PHASE 1 EROSION STUDY 2 Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

PHASE 1 EROSION STUDY 2 Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes Presented By SEAN BENNETT, Ph.D. University at Buffalo Study 2 Leader West Valley Demonstration Project Quarterly Public Meeting November 15, 2017

OUTLINE  Define the goals of the Study 2 and the tasks assigned  Present the methodologies employed and the results obtained  Summarize the broader implications 2

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASKS: Quantify environmental parameters that would reduce the predictive uncertainties in future erosion using a landscape evolution model  Task 2.1b : Digital Mapping of Potential Analogue Sites (Gullies)  Report completed July 2, 2016  Task 2.1b: Digital Mapping of Potential Analogue Sites, Amendment 1 – Expanded Study of 2010 and 2015 LiDAR Data  Report completed October 18, 2017  Task 2.2 : Quantify Infiltration Capacity  Task 2.5 : Quantify Erodibility of Cohesive Sediment  Task 2.6 : Quantify Erodibility of Clastic Sediment  Combined report completed March 1, 2017 3

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.1b: Digital Mapping of Potential Analogue Sites (Gullies)  Objectives: Using the 2010 LiDAR dataset, (1) define the morphologic characteristics of gullies at the WVDP, and (2) identify analogue gullies nearby using the same data and methodologies  Methods: Using LiDAR data and GIS techniques, topographic information from the gullies were determined including slope, length, orientation, width, depths, and cross- sections 4

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.1b: Digital Mapping of Potential Analogue Sites 1380 Gully 1 (NP-1) 1380 1370 average inner slope: 0.491 Gully 1 (NP-1) 1360 Elevation (m) Inner Gully Outer Gully 1340 Elevation (m) 1360 1320 average slope: 0.578 1350 1300 1280 1340 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Upstream Relative Distance (m) Midstream 1330 Downstream Gully Dimension (m) Width 60 Gully 1 (NP-1) Depth 1320 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 40 width: 0.653 Relative Distance (m) 20 Inner Gully Outer Gully depth: 0.489 Outer Gully 0 Drainage Divide 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Inner Gully Relative Distance (m) Drainage Divide 100 Outer Gully Gully 1 (NP-1) Gully Dimension (m) Width width: 0.842 Depth Gully 10 depth: 0.718 Inner Gully Outer Gully Inner Gully 1 1 10 100 1000 Mouth of Relative Distance (m) Plateau Inner Gully Typical gully at the WVDP (Gully 1, NP-1) 5

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.1b: Digital Mapping of Potential Analogue Sites (Gullies) Gullies 1 and 2 in Area 5, underlain by the Lavery Till, were morphologically Areas Investigated similar to the gullies at the WVDP Gully 2, Area 5 6

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.1b: Expanded Study of 2010 and 2015 LiDAR Data  Objectives: To determine geomorphic changes in topography using the 2010 and 2015 LiDAR datasets, focusing on: (1) gullies, and (2) bed elevation for selected stream channels  Methods: Morphologic analysis of gullies on the WVDP (13), and analogue gullies located within the WNYNSC (Areas 5 and 6)  Spatially-averaged parameters (length, slope, width, depth)  At-a-point changes (elevation, width, depth)  Longitudinal profiles of stream channels: Buttermilk, Franks, Quarry, Heinz, and Gooseneck Creeks 7

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.1b: Expanded Study of 2010 and 2015 LiDAR Data Results: Similar to values reported 420 (a) (b) Inner gully Outer gully Gully 1 60 415 in the FEIS (lower advance rates) Elevation (m) 410 Width (m) 40 405  Spatially-averaged rates 400 20 2010 395 2015  Length: 0.1±2.7%/yr 390 0 Elevation 20 20 Width (c) (d) Inner gully Outer gully  Slope: - 0.6±1.5%/yr Depth Difference (m) 15 10 Depth (m) 10 0  Width (near head): 2.9±6.4%/yr 5 -10  Depth near head: 2.9±7.9%/yr 0 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Relative Distance (m) Relative Distance (m)  Average rates at-a-point 430 (e) Upstream Midstream Downstream (f) (g) 425 Elevation (m) 420  Width: 0.028±0.042 m/ha-yr 415 410 2010  Depth: 0.002±0.014 m/ha-yr 405 2015 400 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60  Slope: - 0.006±0.012 m/ha-yr Relative Distance (m) Relative Distance (m) Relative Distance (m) 8

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.1b: Expanded Study of 2010 and 2015 LiDAR Data Bed Elevation (m) 420 Franks Creek  Results: Buttermilk, Franks, 2010 400 Heinz, and Gooseneck Creeks display 380 a net increase (aggradation) in bed 360 elevation with time (Heinz Creek: 0.003±0.009 m/km 2 -yr) Bed Elevation (m) 420 Franks Creek 2015 400  Quarry Creek shows a net 380 decrease (incision) in bed elevation 360 with time, - 0.005±0.009 m/km 2 -yr 2  Changes conditioned by geospatial Change in Bed Elevation (m) 1 uncertainties and hydrologic and 0 geomorphic variability during the -1 study period -2 0 1 2 3 River Kilometer (km) 9

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.2: Quantify Infiltration Capacity  Objectives: Field activities sought to quantify infiltration rate for selected surficial geological materials (in particular, the Lavery Till) using a double ring infiltrometer  Methods: A standard double ring infiltrometer (ASTM D-3385) consisting of two steel rings was used  37 tests performed in trenches dug in support of Study 1 10

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.2: Quantify Infiltration Capacity Results: Similar to the Spatial Average (all data) values used in the FEIS Average by Elevation Average by Frequency  Spatial average: 33±59 mm/hr 1400 20.98±37.8 m 3 /yr  Average by elevation (shown) Elevation (ft) 1300  Average by frequency (for the tills): 2±2 mm/hr 1200 1.33±1.37 m 3 /yr 1100 0.1 1 10 100 0.1 1 10 100 11 Infiltration Rate (m 3 /yr) Infiltration Rate (mm/hr)

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.5: Quantify Erodibility of Cohesive Sediment  Objectives: Field activities sought to quantify the erodibility of selected surficial geological materials (in particular, the Lavery Till) using the jet erosion test (JET)  Methods: The JET forces water to impinge the material’s surface forming a scour hole, and the rate of erosion can be used to estimate the material’s critical shear stress t c and erodibility coefficient k d  37 tests performed in trenches dug in support of Study 1 12

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.5: Quantify Erodibility of Cohesive Sediment  Results: Similar to values used Spatial Average (all data) Average by Elevation in the FEIS Average by Frequency  Spatial average: 1400 t c = 42.7±16.4 Pa k d = 2.05±1.75 cm 3 /N-s Elevation (ft) 1300  Average by elevation (shown)  Average by frequency (for the tills): 1200 t c = 41.7±7.6 Pa k d = 1.76±1.20 cm 3 /N-s 1100 20 40 60 80 100 0 2 4 6 k d (cm 3 /N-s) c (Pa) Scour depth method 13

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.6: Quantify Erodibility of Clastic Sediment  Objectives: Field activities sought to quantify the surface grain size statistics of selected stream channels near the WVDP  Methods: Wolman (1954) pebble count method, and grain size percentiles determined: D 10 , D 16 , D 50 , D 84 , D 90 , and D 95  A total of 49 pebble counts were conducted in and near the WNYNSC along streams as well as Cattaraugus Creek 14

STUDY 2 -Recent Erosion and Deposition Processes TASK 2.6: Quantify Erodibility of Clastic Sediment Results: Similar to values used in the FEIS  No spatial variation in sediment texture was observed along streams  Excluding a few statistical outliers, grain size data can be aggregated: D 10 = 11 mm D 16 = 17 mm D 50 = 47 mm D 84 = 117 mm D 90 = 154 mm D 95 = 225 mm 15

Broader Implications Analogue gullies can be used for a variety of purposes (site  visits, analysis of landscape evolution, and field-based monitoring programs) Observations of gully erosion, infiltration rate, erodibility  of glacial materials, and stream bed grain size distributions agree well with previous work and are aligned with those analyses presented in the FEIS (2010) These newly collected data will further constrain the input  parameters required to numerically simulate landscape evolution at the WVDP and to reduce the predictive uncertainty of future erosion at the site 16

QUESTIONS? 17