depth) • This can be predicted by the geometry of the avulsion path Initial Slope Initial Length 푧 = 푆(퐿 + 퐿푝 − 퐿푎) Pit Length Avulsion Length Knickpoint Height: Empirical Data Actual Knickpoint Height (ft)Knickpoint Actual Predicted Knickpoint Height (ft) N=11 Knickpoint Migration: Theory • Knickpoints in unconsolidated sediment evolve through diffusion (Cedar R., NHC 2014) • Knickpoints trend indefinitely towards oblivion. (From Brush and Wolman 1960) Knickpoint Migration: Theory • Knickpoints in unconsolidated sediment evolve through diffusion (Cedar R., NHC 2014) • Knickpoints trend indefinitely towards oblivion. • A threshold (t) 푘푛푐푘푝표푛푡 표푏푙푣표푛 푠푙표푝푒 must be applied to 푟푒푎푐ℎ 푠푙표푝푒 define functional oblivion Knickpoint Migration: Theory • Knickpoints in unconsolidated sediment evolve through diffusion (Cedar R., NHC 2014) • Knickpoints trend indefinitely towards oblivion. 풛 풙 = • A threshold (t) 풕 푺 must be applied to 풊 define functional oblivion Knickpoint Migration: Empirical Data N=11 • t empirically ranges from 0.6 to 4 • best predictions achieved using t=1.15 Actual Knickpoint Distance Knickpoint Actual Predicted Knickpoint Distance Downstream Degradation and Coarsening Few quantitative observations. Impacts of a single pit capture probably modest, but cumulative impacts can be significant! Channel recovery timescale: Theory • Here “recovery” defined as a return to bedload conveyance through pit. 푽 • 푃푡 푃푒푟푠푠푡푎푛푐푒 = 풑풊풕 푸풃 River Island Pit, Clackamas River OR, 16 years after capture (Bing Maps Birds-Eye Image) Channel recovery timescale: Empirical Data Faster than expected recovery Qb + headcut vol. + some Qs Actual Years to to Recover Years Actual Expected Years to Recover N=6 Quantify Hazards to Manage Pit Connections Lewis River near La Center, WA 16 years after capture (Bing Maps Birds-Eye Image) Quantify Hazards to Manage Pit Connections Evaluate Avulsion Probability Quantify Hazards to Manage Pit Connections Evaluate Avulsion Probability Low Primary hazard is short-term accelerated channel migration (Easy to Mitigate) Quantify Hazards to Manage Pit Connections Must Consider Upstream Knickpoint Impacts to Infrastructure and Channel High Evaluate Avulsion Probability Low Primary hazard is short-term accelerated channel migration (Easy to Mitigate) Quantify Hazards to Manage Pit Connections Consider Upstream Knickpoint Impacts to Infrastructure and Channel • Abandonment of Side Channels • Undercutting of Structures & Revetments • Possibility of Cascading Effects Mitigate unacceptable hazards & let the river restore itself. Lewis River near La Center, WA 16 years after capture (Bing Maps Birds-Eye Image) Questions? Andrew Nelson [email protected] Yakima County Water Resources water resource specialists References & Data Sources Bull, W. B., and Scott, K. M. (1974). Impact of mining gravel from urban stream beds in the NHC (2005). Barlow Bridge, Oil City Road Bridge No. 08258500 River Engineering southwestern United States. Geology, 2(4), 171–174. Assessment Fossil Creek Report. Report prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for Shearer Design LLC & Jefferson County Department of Public Works. Collins, B. (1995). Riverine Gravel Mining in Washington State, Physical Effects with Implications for Salmonid Habitat, and Summary of Government Regulations. United States NHC (2012). Yakima River at Gladmar Park Alternatives Assessment Report (FINAL) Environmental Protection Agency. Seattle, WA. [online] Available from: (21923). Report by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for Kittitas County Department of Public http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/omp.nsf/webpage/riverine+gravel+mining+in+washington+sta Works. te,+physical+effects+with+implications+for+salmonid+habitat,+and+summary+of+govern ment+regulations/$file/910-r-95-005.pdf (Accessed 21 January 2014). NHC (2014a). Cedar River Gravel Removal Project River and Sediment Processes. Report by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for Coast and Harbor Engineering on behalf of the City of Cui, Y., Wooster, J. K., Braudrick, C. A., and Orr, B. K. (2014). Lessons Learned from Renton. Sediment Transport Model Predictions and Long-Term Postremoval Monitoring: Marmot Dam Removal Project on the Sandy River in Oregon. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. [online] NHC (2014b). DRAFT Puyallup River Milwaukee Bridge Replacement Bridge hydraulic Study. Available from: http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000894 Report prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants for BergerABAM on behalf of the City of (Accessed 15 June 2014). Puyallup. Czuba, J. A., Magirl, C. S., Czuba, C. R., Curran, C., Johnson, K., and Olsen, T. D. (2011, 10 NHC (2014c). Rio Paraiba do Sul Pipeline Protection Geomorphic Assessment for Bank February). Geomorphic analysis of the fluvial response from sedimentation downstream from Protection Design (700003). Technical Memorandum by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Mount Rainier, WA: Preliminary phase II study results. [online] Available from: Seattle for nhc Brasil Consultores Itda. on behalf of Fundação para o Incremento da Pesquisa http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/puyallupseds/data/USGS_Presentation_3-10-11.pdf. e Aperfeiçoamento Industrial. Dunne, T., Dietrich, W. E., and Humphrey, N. F. (1980). Geologic and Geomorphic Norman, D. K. (1998). Reclamation of Flood-Plain Sand and Gravel Pits as Off-Channel Implications for Gravel Supply. Proceeding from the Conference Salmon Spawning Gravel: A Salmon Habitat. Washington Geology, 26(2/3), 21–28. Renewable Resource in the Pacific Northwest, Seattle, WA. [online] Available from: Norman, D. K., Cederholm, C. J., and Lingley, W. S., JR (1998). Flood Plains, Salmon http://www.tubbs.com/gravel/gravel.htm (Accessed 28 February 2014). Habitat, and Sand and Gravel mining. Washington Geology, 26(2/3), 3–20. Galay, V. J. (1983). Causes of river bed degradation. Water Resources Research, 19(5), Roni, P., Morley, S. A., Garcia, P., Detrick, C., King, D., and Beamer, E. (2006). Coho 1057–1090. doi:10.1029/WR019i005p01057. Salmon Smolt Production from Constructed and Natural Floodplain Habitats. Transactions of Hilldale, R. C., and Godaire, J. E. (2010). Yakima River Geomorphology and Sediment the American Fisheries Society, 135(5), 1398–1408. Transport Study: Gap to Gap Reach, Yakima, WA (SRH-2010-08). Report prepared by doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1577/T05-296.1. Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center for the County of Yakima, WA. Bureau of Scott, K. M. (1973). Scour and fill in Tujunga Wash; a fanhead valley in urban Southern Reclamation, Denver, CO. [online] Available from: California, 1969 (PP - 732-B). United States Geological Survey. [online] Available from: http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/projects/Yakima/download/Gap2Gap_Study_Final_021 http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp732B (Accessed 28 May 2014). 42011.pdf (Accessed 21 July 2014). Wampler, P. J., Schnitzer, E. F., Cramer, D., and Lidstone, C. (2007). Meander cutoff into a Kondolf, G. M. (1997). PROFILE: hungry water: effects of