State of the River: Geomorphic Structure Josh Wyrick, Ph.D. UC - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

State of the River: Geomorphic Structure Josh Wyrick, Ph.D. UC Davis 1

Geomorphic Structure Methodology Data Collection (topography, rating curve, hydraulics, GIS-Based Analyses substrate, vegetation & cover) 2D DEM Map Hydrodynamic Valley Characteristics Production Modeling Topographic Morphological Units Change Hydraulics Analysis Integration with Sediment Change Depth & Wetted Biological Datasets Budget Processes Velocity Areas 2

DEM Map Production Dry Creek Hammon Backwater 3

DEM Differences Map flow 4

Sediment Budget 58-67 years since Englebright 26-ft DPD Max erosion ~19 mi from mouth (~4 mi d/s from Englebright) 45% of current export from Timbuctoo Bend Net Fill Net Scour Flow Segment Net Scour = 0.6 million ft 3 /y 5

Long-Term Thalweg Adjustment Allan James, 2012 Profiles extracted from 3-m DEM interpolated from contour maps Thalweg upstream of DPD has adjusted. ~85% of scour volume occurred out of channel 6

Topographic Change Processes Map • Spatial patterns of scour/fill & 1999/2008 channels • 9 Scour processes; 9 Fill processes; No Change areas • 9 Lateral processes; 9 Vertical processes 7

Topographic Change Processes Annual Area of Volume Change Tailings berm (%) (%) Lateral 30 18 Vertical 70 82 Vertical Fill 49 58 Lateral 18 13 Lateral Vertical 82 87 Scour 51 42 Lateral 42 25 • Vertical processes dominate overall. Vertical 58 75 • Vertical processes are net fill. Lateral processes are net scour. • Both fill and scour processes are net vertical. 8

Topographic Change Processes In Channel Changes in Depth Annual Average Process Process Volume % (in/year) Downcutting 10.4 VS Cohesive Bank LS - 12.6 Retreat LF Bar Emergence 6.4 Berm Scour & VF LS In-Channel Fill 2.8 - 11.6 Mass Failure VS Avulsion - 9.4 Out of Channel Annual Process Volume % VS Overbank Scour 19.2 VF Overbank Storage 18.0 Vegetated 15.7 VF Overbank Storage 9

Vegetation & Roughness Map 10

Substrate Map DPD 11

Substrate Characteristics Mean Diameter = 97.4 mm Typical range of Chinook spawning gravels 12

Post-New Bullards Bar Hydrology Baseflow : 880 cfs (Smartsville) – 530 cfs (Marysville) Timbuctoo Bend at 5,000 cfs (Feb, 2004) 13

2D Hydrodynamic Model Inputs Validation 14

Hydraulics Maps 15

Inundation Maps 16

Transience of High Velocity Zones flow flow 17

Channel Characteristics Alluvial Valley Mean Slope = 0.16% 0.31% 0.20% 0.19% 0.14% 0.18% 0.052% 0.13% 18

Channel Characteristics Mean Sinuosity = 1.1 Value Sinuosity < 1.2 Low Stream Length Sinuosity = 1.2 < S < 1.5 Moderate Centerline Length > 1.5 High 19

Valley Characteristics Mean Entrenchment Ratio = 2.7 Dam Goldfields Ratio Entrenchment < 1.4 High 1.4 < ER < 2.2 Moderate > 2.2 Slight 20

Valley Characteristics Baseflow Bankfull Valley Width Reach Width (ft) Width (ft) (ft) The available river Englebright meander valley may be 120 169 415 Dam narrower in the region Timbuctoo 205 273 544 of the Goldfields as Bend compared to historic 199 307 976 Parks Bar extents; however, Dry Creek 248 419 1,009 currently the Dry Creek and DPD reaches are Daguerre 197 379 1,472 Point Dam the widest of all the reaches at all 183 330 889 Hallwood discharges. 174 231 562 Marysville 195 319 968 LYR MEAN 21

Morphological Unit Map 22

Morphological Unit Map 23

Morphological Unit Organization Abundance within Baseflow Non-random Organization Abundant MU Lateral Longitudinal Reach MU Area % Variability Distribution Englebright Pool 41 Timbuctoo Pool 20 Parks Bar Riffle 19 Fast glide & Dry Creek 18 Slackwater Adjacency Longitudinal Riffle DPD 28 transition Collocation Spacing Hallwood Fast glide 20 Marysville Pool 52 24

MUs and Valley Characteristics Ratio of Entrenchment ratio Water baseflow Morphological surface wetted width Mean % < 1.4 % > 2.2 unit slope (%) to mean width chute 0.416 0.47 2.6 14.8 66.7 fast glide 0.038 0.96 3.1 4.7 72.3 pool 0.013 0.93 2.4 20.9 37.5 riffle 0.765 0.94 2.6 10.3 65.3 riffle transition 0.124 1.14 3.3 4.1 84.3 run 0.118 0.78 3.2 2.4 89.2 slackwater 0.027 1.58 1.8 0 0 slow glide 0.030 1.00 2.6 14.3 42.9 H IGHEST L OWEST 25

MUs and Habitat Availability Life Stage: Holding Spawning Rearing Riffle; Run; Slow Glide; MU: Pool Riffle Transition Slackwater Reach Percent Areas of Baseflow Channel 52 9 32 Englebright 9 37 32 Timbuctoo 5 48 27 Parks Bar 7 36 34 Dry Creek 8 48 22 DPD 20 38 25 Hallwood 41 19 28 Marysville 16 37 28 Total LYR 26

MUs and Chinook Spawning MU % Redds ~76% of Riffle 39.5 Chinook Riffle redds 18.5 Transition occur in these 3 Run 18.4 MUs Fast Glide 9.3 Chute 4.0 Slow Glide 3.4 Slackwater 1.9 Lateral Bar 1.6 Point Bar 0.6 Pool 0.5 Medial Bar 0.2 Unknown* 2.0 27

MUs and Juvenile Rearing Habitat 400-ft sections (~2W) were randomly chosen for juvenile snorkel surveys. The percent MU abundance in Snorkel survey area each section equaled the reach-scale percentage. 28

MUs and Cover Elements Wood Pieces Wood Jams Human-Built Detritus 29

Publicly Available Maps from RMT Vetted & Available Now Available Soon • Topography • Substrate • Inundation zones • DEM difference • Geomorphic reaches • Topographic change process • Vegetation LiDAR • Chinook spawning HSI for discharges 300-5,000 cfs • Vegetation presence/absence • O Mykiss spawning HSI for discharges 300-5,000 cfs • 2D model-predicted hydraulics for flows • Cover between 300 - 110,400 cfs • Morphological units 30

Acknowledgements • RMT Members • UC Davis Lab • Greg Pasternack • Tarick Abu-Aly • Rusty Barker • Jen Carley • Nick Depsky • Dylan Garner • Bobby Gonzalez • Mathew Jian • Leah Kammel • Rafael Rodriguez • Anne Senter • Michael Strom • Matt Vaughan • Sooyeon Yi 31