ML20069H871
| ML20069H871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | West Valley Demonstration Project |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1982 |
| From: | Boothroyd J, Dunne L, Timson B NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| References | |
| CON-FIN-B-6350 NUREG-CR-2862, NUDOCS 8210210041 | |
| Download: ML20069H871 (117) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:l NUREG/CR-2862 ieomorphic Processes and Evolution f Buttermilk Valley and
; elected Tributaries Vest Valley, New York avial Systems and Erosion Study iase 11 pared by J. C. Boothroyd, B. S. Tirnson, L. A. Dunne th Surface Research, Inc.
w York State Geological Survey /Stato Museum w York State Education Department rpared for
- p. Nuclear Regulatory mmission i
1 I j$$$@$2 82 732
-2062 R PDR l
NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, or any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability of re-sponsibility for any third party's use, or the results of such use, of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed in this report, or represents that its use by such third party would not infringe privately owned rights. Availability of Reference Materia's Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cittd in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555
- 2. The NRCIGPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555
- 3. The National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listir.g that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available for insoection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and irternal NRC memoranda; NRC Of fice of Inspection and Enforcement bulletms, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; anrJ applicant and licensee documents and correspondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored confer ence proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances. Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal ag:ncies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documer ts available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries. Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited. Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free upon written request to the Division of Tech-nical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethe*,da, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originiting organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
)
NUREG/CR-2862 GEOMORPHIC PROCESSES AND EVOLUTION OF BUTTERMILK VALLEY AND SELECTED TRIBUTARIES WEST VALLEY, NEW YORK Fluvial Sy. stems and Erosion Study,
. Phase II Manuscript Completed: June 1982 Date Published: July 1982 Jon C. Boothroyd Earth Surface Research, Inc.
Narragansett, RI 02882 3 Barry S. Timson Earth Surface Research, Inc. Augusta, ME 04330 i O Lorie A. Dunne New York State Geological Survey
- Albany, NY 12230 Prepared for Division of Health, Siting and Waste Management Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 NRC FIN B6350
ABSTRACT Repetitive bar and channel mapping at several scales, clast size and movement measurements, suspended-sediment sampling, and stream gaging of a 5 km reach of Buttermilk Creek and selected tributaries at West
' Valley, New York, have been carried out to determine short-term de-positional and erosional processes as well as long-term valley changes adjacent to the low-level nuclear waste disposal site and other areas _
of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center. Changes to bar-and-channel geometry in Buttermilk Creed are the re-sult of migration of large transverse bars in equilibrium with large floods, such as occurred during Hurricane Fredric, September 1979. Large amounts of lower terrace gravel are also recycled during these events. Downslope movement of landslides by slumping and earthflow appears to be a continous process (1.5.m3 yr 1). Volumetrically it is a small sediment source exept when sudden failure by block gliding deposits a large mass in Buttermilk Creek. Quantitative values of bedload transport, suspended-load sediment transport, and reservoir infill rates compare well with a simple de-nudation rate (6600 m 3 ; wl), a preliminary estimate, was calculated by dividing the volume of sediment removed by the number of years since initial incision (9920 + 240 BP). The middle-to high-level fluvial terraces in Buttermilk Creek are either adjacent to tributary confluences and preserved by an excess of bedload over transport capacity, or survive because the channel is ste.ble on the opposite side of the valley for unknown reasons. The convex longitudinal profile of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook suggests that it is unstable and will continue to downcut rapidly. Valley widening will occur by parallel retreat of slopes. The future lowering of Buttermilk Creek is controlled by bedrock floors in Cattaraugus Creek and lower Buttermilk Creek. However, tributary lowering and widening will continue independent of a change in base-level of Buttermilk Creek. iii l
SUMMARY
The major objectives of the fluvial system and erosion study at West Valley are: 1) Determine the seasonal, annual, and long-term modifi-cation of Buttermilk Creek and tributary drainage adjacent to the waste burial, lagoon, and other areas of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center; 2) Develop a dunudation rate for the Buttermilk Creek drain-age basin. The specific objectives of Phase II are to: 1) Reexamine and remea-sure parameters outlined during Phase I (1978) as reported by Booth-royd and others (1979); 2) Examine the new parameters outlined be-low under work elements and information products; 3) Describe the proposed structure of an assessment of denudation rate. The major difference between this work and Phase I was expansion of work area to include the western tributaries of Buttermilk Creek and the Nuclear Fuel Services reservoirs. Changes in bar-and-channel geometry of Buttermilk Creek are the result of migration of large transverse bars in equilibrium with very large floods. Bar slipface migration up, to 60 m, occurred during Hurricane Fredric flooding in September 1979. Singnificant movement of large clasts occurred on bar-complex margins during one-year floods (peak flow, 60 m 3sec-1). The movement rate of large clasts is .003 .006 km yr 1 Topographic mapping established that a large amount of gravel from the low-active terraces is recycled to active bars by channel sweep in response to bar migration. Suspended-sediment discharge of Buttermilk Creek during a one-year flood event was equivalent to 69 percent of the estimated yearly ero-sion of till in Buttermilk Valley. Discharge was equivalent to an in-place till volume of 3000 m 3. Downslope movement of landslides by slumping and earthflow appears to be a continous process with 90 an average rate of 1.5 m3y r 1 The yearly amount of material delivered to Buttermilk Creek is volumetri-cally small except when sudden failure by block gliding may deposit a large mass onto bars and into tha channel. Sedimentation in the NFS reservoirs since 1963 has been dominated by fluvial processes on delta plains, density underflow on the delta front and lakefloor, and by slumping of the valley walls. Accumula-tion rates of fluvially-derived sediment is a function of drainage basin area. v
- u. . .. .
A sediment-loss rate calculated for the reservoir drainage basins (0.89 m3ha lyr 1) corresponds well to other estimated transport and denudation rates. A simple denudation rate was calculated for Buttermilk vaTley by divi-ding the volume of sediment removed by the number of years since initi-al incision and beginning of downcutting (9920 + 240 BP). The denuda-tion rete, 6600 m3yr 1, should be considered a preliminary estimate.
!iany preserved middle-to-high level fluvial terraces in Buttermilk Creek are adjacent to the confluences of tributaries. The excess of gravel supplied over transport capacity aids in their preservation by retarding the sweep of the Buttermilk channel. Other terraces, in-cluding the set that contained the dated wood fragment, have been pre-served because the Buttermilk channel has remained stable on the oppo-site side of the valley. Reasons for the stability arc unknown.
The convex longitudinal profile of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook suggests it is unstable and will continue to rapidly downcut. Valley widening will occur by parallel retreat of slopes because of slumping of wall material and rapid removal by flood events. The future lowering of Buttermilk Creek is controlled by bedrock floors in Cattaraugus Creek and lower Buttermilk Creek. However, tributary lowering and widening will continue independent of a change in base-level of Buttermilk Creek. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Summary . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v List of Figures, Plates and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Acknowledgements . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1.1 Purpose of Study . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 1.2 Work Elements and Information Products . . . . . . . . . . . I 1.3 Changes to Information Productt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1.4 Scope and Conditions of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.5 Previous Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.0 CONCLUSION
S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.0 PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.1 Field Methods . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.2 office Work . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.0 RESULTS . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.1 Bar Mapping . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 4.2 Bulk Sediment S.smples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.3 Alluvial Fan . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 4.4 Landslide (BC-6) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 4.5 Buttermilk Terraces . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.6 Franks Creek /Erdman Brook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 4.7 Drainage Basin Area . .. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.8 Reservoir Sediment Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 4.9 Buttermilk Stage and Discharge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 4.10 Clast Movement . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.11 Butterallk Valley Sediment Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 5.0 DISCUSSION . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.1 Bar and Channel Geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.2 Discharge Events and Gravel Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 5.3 Discharge Measurements and Transport of Suspended Sediment . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 5.4 Alluvial Fan Erosion and Sedimentation . . . . . . . . . . . 63 5.5 Landslide Processes . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 63 5.6 Reservoir Sedimentation . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 5.7 Buttermilk Valley Denudation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 5.8 Holocene Landscape Evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
6.0 REFERENCES
. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 APPENDIXES A. Views of Bulk Sediment Sample Localities, Figures Al-A9 . . . 73 B. BC-6 Landslide Panoramic Views; Figures B1-B3; 1977, 1978, 1980 . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 C. BC-6 Landslide Stake Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 D. Buttermilk Fluvial Terrace Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 E. Clast Movement Stations; Original Clast Locations, Movement . 89 F. Views of Clast Movement Stations, Transect 5, Figures F1-F4 . 105 vii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure Pa
- 1. Location map of Buttermilk Creek area.........................
- 2. Vertical aerial photo of Nuclear Fuel Services site...........
- 3. Fbrphologic maps. of bar complex 4-6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
- 4. View of bar complex 4-6,...................................... 1
- 5. Bulk sediment samples A. Cumulative curves....................................... 2 B. Textural class plot..................................... 2
- 6. View of stratigraphy in terrace scarp, BC-3................... 2
- 7. View of landslide BC-6........................................ 2
- 8. Comparative longitudinal profiles............................. 2
- 9. Views of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook A. Small longitudinal bars................................. 31 B. Undercut slump block.................................... 3t C. Logjam................................................. 3:
D. Vluvial terraces........................................ 33
- 10. Tributary cross-sections...................................... 3'
- 11. View of upper Erdman Brook.................................... 32
- 12. Drainage ordering schematic................................... 36
- 13. NFS reservoirs A. Map of reservoir No. 1 (south).......................... 37 B. Cross-sections of reservoir No. 1 (south)............... 3E C. Map of reservoir No. 2 (north).......................... 39 D. Cross-sections of reservoir No. 2 (north)............... 40
- 14. Flood hydrographs, Thomas Corners Road bridge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
- 15. Stage-discharge and suspended sediment plot................... 46
- 16. Bar and channel cross-sections, BC-6.......................... 49
- 17. Views of clast movement station, transect 11, BC-6 A. General view to east............................'........ 51 B. Close-up clasts......................................... 51
- 18. View of clast movement station, transect 16, BC-6............. 52
- 19. Views of clast movement station, transect 8-9, BC-6 A. 1978 .................................................... 53 B. 1980.................................................... 53 C. Recovered clast at transect 11.......................... 54
- 20. Views of Hurricane Fredric gravel transport A. Transverse bar slipface, BC-6 ........................... 58 B. Longitudinal bar on terrace, BC-25...................... 58 viii
LIST Of PLATES (The plates are located in a jacket inside the report back cover.) Plate
- 1. Environmental geologic map
- 2. Plateau site map
- 3. Glacial geology map (LaFleur, 1975) with selected drainage basins
- 4. Bar complex 4-6 topographic map
- 5. Alluvial fan BC-3 longitudinal profile
- 6. Alluvial fan BC-3 map
- 7. Landslide BC-6 map
- 8. Fluvial terrace locations (longitudinal section) i
- 9. Franks Creek longitudinal profile l I
- 10. Clast movement maps A. Transect 5 B. Transect 11 C. Transect 16 LIST OF TABLES Table Page
- 1. Work elements.............................................. 2
- 2. BC-6 volume changes........................................ 17
- 3. Crain size, bulk samples................................... 22
- 4. BC-6 landslide movement.................................... 27
- 5. Drainage basin areas....................................... 35
- 6. Reservoir volumes.......................................... 41
- 7. Stage, discharge, and suspended-sediment; Thomas Corners Road bridge............................... 47
- 8. Buttermilk Valley sediment vo1ume.......................... 56
- 9. Sediment volumes and transport rates....................... 68 l
l l ix
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank the following persons and organizations for
.their general assistance and cooperation:
S. Potter.and-T. Robak (NYSGS, West Valley) for logistical and field assistance at the site; D. Prudic for generous use of sequential photographs of landslides;
'P. Bryne and QA. Bockelman (Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) for discussion and access to information concerning the reservoirs and rainwater runoff respectively; and B. Hayes (NFS),for administrative liaison with Nuclear Fuel Services,
.Inc.
The following persons assisted in the production of this report: C. Peters (field); W. Hughes (data reduction); P. Ladd (photo); B. Mcginn (computer and typing); M. Rosenburg, B.J. Watt (draf ting); and S. Ponte (typing). Finally, our thaaks are expressed to Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. for allowing access to the site and overseeing our health and safety. b i xi
~_..... .
'I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
- 1.1 Purpose of Study The major objectives of the fluvial system and erosion study at West Valley are:
- 1) ' Determine the seasonal, annual, and long-term modification of-Buttermilk Creek and. tributary drainage adjacent ~to the waste-burial, lagoon, and other use areas of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center;
- 2) Develop a~ denudation rate for the Buttermilk Creek drainage basin.
The specific ob'jectives of Phase II were to:
- 1) Reexamine and remeasure characteristics outlined during Phase I (1978) and reported by Boothroyd and others (1979);
- 2) Examine the new characteristics outlined below under work elements and information products;
- 3) Describe the proposed structure of an assessment of denudation rate.
The major difference between this work and Phase I was the expansion of work area to include the western tributaries of Buttermilk Creek and the Nuclear Fuel Services reservoirs. 1.2 Work Elements and Information Products Work elements and information products proposed at the initiation of
. this phase of the study are listed in Table 1. Some were later modified or dropped as detailed in Section 1.3.
The Buttermilk Creek work elements include:
- 1) Topographic remapping for bar complexes 4-6;
- 2) Establishment of new clast movement stations;
- 3) Retrieval of large bulk sediment samples of valley-wall till, bar gravel, and terrace gravel;
- 4) Correlation of earlier mapped terraces;
- 5) Mapping and staking a valley-wall alluvial fan at bar complex 5;
- 6) Resurvey the landslide at bar complex 6;
Table 1 Mininun, Expected Infomation Work Elanents Products
- 1. Remap bar ocuplexes 4-6 A. Bar ocmplex maps.
and map ocmplex 11. B. Data with interp atation on rates of mass gravul movenent.
- 2. Cbntinue and/or re-establish A. Data with interpretation on snall area measurenents at clast muvunent - bedload transport rates as well as a stations. fmquency of bedload movenent assessntst.
- 3. Obtain bulk sediment sanples of A. Data fran both measururents.
valley sall till. Detemine rates B. -Discussion and analysis of data. of potential bedload to ====vhd load. Sansle existing gravel bars and detemine the size distribution of this bedload.
- 4. Correlate mapped terraces downstream A. Discussion with figures of early valley and across valley. dimensions.
Describe the early valley dimensions. D. Dismssion of significance or applica-bility, in any, of early valley develop-nont to future valley developnent.
- 5. Devise a systen to monitor and A. Stmrnary of quantitative data collected.
measum sedirrent transport on, B. Description of sediment transport on and and changes of alluvial fans. changes to alluvial fans. C. Assessnent of the significance of these processes to the total gtumnphic picture.
- 6. Resurvey landslide at BC 6. A. S1tmping rates with a qualitative Detemine sitmping rate. description of the nodes of slope failure, with illustration appmpriate.
- 7. Continue the velocity-cross- A. Stage-discharge curve with discussion and sectimal area measuranents and interpretation. including an assessnent of mlate this arve to stage heights " slugs" fzun NFS reservoir excess dtmping.
at the clast movemnt sites, then B. Sediment transport rates. corpute sediment transport rates.
- 8. Review and report on all velocity / A. Data stmiary.
area measurenents, together with B. Hydmlogic and sedimentologic analysis all stage recorder and ptmping of existing data, station data.
- 9. Sanple amm*vbd sediment with a A. Data on suspended sediment transport.
ptrnping statim at 'lhcrnas' Corners B. Suspended sediment transport rate. Boad. C. Grrelation with the mmrtis of stage.
- 10. Attarpt to sanple bedload during A. Sediment transport rates during flood a flood event. event.
B. Description of the method used, precedents l ' in the literature, and suggestions for its future applicability.
- 11. Place a sczwen across the channel at A. Rate of total bedload movanent greater than Bond Road bridge to surple total bed- size X during flood event.
load above a given size over a given P. Descriptionofthemethodused, precedents time. in the literature and suggestions for its fu+ure applicability. 2-
_m _
- 12. Measure longitudinal pmfiles A .~ longitudinal pmfiles of tributaries.
'of tributaries. B. An:1ysis of longitudinal profiles' significance to sediment transport.
- 13. Assess tributary developnent, A. Tributary drainage area nap.
inclivHng tvpvai phic character- B. Description of tributary characteristics istics, fluvial and geamorittic including tupu s.phy, fluvial and geo-pmoesses and gradient. Construct morphic processes and gradient. a tributary drainage area map. C. Preliminarily identify, describe and assess headward migration processes.
- 14. Construct cross sectional profiles A. Cross sectional profiles of tributaries.
at selected locati ms of tributaries. B. Discussion of valley structure and its Assess nature of valley developrent. relation to mass movenent and sediment transport process,
- 15. Measure sediment voltane la=v==vb4 in A. Sedimentation rates for NFS reservoirs.
NFS reservoirs and arnpute voltane/ year B. Discussion of significance and deposited. inplications of A.
- 16. Ocupute the sedinent voltare runoved A. Voltanes of sediment renoved frun the frun the Butterrnilk systern as a Buttennilk valley as a function of age.
function of the ages of the terra s. B. Relevance, if any, of past rates of future valley developnent.
- 17. Heport Eriting. !Iininnan Report Requirenents.
A. Presentation, analysis, and interpretation of all data collected. B. Integration of A with results of previous reports. C. Starrnary of total expenditures (for this report) D. Presentation of a preliminary forfrat for denudation rate canputation supplanented by a detailed description of its utility, limitations, and the measurenents necessary to refine its construction. 'Ihis should include a description of how all work tasks " fit" into the total picture. E. Reumamdations for final phase of study. 3
- 7) Continuation of velocity / depth / discharge measurements at Thomas Corners Road bridge.
Expanded work on the tributaries and reservoirs includes:
- 1) Measure longitudinal profile of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook;
- 2) Construciton of selected tributary cross profiles;
- 3) Construction of tributary drainage area map;
- 4) Measure cross and longitudinal sections in the NFS reservoirs b::
bottom profiler. Overall work elements included:
- 1) Computation of sediment volume removed from Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek;
- 2) Computation of fluvial sediment volume deposited in the reservoirs.
1.3 Changes to Information Products The following work elements were not completed or attempted. Other work was substituted for these tasks.
- 1) Map bar complex 11 (Task 1) - Flooding associated with Hurricane Fredric (September, 1979) altered the bar so that it is now similar to bar complex 4-6 in morphology, rendering mapping to delineate differing bar morphologies not applicable.
- 2) Alluvial fan sediment transport (5) - Additonal work constructing a topographic map was substituted for work deleted in (1).
- 3) Sample suspended sediment with a pumping station at Thomas Corners a Road bridge (9) - Station was unavailable, thus this task was deleted.
- 4) Bedload sampling during a flood event (10) - We monitored two flood events, one (October 12) that was of insufficient discharge to move many clasts; and another (October 25-26) with a peak that occurred during darkness, and was of such high discharge that it was dangerous to work in the channel. These problems are elaborated on in the discussion section.
- 5) Place a screen at Bond Road bridge to sample total bedload over time (11) - Logistical problems prevented the screen installation, thus this task was deleted.
4
- 6) Measure longitudinal profiles of tributaries (12) and assess tri-butary development (13) - This task consumed a much larger amount of time than first anticipated because of the extreme difficulty of work-ing (movement and vision) with the tributary channels. Additional work on this task was substituted for tasks 9, 10, and 11.
1.4 Scope and Conditions of Study The field area was expanded over that of Phase I to include the western tributaries of Buttermilk Creek, the plateau area containing the burial trenches and lagoons, and the Nuclear Fuel Services reservoirs (Fig. 1, 2). Also see the updated environmental geologic map (Plate 1) and the NFS plateau site map (Plate 2). Work was also done within Butter-milk Creek and on the valley walls, concentrating on the upper part of the Buttermilk - Bond reach. Velocity-area and stage-discharge mea-surements were carried out at Thomas Corners Road bridge. Most bar and channel mapping, profiling, and clast measurement was carried out during low-flow conditions in the summer and fall of 1980. Buttermilk Creek is highly accessible, whereas Franks Creek and the smaller tributaries are difficult to work in because downed trees create log jaan that block the main channel of the creeks. We were on site for two storm discharge events, including the substantial flood of October 25-26, 1980. High stage and high flow velocities prevented access to most bar complexes and the velocity-area cross-section during floods. 1.5 Previous Work We will refer to the Phase I report of the geomorphic and erosion study (Boothroyd and othern,1979) and integratecour new results with the prior study. LaFleur (1979) summarizes the glacial geology and stratigraphy of the Nuclear Service Center site and surrounding drain-age basins. A continuing series of technical reports issued by the New York State Geological Survey (NYSGS) on various aspects of site p.cology, chemistry, and engineering have proved useful (Hoffman and others, 1980: Dana and others, 1979; Dana and others, 1980). Groundwater properties of till underlying the low-level burial site are contained in reports by Prudic (1979) and Prudic and Randall (1979). 5
FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP THOMAS CNRS BR { -j , _y "'""*
. wEw voaK .
-s xW
\ ,
\ MD BR .& #
)
ApA./ DRAINAGE BASI s sa.soun
'J g+.b l\
, /f4
]
! O'e, 47-. #~ ' I 37'4CrW g 78*37'30"W 27wn+f o +4r27ww
/ \ tof[ * -
RReR 'N NN i
<-( s. <o[- e ; m.1 f.
1 s't-WNY bCLEAR l i g f ',. SERVICL CTR j l
$ r g5 BUTTERM:LK BR .
l Buttermita l h PE ;WETER g f" Riceville ? I , , e..,.ec.f A l L _._, 2 i g t_._.. h..- v i
\ -
.___ , y l
.e l ll l
_________ / SCALE __ \ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ _! O 0.5 1.0 2 Kilometers Figure 1. Location map of the northern part of the Butternilk Creek drainage basin. Note the location of the Western New York (WNY) Nuclear Service Centar. 6 e
1 h%
\ ,
~
Q/ T - I g', 3 .
-v ; 4 p . , . '
, s.
9' , _
-).P ; .. m*; m.n , .
r
~
r 4- .
,9 9
h
.;<.Q.
l ** Q' 4: Ej 'g' y ,/j .
-' 1 *i \ W *N '
.c r
} ; ' '- . , ' -
eM { y 7.\
#J .
, +- 4 - s. . +g~ j' -
' ya
~
Y. y, v.., y, f &> < , .. y p
.pd%u, J.* . .,
~
~
zT -
; -l,. .:.hv. ' ;g Ylb x . l.
'.' !.f l pg ~. .t . ,i . .,
. s~ ,p{ g' .
y l
't j v_
- _ q .-4 ?) r
','.J
.g >
. a ns. yy .
r
.T -
' j, ; r l j
l t$ 7w' >dg h
~
.I E \..% . , 4 ;' ; ..
^ 4 :w^gjQ ~.a
, s -
n' *-
. /. 8 v..
p ?g,. 7 . . 3 --
., ...~
u , ,, t Figure 2. Vertical aerial view of the Nuclear Fuel Services facilities, the waste-burial sites, and the general plateau area. A.section N[h of Buttermilk Creek is shown at the top of the photograph (taken April 22, 1980 by Erdman, Anthony Associates).
2.0 CONCLUSION
S
- 1) Changes to bar and channel geometry in Buttermilk Creek are the result of migration of large transverse bars in equilibriun with very large floods. Bar slipface migration, up to 60 m, cccurred during Hurricane Fredric flooding in Sept. 1979.
- 2) Significant movement of large clasts occurred on bar complex mar-gins during one-year floods (peak flow, 60 m3sec 1). A movement rate of .003 .006 km yr 1 was established for large clasts.
- 3) Topographic mapping showed that a large amount of gravel from the low-active terraces is recycled to active bars by channel sweep in response to bar migration.
- 4) Suspended-sediment discharge of Buttermilk Creek during a one-year flood event was equivalent to 69 percent of the estimated yectly erosion of till in Buttermilk valley. Discharge was equivalent to an in-place till volume of 3000 m3
- 5) Downslope movement of landslides by slumping and earthflow appears to be a continuous process measured at an average rate of 1.5 m3y r 1 The yearly amount of material delivered to Buttermilk Creek is volume-trically small except when sudden failure by block gliding may deposit a large mass onto bars and into the channel.
- 6) Sedimentation in the NFS reservoirs since 1963 has been by fluvial processes on delta plains, density underflow on the delta front and lakefloor, and by slumping of the valley walls. Rate of accumulation of fluvially-derived sediment is a function of drainage basin area.
- 7) A sediment-loss rate calculated for the reservoir drainage basins (0.89 m3ha lyr-1) corresponds well to other estimated transport and denudation rates.
- 8) A simple denudation rate was calculated for Buttermilk valley by dividing the volume of sediment removed by the number of years since The initial incision denudation and6600 rate, beginning m yr 1,of downcutting should (9920 +to240 be considered BP).
be a preliminary estimate.
- 9) Many preserved middle-to-high level fluvial terraces in Buttermilk Creek are adjacent to the confluences of tributaries. The excess of gravel supplied over transport capacity aids in their preservation by retarding the sweep of the Buttermilk channel. Other terraces, including the set that contained the dated wood fragment, have been preserved because the Buttermilk channel has remained stable, for unknown reasons, on the opposite side of the valley.
i, 5 8
- 10) The convex longitudinal profile of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook suggest it is unstable and will' continue to downcut rapidly. Floods will continue to rapidly remove slumped valley wall material and pro-duce valley widening by parallel retreat of slopes,
- 11) The future lowering of Buttermilk Creek is controlled by bedrock floors in Cattaraugus Creek and lower Buttermilk Creek. However, tributary lowering and widening will continue independent of a change in Buttermilk Creek's base-level.
l l 9
.g. -
F " 3'.'O ~ PROCEDURES-3.1 - Field Methods
~
' General Location - Bar'. complex and-longitudina1Lprofile stake 1'ocations installed during Phase ILwere replaced and resurveyed for this study
~ phase in the-Buttennilk-Bond; reach.' Specific locations identified by-
.name follow the Phkse T nomenclature-(Boothroyd_and others, 1979). -The-environmental geologic ~ map.(Plate 1).has baen reproduced with added information-as a reference guide. In addition, a new (1980) NFS site map provided .by the NYSGS has been used to pict information and as a
;1ocation guide (Plate 2).
Bar Mapping - A topographic' survey of bar complex-4'-6 was' completed-using standard transit and rod techniques. Twenty Phase I-transects were reoccupied and .other bar-edge elevations obtained for a total of
-809 stations. cInstrument stations at eachitransect were tied by sur-
-vey to the USGS benchmark at the B&O railroad bridge over Buttermilk Creek, at the bar complex 10.
o Clast M'vement Stations - The three transects-(5,.11, 16) on bar com-plex 4-6. chosen as clast movement stations were picked for. geographic location on the bar complex, upstream, mid-bar, and downstream, and for difference in bar morphology. Each line extended from the edge of the terrace (west side) to the base-flow channel margin (east side). The marking procedure, similar to that employed in Phase I, was as follows:
- 1) each transect line end point was marked with a special stake (green)
- 2) all average maximum-sized clasts (>25 cm L-axis) within several clast lengths of the transect line were painted green; 3) selected medium-sized clasts (<25 cm L-axis) were painted blue; and 4) the transect line was marked with yellow paint to identify smaller clasts.
A total of 285 clasts were marked (97 Green,188 Blue). Some'clasts al a station location from Phase I were recovered in place (see bar map, Plate 4) and repainted. One clast from that station was found downstream of transect 11 and incorporated into the new line. Bulk Se6iment Samples - Eleven bulk sediment samples were collected for grrin-size analysis. They include two in-place basal tills; three terraca samples, two gravel and one sand-silt: and six gravel samples from bar complex 4-6. The bar samples were chosen to reflect a range of bar-top morphologies and subenvironments. An attempt was made to collect a sample cube measuring 50 cm on a side, or 0.125 m3 . Each sample weighed 150-225 kg. W I l \ 10 V --. -. . .. -. -. - - - - - - - - - .
Terrace. Correlation ~- Limited field checking was done to verify terrace. locations mapped during Phase I of;the study. Alluvial Fan Profile and Mapping A topographic survey and longitudinal
-profile was done on'the Buttermilk valley-wall alluvial fan adjacent
;to both bar complex 3 and the' till borrow aren used for ' recapping the low-level waste-burial trenches. Standard. transit and rod techniques were used.. Twenty eight instrument station stekes and backsight/-fore-sight stakes were placed for later monitoring. A total of 136 elvation
. points were measured. : Th'e instrument stations were tied to the rail-road bridge benchmark and the base-flow channel elevation at bar com-plex 3.
Landslide Mapping - The landslide. on the west valley wall above bar complex 6 was resurveyed by transit and rod method. Elevations of twenty stakes emplaced during the Phase I study, as well as forty-seven newly installed stakes, were determined. This control net was tied to the banchmark at the railroad bridge. Discharge Measurements - Seven sets of velocity / area / discharge mea-surements were made on Buttermilk Creek at Thomas Corners Road bridge. Three low-flow data sets and one small flood set were obtained at a man-modified trapezoidal section. The section was 22 m upstrean from
.the bridge. A moderate flood event (October 25-26, 1980) was moni-
-tored and 3 separate discharge measurements were made using surface flow velocitites at the bridge. This was done because it was not possible to enter the creek and suspension gear was unavailable.
Price type AA, Price pygmy, and Marsh-McBirney electromagnetic current meters were used with a topset wading rod for the low-flow and small flood events. Measurements were made at 0.6 depth every 0.5 meters across the section. Suspended Sediment Sampling - One suspended sediment sample was ob-tained from the midpoint of the channel during each discharge measure-ment. A depth-integating, hand-type (DH 59) sampler was used. Tributary Gradient - The gradient or longitudinal profile of a 2.9 km reach of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook was measured by standard transit and rod leveling techniques. Part of the profile was determined from the 1980 plateau site map (Plate 2). The distance (2.4 km) from the confluence of Buttermilk and Franks Creeks to the security fence at the southern end of the low-level burial area was measured by transit and rod. The distance from the fence, upstream to a small wetland adjacent to the NFS railroad spur, was measured from the map. Preci-sion was 0.3 cm, vertically and 15 cm horizontally. Backsights and fore-sights were restricted to a maximum of 45 meters because' of dense veg-
'etation and bends in the channel. Stations were chosen at the water's edge of the base-flow thalweg. Stage height did not appear to vary during the 4 days the profile was run. The profile was tied to the benchmarg on the railroad bridge.
11 w__
Reservoir Sediment Volume - A. total of 26 cross profiles and two lon-gitudinal profiles were run between shore stakes in the two NFS reser-voirs. Shore stakes were placed along the reservoir edge by tape and pace methods. Locations were plotted on the 1:2400 scale (1 inch = 200 feet) topographic base map of NFS property. A Bludworth Model ES-130SS Portable Echo Sounding Survey Recorder was used. The recorder is accurate to 5 cm vertically at a depth of 100 meters. Horizontal distances were checked where possible by paying out a 20 m line and recording the distance directly on the strip chart. 1 Photographic Documentation - Approximately 450 color slide photos of bar-surface features, bar-and-channel geometry, tributary channel and valley geometry, and landslide morphology were taken during the field season. Clast movement stations were documented in detail. 3.2 Office Work Bar Mapping - A topographic map of summer,1980 morphology of bar complex 4-6 (Plate 4) was produced at the same scale as the Phase I map (1979, Plate 4) to facilitate comparison. The scale of these maps is approximately 1:235. Map Updating - Drainage basins of the western tributaries were deline-ated on the environmental geologic map, Plate 1 (1979, Plate 1) and the glacial geology map. (Plate 3) (LaFleur, 1975) (1979, Plate 3). They were also delineated on the 1980 plateau site map (Plate 2). Drainage divides were determined by inspection of map topography, by field checking, and consultation with NFS and USGS representatives for the area within the NFS security fence. Terraces are identified by num-ber on the environmental geologic map (Plate 1). Volume Computations - Volumes were determined from a surface area multiplied by an approximate horizontal or vertical distance. All surface area measurements were made with a LaSico N1250S1 rolling-disk, auto-scaling, digital planimeter. Reservoir measurements were made using the cross-sectional area dif-ferences between the depth recorder cross-profiles and original pro-file derived from the 1:2400 scale map. Longitudinal distances bet-ween cross-profiles were determined by depth recorder and map distances. Volume calculations were by the double-end area method. Surface area of the delta plains was determined from the 1:2400 scale map. Buttermilk Creek and Franks Creek /Erdman Brook valley volumes were determined by measuring surface area at the midpoint between two given elevations on the valley wall and multiplying by the elevation difference. Total volume was determined by measuring a series of volume blocks extending "down-elevation" and along the valley in a downstream direction. 12
v
. Tributary drainage. areas were measured on the appropriate schle map.
Those included either the plateau site map (Plate 2), environmental-geologic map (Plate 1), or the glacial ~ geology map-(Plate 3). Sediment. samples - Each bar and terrace. sample was air-dried, and a 1/8 split'taken to give a workable-sized sample.. Splits weighted < from 10-30 kg. . Gravel and sand-sized material,.at 0.25 phi intervals, was, sieved on a Ro-tap.for.20 minutes. _Round-hole gravel sieves and ctandard sand sitves were used.- Clasts'with L-axis greater than 5 cm'
.were measured in the field. A11'three axes were measured. Specific gravity of representative clasts was determined in the labL(average was 2.6). Neights were assigned to these clasts assuming a rectangular chape and.using the determined average specific gravity.
; A better method wou'1d have been to weigh the large clasts in the field. l Weights of large clasts were combined with the sieve weights to deter-nine:a total weight. Results were plotted on. cumulative _ probability.
. paper following' Folk (1974).
1 l Both till samples were split'into segments and visually inspected for oise and number of clasts. Because the clasts were small in size and number, a 0.5 kg sample was adequate to determine representative grain oize. The samples were split by hand and dissolved in distilled water and dispersant to separate out the gravel-sized material. The sample , , was then wet-sieved and split into size fractions at the 63pm break.
- .The fraction greater than 63 m was dry-sieved and the fraction less
; -than 63pm was pipetted (Folk, 1974). Results were plotted as above.
a t 5 4 d r 13
~
~~ ,.
4.0 RESULTS The following discussion will make use of the environmental geologic map (Plate 1), the NFS site map (Plate 2), and the glacial geology maps of the Buttermilk drainage basin (LaFleur, 1975) (Plate 3). Please refer to them for location and details. An aerial view of the NFS high security area and surrounding plateau is shown in Figure 2. 4.1 Bar Mapping Topographic Mapping - The purpose of remapping bar complex 4-6 was to document changes that have occurred in bar-and-channel geometry nad bar surface features since summer, 1978. Field reconnaissance revealed that the 1978 geometry was vastly changed by the large flood event accompanying Hurricane Frederic on September 8-9, 1979. The completed topographic map is shown (Plate 4). Simplified morphologic maps de-rived from the topographic maps are shown in Figure 3. Volumetric changes, determined from differences in topography from 1978 to 1980 of selected locations on the bar complex are listed in Table 2. Bar-and-Channel Pattern Changes - The pre-Frederic bar and channel pattern (Fig. 3a; Fig. 6, Boothroyd and others, 1979), upstream to downstream, consisted of a large transverse bar (bar complex 4) witn a well-developed slipface as well as a series of smaller longitudinal bar complexes cut by erosional channels and several small transverse bars with low (30 cm) gravel slipfaces. The downstream part of the bar complex was cut by a number of small, erosional, base-flow channels. Both east and west margins of the bar-and-channel system were separated from adjacent, vegetated, low terraces by a 1 to 2 m erosional scarp. The only exception was at the west margin of bar complex 4, where the upstream end of the bar merged with the lowest terrace. The bar-and-channel pattern mapped in 1980 (Fig. 3b) shows great changes from 1978 (Fig. 3b,c). The upstream transverse bar (complex
- 4) has been cut by an erosional channel with lowering of the western surface by 20-40 cm (Table 2). The eastern slipface migrated down-g stream about 8 m. The greatest changes are in the mid-reaches of the bar complex.
A terrace section, 10-15 m wide and 150 m long, on the east has been removed. A large transverse bar has been deposited on the west side (Fig. 4). The base-flow channel now runs against the eastern terrace scarp. The 1978 vest-side chute has been filled and gravel longitu-dinal bars have been deposited on the low, vegetated terrace. The bar surface has been raised 60-100 cm by bar-top and slipface gravel deposition. The lower-complex transverse bars have migrated down-stream, approximately 10-15 m, diagonally across the complex surface (Fig. 3, Table 2). 14
Figure 3. Morphologic maps of bar complex 4-6. A t between the channels and the chutes. JUNE 1978 Discrete ba ! Note
,6
,g
- dEicinst, S ;'.~:-yp[49 1
, 4 h976 )and 9to 1980. its movement fro j.
MQ $ , , -+t :y+ y, .-. y *g% . .: a g?6. T+ ~cn; >n i <, :%+ .. ~ >. - p; n,. . .- L gg ~ r ;t ., Q. ,..j~g st,ggp . 3 3 c ,; ry. ;
's; , Y f ~. 3,
~
~
i k:/}N
;N: W , . , .s e > >; a Y '
dh; 19
$) f) f* -N . y ;h ..
DC N
~ + - ,- % 79) ygg ,, g,J. L@em a-w .
. < w y-Cg. , , A
.:, yi 1
\(,
e% .+3g 3 '
, 4 x twg
+ *7 WN3%
- 16 TRANSECT ? " #_. '!
' da(
BASE FLOW A DEPOSITIONAL EDGE ' M CHANNEL X bF CHUTE N, M ';Dg 0 ACTIVE BARS EROSIONM SCARP
.s-
~ eP U
t gg z' OW TERRACES '
% TERRACE EDGE TILL SLOPE % OTHER $ CLAST 49 s ,.jg%
/2d B
JUNE 1980 "we" P- 'm' -44nn has modified the bar c mplex, jf s % g am p, y^;igf;g y .-
;p k[
gs '-
, p. ..
m g
,j?&
sb'
\ *
,1 '
,(is 'o d:; L
~
a}r..;~ ,
-f9f
_, gs ma #$9 s - yy o.e m.mv m
?- ,x &m s ;:
= ~ v. - as
.w
% [(k eeg % s _ . f, : mGfh
,;2;.
7
.+ -
~
gy" - n q
~.
4,8 BAR COMPLEX 4-6 @ BUTTERMILK BOND-REACH METERS i. ih@; m-FIGURE 3 d 15
f); h, :.v. ' ;;
; [ q ?.; [,(.;; l ' g . } }.. f ; b [ m y p f. -
. ./ 3[, .
},,;.
s 2. j. 9 l c BAR & CHANNEL CHANGES 1978-1980- - DAR COMPLEX 4-6 '
~ ' '~ , I FIGURE 3 4 /
s , ) 16 / '
- g. 3,
;sj+niil5 ;
yz- q(1, g
^
f
+-jpw Qf ~
s {
.\ ,y ,,,,,_+.n.._.
2
, a- :-',
g v __
-Y,?
t ,'S }. 7' , ;(
- hg j
- C x
-' Y, --
/ - f 5 METERS O 10 50 M EROSION d DEPOSITION 4 SLIPFACE MIGRATION 1 TERRACE 2 TRANSVERSE BAR S TRANSVERSE BAR 3 CHANNEL 6 SLIPFACE MIGRATION Y Y 7 CHUTE & TERRACE {
- 16 TRANSECT l Selected erosional and depositional changes. Use A and B for comparison.
TABLE 2 Bar Canplex 4-6 Volume G anges Dimension Changes Volume Distance (m) Elevation (cm) Chang)e (W
- 1) Terrace avg. width 10-15 m, lowered 100 cm -1871.3 length 150 m
- 2) Old Transverse Bar lowered 30 an - 357.6
- 3) Old Qannel lowered 80 on - 214.2
- 4) Slipface Migration moved 8 m height 200 cm + 180.6
- 5) New Transverse Bar moved 60 m raised 80 cm + 857.7
- 6) Slipface Migration noved 10-15 m height 80 cm + 240.4 L/
, ,.c . , ,, _ . .
i ii r ['
'" ' ' ' e,,,
45,.(h;X l ; & t]
.m;x! f% K
_ ~ .. 5
~* M' g
,.kfhlk:kf[;}4yf,in(j,-
eqTu.75-v Q f~I?gfg; gjf;f{f; 4
,^ ~
jjg[ {.$h co .,.. ...
, g _
g' d'Et -Q
~
f.
*gg4 "g-g.w e?p[JM~syM e y p sr 1
^ r - 2. 4 G,
.R5 t
' ^^
n .- * . 3,b h Y v - Av . , ,,$,x44ws{p% S TM2
- 4. :413
[a7 c ~d ' (* N . a p- {J7Q Ak k $. g p.g, p,y p. [m ~ y .. , gy yaw wg , w g, k ;:. c w .: 1 u
~
**' yf%Qfn ,. >,l WM ., A
.n%gow; &g,i$$ru:}N N M R .+$ L x ?;%m &uWd
-: . c- %i M.- .
- W.-
View downstream of bar complex 4-6 from transect 11. The Figure 4. person is standing just off the bar top of the large transverse bar deposited during Hurricane Fredric flooding. Relocated clast l l 49 is in the right foreground. 6 -
L4.2 iBulk Sediment' Samples-Cumulative curves and a percentage plot'for the sediment samples are chown in Figure:5. The plotting procedure.follows that of Folk'(1974); A photographic log of sample localities is illustrated in Appendix A. 1 Till Two samples were collected of' silt-rich till with contorted silt l lenses'and few large pebbles-(Fig. 5). This. material _is in the strati-graphic position of. Kent till-(LaFleur, 1979,_1980). Sample GS-11, collected below the base of the BC-6 landslide, may be transported Lavery till.
~The till samples are ' silt-rich with 80-85 percent. silt and clay which constitutes the suspended-sediment load of the fluvial system. Visual-inspection of till cropping out at landslide localities and at the
- base of a scarp slope along the Buttermilk . channel reveals that few-large clasts are contained in the till. 'The observed. low overall gravel Percentage is in agreement with our two analyses. LaFleur (1979) and
-Dana and other (1979, 1980) report.similar findings at other outcrop localities and .ht research trenches cut 'in Lavery till on the plateau adjacent to the low-level, waste-burial site.
Bar Gravel - Six samples were analyzed from various locations on bar complex 4-6 (Fig. 3 -Table 3, Plate 4). A11 ssmples contained 75-95
. percent gravel with little sand matrix and very little silt and clay.
- Some sand and all silt and clay, originally deposited'as a falling-stage drape over the gravel, infiltrates downward into available pore space. GS-6, taken from the highest point of the mid-bar complex, contains the greatest percentage of large cobbles. GS-9, the finest-grained sample (pebble gravel) is from a transverse bar on the lower complex.
. Terrace Samples - GS-2 is from the west side, upstream of transect 1. ,
GS-10 is from the east side at transect 16. They are similar' in gravel percent and overall grain-size distribution to the bar samples. These two samples represent previously deposited bar complexes resulting from the cross-valley channel sweep documented by.Boothroyd and others (1979; Plate 5).
.The third sample, GS-3, is a fine-grained sandy silt with little gravel. It was obtained from the topmost unit in the stratigraphic section upstream of transect 1, opposite bar complex 3 (Fig. 6). This unit was deposited in a small depression (pond) on the gravel terrace at the base of the BC-3 alluvial fan. It was then. exposed by channel sweep.
4.3 Alluvial Fan i A longitudinal profile (Plate 5) and topographic map (Plate 6) were constructed ' for the incised channel and alluvial fan on the west i 19
,, . , . , .- --,n .
,. - . - , n-
m g i I
- Y 2 A L C
4 78g . R' 8 4: : A O O0 -
, B s
e E 8 l C p . 231 0 ns ae I R L' I Rsss sl LO I E GGG 16T L I p l T T S i l m s ea 3 7 - 1 vs 3 a rl - gl i 6 3*1 6 t 6+ =. 4 e / 5 c 2 xa el 1 0 l p p- 5 mn ' A-oi 2. D )m c 0Nm A o rw at 5.S E( b 0 Z I d S xn 1 ia NI s , A rs R cr oe '
. 2I N +G fl p 3 A R
sm ea 3 3 41 G vs + r ue cc a
#[ / I 8
er s E vr ie G 6B L 8 tt
/ 1B a g E
l e - P ue - is 2 mr uh - 'P t 3 Ct O 4 l= i!s 9 6 A
,S
-]G s 8B C
L c S , - hs 2 E _-
- fs G G 10B R -
7 64 U b s 51 G 6 2 I s G - F G - e4 9 9 5 5 0 5 6 5 g 1 0 9 9 9 8 7 5 2 1 0 g p3 : jb 0 9 9 w
TEXTURAL CLASSES BULK SEDIMENT SAMPLES l G GRAVEL GRAVEL
" LY
- 5) S EH Lv GS6 GRAVELLY GS4 GS9 S SAND G GS2 s SANDY 80 %
GS8 GS 10 M MUD 'GS 5 m MUDDY GS7 mG msg sG 30 % gM gmS gS SGS 11
* */ (e)M/9GS 1 (s)$M.GS 3 (9)mS \to)S\
1:9 1:1 9:1 SILT & CLAY SAND: MUD RATIO SAND (MUD) l TILL BAR j GS 1 GS 4 GS 11 GS 5 TERRACE GS 6 GS 2 GS 7 GS 3 GS 8 GS 1D GS 9 FIGURE 5B Textural class plot illustrating the high gravel content of the bar samples and the high silt and clay content of the till samples. Nomenclature from Folk (1974). 21
TAK E 3. Grain Size, Bulk Sanples Iocation Transect 'efiravel Sand Silt. Clay Till-GS-1 .BC-3, 2.3- 12.9 '70.3 14.5 west bank. GS-11 below 7.4 9.9 69.2 13.5 BC-6 landslide Terrace GS BC-3 87.0 12.6 0.4 west bank GS-3 BC-3 0.03 34.5 65.5 pond, toe of fan GS-10 east bank 16 84.2 14.7 1.1 Bar Ocznplex 4-6 GS-4 bar top 6 90.4 6.9 2.7. unit bar GS-5 bar. top, 8 83.3 14.7 2.0 transverse bar' GS-6 high point 11 E4.8 3.6 1.6 large trans-verse bar GS-7 shoulder 12 76.4 21.0 2.6 large long. bar, sand drape GS-8 large long- 15 84.8 13.0 2.2 ' itudinal bar GS-9 transverse 17 90.5 8.1 1.4 l bar crest i 22
~ . .._. - .
l 6
- r. -s
.y w, . ., 3*Y'* l
,p ~ i
$f.
l
~ " p.~,_r, -' ~~
., S :> ,
. h*.
_ ,~x .~ ,,d.,
-y o ,-
.f:r.
__,r.
- - ~. _
hf ,
', '1(k .
s 4 ) e(.$ J 5 :. -. . ,.:. . a . -
, *,y *: ., # " i
, - "@ *y (
- M
.*/ -
- s. x; . . .
. ap
-v' ,
s t- [A el. r' , g j T w ,
,1
- 4. ,. ' k i.
Figure 6. Stratigraphy exposed in the western terrace scarp opposite bar complex 3. The units are: 1) Kent till; 2) bar and channel gravel; 3) slit and clay deposited in a ponded depression at the base of alluvial fan BC-3. Bulk sediment samples GS-1,2,3, cor-respond to the numbered units. 1 I 23
side of Buttermilk Creek, opposite bar complex 3, The fan is mapped as unit Aab on the environmental geologic map (Plate 1), Longitudinal Profile - The upper profile is a steep, incised channel with a mean gradient of 288.7 m km 1 The inner channel is incised 2-3 m below the general level of the valley wall (Plate 6). The pro-file is flattened where slumps have partially filled the channel. This slumping process probably triggers the formation of the knick-points present along the reach. The incised channel debouches onto an alluvial f an with a convex depositional bulge at the fan head. The channel profile shows a series of irregular changes as it drops over several terrace levels and then onto a wide terrace approximately 4 m above the level of Buttermilk Creek. A pond forms on this terrace during rainfall and flow events. Overflow is channelled down another incised channel into Buttermilk Creek. Topographic Map - The' inner incised channel is shown in dark shading on Plate 6 and the fan in a lighter tone. An outer, V-shaped channel is also apparent along the upper profile. The single channel bifur-cates into three distributaries. Two on the south intersect the fan surface on the convex bulge. The third continues across the bulge to the north and along the edge of the fan. This third distributary connects the presently-active fan head with an older, main-channel segment at the edge of the fan. The segment is part of a now beheaded channel that began further up the valley wall. The northern distributary ia being abandoned with more of the flow feeding sediment onto the southern part of the fan, Events such as Hurricane Frederic flooding may be the mechanism that causes increased fan head incision and channel avulsion. Some fine-grained sediment that bypasses the fan is deposited in a shallow pond on the 40 m wide terrace at the toe of the fan. These sediments are exposed in the upper section of an erosional scarp created by the migration of the Buttermilk channel (Fig. 6). The scarp is opposite bar complex 3. An unknown amount of fine-grained sediment probably bypasses both the fan and pond. It is led directly into Buttermilk Creek through the lower, incised channel. 4.4 Landslide (BC-6) Active landslides occur in areas where the channel impinges on, and cuts, the valley wall over a period of at least tens of years. The channel sweep documentation provided by Boothroyd and others (1979, Plate 5) showed that the Buttermilk channel was at, or near, the large landslide area on the west valley wall at bar complex 6, from 1939 to 1977. The latest panoramic view was taken on July 28, 1980 (Fig. 7). Similar views taken in April 1977, 1978, and 1980 by D. Prudic (written communication) are included as Appendix B. 24
r - o x . 5
, ,~ 1 ]
. *t. ,
n-
- y* ..
.f ".O b ceg'4 .g.di i ,; -
. . t. ge &'. 'i y
s ~ l '41 n,fs ,= v' M ~ s' ,- g , a n ' .. _
. . 2 ' :e t q .
- e.
, . Cp -
9 * ':. ~:.~>ffij; z A &' :K p ,.- .
* : ?- .
?' .
, n a. , ~ , =.x 3 -
s- - zw . . ' ' 4
> ,%%i
.- - ' t -
a'._.
- ,2 ,'-.3 . . -
,j,- -
y Q. . .. g s-f- 2 , v...- .
;, .. . #F - , 4
'#.e y -
" *f : . I i / v' ,,
,d ,
. g,, . "
M. 9' g, . - - g'y; ~ g ' k'y[ 4 yNM,% g. '
^
',~
.s,&>'
, ' 2. .
g .
. . .u' .
4% ~ %s, - w - s . *
. .7k . , p
,y .
U E G h 5 ?= 2 & 2 2 Y ~
- h 2 5 @ W : h i :I e + % = = i ${ ak&Ahisl4$AW SENI2M5N,AM Figure 7. Large landslide on the west wall of Buttermilk Creek at BC-6. The slide is a complex of coherent slump blocks (SB) and hummocky, carthflow deposits (EF). Ilorizontal movement up to 32 m, and vertical movement up to 10 m occurred between 1978 and 1980. Photograph taken July 28, 1980.
"O l ~ {: ].' , % y, -li . .'(
5 l ' ,;l ".; ' .l JS. gy. -? ; .:._ _ l . :._ _ [^((Q '-l j {
-3 .c3g .;-{" f ,~ > 6l L_g .,?[.l[ l.- - ' . l .. n"
_3 _ _
p i Monitoring Stations - The landslide complex was marked with a series of 1.5 m steel fence' posts and shorter wooden stakes in October 1978.- A resurvey in July 1980 recovered 20 of 35 original stations. All the recovered stations were steel posts. These stations, as weJ1 as the new monitor posts,are shown on Plate 7 with movement tabulated in Table 4 and Appendix C. Downslope horizontal, 8-32 m, and vertical, .0-10 m', movement was-measured. The movement occurs as a series of coherent slumps, 20-50 m wide'at the top of the slide, which change to a hummocky, tension-cracked, earthflow mass at the-toe of the slide. Downslope trajectories of the upper slide slumps are steeper than the lower earthflow (Table 4). This contributes to a pile-up of material at the base of the slide. This material can rapidly flow out onto Buttermilk bar-and-channel areas as shown in Figure B1 (Appendix B). The earthflow accu-mulation of material had been removed by April,1980 (Fig. B3) and was probably eroded by Hurricane Frederic flooding. 4.5 Buttermilk Terraces The fluvial terraces mapped in 1978 (Boothroyd and others, 1979) are plotted on the environmental geologic map (Plate 1) and on a longitu- ' dinal section of Buttermilk valley (Plate 8), Plate.8 depicts the terraces projected from a position on the valley wall to a vertical surface that intersects the thalweg of Buttermilk Creek. The precise elevations and distances down valley are given in Appendix D. The 1978 mapping assigned numbers to the terrace levels ranging from: (1) 1 m above presently active bars (FAbl, Plate 1); to (14) 35 m above the bar surfaces (fib 3, Plate 1). The terrace levels were grouped into three categories according to general elevation above the bar surfaces:
- 1) low (fab 1), up to 3 m; 2) middle (FIbl), 3 to 8 m; and 3) high (fib 2), all higher terraces. Plotting of the terraces in longitudinal section (Plate 8) revealed that they should be redivided as follows:
- 1) low active (0-3 m); 2) low inactive (3-8 m); 3) middle (8-35 m);
and 4) high (>35 m). Low, active terraces are present on both sides of the valley except in areas where the channel has been adjacent to the till slope over the time span of the photo documentation (Boothroyd and others,1979; Plate 5). An example is the west side of the valley that includes the BC-6 landslide. Low, inactive terraces and most middle terraces are adjacent to tributary confluences with Buttermilk Creek. The western middle-level terraces at the lower end of'the reach are protected by bedrock cropping out at creek level. The other middle and high ter-races show no affinity to tributaries or bedrock. l 4 . f- Franks Creek /Erdman Brook l Longitudinal Profile - The longitudinal profile of Frar.kz Creek snd 26
TAB E 4 Downslope )bvement, BC-6 Landslide Oct. 1978 Monitoring Horizontal Vertical Downslope Monitoring Horizontal Vertical Downslope Station Movanent Gange Trajectory Station tbvement Change Trajectory (m) (m) (m m 1) (m) (m) (m
- m 1)
IC NC 4UD NC 1S NC 4UE 12.20 - 0. 82 - .067 1N NC SS 15.80 - 3.34 .211 2N 14.0 - 1.17 .083 SC 13.08 - 3.21 .245
, 2C NC SN 14.20 - 1.22 .085 2S NC GN 14.94 - 2.79 .186 3S NC 6C 11.63 - 1.48 .127 3C 13.97 - 2.31 .165 OS NC 3N 15.87 - 1.29 .081 60A 8.80 - 1.20 .136 4N 14.96 - 1.87 .125 60B NC 4C 18.06 - 5.0 .276 60C NC 4S NC 7S 15.61 - 3.33 .222 4DA NC 7C 20.35 - 6.82 .335 4DB 32.90 -10.38 .315 7N 15.31 - 5.46 .356 4DC NC 8N 13.12 - 3.70 .282 4UA NC 8C 13.75 - 3.64 .265 4G 12.85 - 3.55 .276 83 16.31 - 4.45 .272.
4UC NC - NC: Not Recovered Mean gradient of landslide: 0.438 m.m
~ .
a k'
'A-.
. h Erdman Brook I is'shown on Plate 9., It _ extends from a ' wetland at the -
. outer edge'of the' burial-site plateau'to.the' confluence with: Butter-
~
; milk Creek. 4 A~ comparison-of. profile geometry with Buttermilk Creek:
and thelBC-6' alluvial fan is illustrated in Figure 8. The compara--
.tive profiles are plotted at'the same scale and' intersect Buttermilk.
, Creek-'at the proper location within the ~ reach.
The profile is convex-up with a mean gradient'of 19.92 m ka-l. -The
~
Erdman: Brook segment adjacent' to the low-level waste-burial' trenches has a less? steep gradient ofel2.46 m'km-1.(see Plates 1 and 2).c This pitches to'the mean! gradient. downstream of the knickpoints. This'
- gradient continues-along the central part of the reach to approximately 150 m above the confluence of Quarry Creek.. At this point itDsteepens; tof41.27 m km-1 for some 250 m before reverting once again to the.
t- - mean, gradient. The gradient' flattens and a n' arrow floodplain develops. [ 400 m upstream of the confluence with Buttermilk Creek. [ Bar-and-Channel Pattern - The basic channel pattern.of Franks Creek is an entrenched meander system of several wavelengths, ranging from . approximately 90 to 200 m,' separated by short straight segme_nts. The 1 The
- channel floor exhibits tops of small a well-developed gravel longitudinal pool-and riffle bars constituting thesystem. ~ The riffles.
- ~ bar-to-bar spacing is 15-20 m. The bars occupy the complete channel width and may be overlapping in a downstream direction (Fig. 9a). -In a few places, low fluvial terraces are preserved, but they are not common (Fig. 9d).
Undercutting of the steep valley walls is a constant occurrence at high-stage flow. This causes failure by slumping on the walls and mass wasting of the till'(unit Tbls, Plate 1) down tha slope and onto the channel bottom (Fig.- 9b). The till is then transported as sus-l pended sediment down and out of the reach by succeeding flood events. Heavy forest growth'on the valley walls is also transported to the i channel on' slump blocks, where the large trees create log jars. This results -in trapped badload gravel in temporary storage behind the jams l (Fig.-9c).
. Cross-Profiles - Four cross-valley profiles we::e constructed using the 1961 topographic map at the scale 1 inch = 200 feet.
~
Shown in Figure 10, they are: . 1) Erdman Brook, at the security fence (also shown'in Fig. 11);- 2) Erdman Brook, above Lagoon Creek confluence j l (also see Fig. 9d); 3) Franks Creek, above Quarry Creek confluence; l t and 4) Buttermilk Creek, _just above the BC-6 tributary. Also see Plate 1 for locations. [ There is a marked change.in Erdman Brook from a flat-bottomed valley l (1) (Fig,11) .to the steep V-shape with no flood plain (2) (Fig.10). This V-shape is maintained through the rest of the reach of Franks Creek (3) to the confluence with Buttermilk. The area from the knick-
- points above the NYSGS gage, to 100 m below the gage, is a transitional.
~
7 28
i COMPARATIVE LONGITUDINAL '
-420 PROFILES FIGURE 8 KNICKPOINTS
/
-410 ERDMAN BK CONFLUENCE
-400 NP 3 _
NP 2
-390 z OUARRY CR O CON FLUENCE \ BC-3 J P pf >
ALLUVIAL -380s FAN / s m K l Kg s"o R e'REE -370 4 RR BRIDGE h*
-360 BUTTERMILK , BEDROCK QND__BD BRIDGE -350 4!5 4'.0 3!5 3!O 2'.5 20 1.'S 1.'O O!5 0 DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM (KM)
Figure 8. Comparative longitudinal profiles of Buttermilk Creek (mean gradient = 6.76 m km-1), Franks Creek (19.92 m km-1),. and BC-3 alluvial fan (288.7 m km-1). 29
i i l l l l l t
, -%(., -' 'C. .r J;;N . f # (s . -
o 4 , . , , . . .
.' g , .v;.-
= g. > 3. M e w L, 9 ,
,p"s .
- p,,
d" g'C. ',$."' A_% .'qC
~
' ' N.y
{'
. . e ' ,e._ > g .~ .,
i ,v, '_. - '* ,.
- r. ' .
. i c.p% .:.: . , _+ op i
. . ...,. .-: .; . ..;;2&:r~N, _.'l .. .:. ; . ~-s ,.
l 9 .- _
,_ _-~ 7 i g - .m. 4 1- ;
. .' f. - ..
s
~ . 4 ...or : ,,.: ,,.
, -ttt y $, .-,. y ;;. ;s. . .. *
,,a a
-A : ..'- Rer . ng( . . ,sl%pa . .. .
i
'~
", $9 . y :
9-Q' y.3 c
& y'N.. 4' ',;.;l
?l ,
~ ~
i L lb .
- g f ' f - .
~
{' ', . A . (_ .?
%gewsv
- q "
; .1_~' a f;*".Q.7 p j r.Q.En' M4 W'W[Q - 7'
. ,; h -
4? , T W . *.
.I "
ex , . ; j, d %4 a .-,f g . . - ;. w s . w 98.' y.. w:w p%%
. % *w-
- 4% ,.;aV % c ..n-%
_e ,. ,s . j +,' 1. y3,-.. f;.. .;- Q'ep4 .? ,p' ~,
+ H,.
- y. ;
~ :.
.+
. W- .
.y 8 .c l, I.',
i f l .:;'..
~
'y J$
?) '. Y. ' ' .*
M i % . ; Q_ . K ;[ :O.:.j y 4_ W -t%;p, fa.
.Qgigg .w - L f.; .j, y ....
.h . h 5 4? ,
h~ . ' . . Q L ' .. . I
,fY "f_
. $ .l_ :_:: ?& _
' . .? g ' a'
. . . . ;um h
. i. . J. ,
- - + ;
. $+ &. . 2 ,i:.. uf.
.;c : Ja;
= . ; f . &:
~ . .. .:
1 x . 1:g . . . ,' ' ' p, s,4 eo - gj. ~;~g_; 3 9.j,' y , . MN, :.% k:1 Ji; 7..' J,; J , h y i.1. -. i. 2 f _. '" * ~ '. Figure 9. Franks Creek /Erdman Brook geomorphic subenvironments. A. Small 1cngitudinal bars fill the channel and function as riffles in the pool-and-riffle sequence. Transit operator is on the high point of a bar. View is upstream. B. Undercut slump block extending over and into the base-flow channel. View is downstream. 30
9C@ 5 A Jti
- W'h%Qi: ./.. 34.W .
.- 'y,. . . ..?..gl.,; y :w. 2f y *. j.d.L Q(~ n:.. -
_'.':f..*.C . u,l
.g. %
~ f.
i "' .d . e 'h . i
. ~,
** e ': ~ ~ . &; *;- +A,.% " s .. ~ L
*:n.: >-
~
.$ f} .
. '. G ; ,o',l. n.:k.....% . . [Jh s J.; - f 4. .; .:n.
!*. :. , .s .
4 . . . . . p' . . '~ 4. ~% M *. .- p .'.%. g; . 4,:. .?.). y.. r:,.,
%W.:: . ;-
- 7. N,;:
. , ~-' 7..$'"
1, .-@t f w.. .
. . . .,. a: ..:
4
-'y.- -.. <"x:.. - . , ~ y ' . . %.
% . )*.hh. 4,,ef j. ; . ,;.
w,.
, .;_ ; _. .Q ; a.'
. %u,,J ~ , ...;.41. y L ..
s
, g. + - . . .f.c.g , .l.g.'[T@,' -: ' . g . $ p ,gg ..,,7 :. e 3...
. b~ ~ ; ] .} .R..hn': 5 '.
;N.4f:. '.
3 (..y
.g- t' s
.. ; ; .; .. fw' . , ; - A
^ L' l,f ,r f; ~.;rg \.j '; Q .
N '+'lo &*- [, . ';Q ??' -'g
. ; ', ) '
.:;..y -
' ka
- . . .- (,- ~. [3yy
([.h:.8 [ -
., .[ g j'i$
rih.>T
,- w~_ .e . .,, i . ~a.:a.~ =c .. ; 4 ,; >.
. . w yap . _ .
..s : ;-
..: .- ~.. .. s4.
. . . m :~. .
~w: .
/.
5 +:,.,.
- r ..
n L a.. .ss
- ;,. . .. m - .
s' _ _. 2. ,. . _ ;. ,_ - r a
~
my . . . . sg.ir ' .p -
.-- .,_.3 .
. y .%. w\ i
.s ~ ,
e
, \ax.*J. *s.. . .* :; . ' :. ,, ,:n - 2*
r.. #. .
. ~,-,.f,,..
1 ;y _
--. . sam.
e
,n. - > -
. . . . p , . ..
~.
wmms h f f $ p i e sbh$
- 4 .
Js;lS VM$. .Q1Z kh,o.k.;.CJk @ k* k
? ; .;, . . .
....q .
;.. ;;a .
. . r.n
*g-a .y c
g-
& y-; -
'Y '
[.i ll ._ ..: V- ~ Qg h^- .' z' ',[ . . c& C. Log jam created by flood pileup of trees transported to the valley bottom by slumps. Rod person (arrow) is standing on gravel accumulated behind the jan. View is upstream. D. Fluvial terraces preserved near the valley bottom of Erdman Brook. View is upstream. 31
- .y TRIBUTARY VALLEY CROSS-SECTIONS FIGURE 10 1 ERDMAN 2 ERDMAN 3 FRANKS 4 BUTTERMILK SECURITY FENCE ABOVE LAGOON JUST ABOVE JUST UPSTREAM ABOVE KNICK PT CONFLUENCE QUARRY OF BC-6 TRIBUTARY ADJACENT TO CONFLUENCE LOW-LEVEL BURIAL EAST WEST 1 / 420M 4 h \ ~
V 410 3 g\ 400
\
-390 s \ /
\ CHANNEL RR .380
\ TERRACE j
. 370 400M 300 200 100 0 Figure 10. Constructed cross-sections of Erdman Brook (1,2), Franks Creek (3), and liuttermilk Creek (4) .
I
.,,e.
.. .e .;,
. .. x. .3 g_,/ .
, ,, : , _, . " g, - ' ".- p r e .: . - .. Q' l .
w v
. g.
, ,~
.tlf*1:: .m' ._ M&agg* . -
, ,Js ,
,. .) - . .
~..w.- .
* ~' ' '
+ -
*% ~-
.. . . , ' % , ' W ',
(
- .h-i.
. .. =
,1 j,-, ._
,< %, . es ,g . ,s.-
.x \ ..
~ . . .% .
....w. ,
- m. --
. , ~; -.
. Ym - ^r ll-
. 1,
'b e .
p.' J
. ,. ' ' :.. , I :i; 5 *
. [$$A j ,. 1 Figure 11. Erdman Brook valley morphology. Area shown is at cross-section (1) (Fig. 10). Arrow points to the NFS security fence.
"O 33
zone from the flat (1) to the V-shape (2). In the V-shaped zone, it appears that valley widening is proceeding by parallel retreat of slopes. 4.7 Drainage Basin Area Drainage basin areas of Buttermilk Creek, Franks Creek and streams flowing into the NFS reservoirs are shown on Plates 1, 2, 3, and in Table 5. Franks Creek is further subdivided into a number of smaller basins shown on the Plates and Table 5. The boundaries were first determined by inspection of drainage divides on the largest scale map (Plates 1 and 3 respectively). Boundaries were field checked, partic-ularly on the plateau site area, by one of us (L. Dunne) and by written and personal communication with W. Harding (USGS, Ithaca), L. Wagner (USGS, Albany), S. Potter (NYSGS, West Valley), and A. Bockelman (NFS). The areas were then determined by digital planimeter methods as dis-cussed elsewhere (3.2). Figure 12 is a simple, descriptive, stream-ordering diagram. This diagram is useful in determining flow paths, particularly of the Franks Creek tributaries. Table 5 illustrates that Quarry Creek is probably the master trunk stream, but that the longitudinal profile was run for Franks /Erdman. This was done because it is adjacent to the low-level waste burial trenches and it receives a large share of all north plateau runoff. Traditional names were used for the lower trunk (Franks) from the Quarry confluence to Buttermilk Creek. 4.3 Reservoir Sediment Volumes Location maps for bottom profiles in the two NFS reservoirs are shown in Figure 13. Tabulations of cross-sectional areas of the profiles, amounts of fill, and percent reservoir volumes are given in Table 6. The reservoirs which are located in the Buttermilk fluvial system are illustrated on Plates 1 and 3. The reservoirs are contained by earth dams constructed across separate tributary streams. Water accumulation began in 1963. The full stage for both is 412.4 m (1353 ft). A dredged channel connects the reser-voirs allowing free flow and stage equilibrium between them. Flood discharge is released through a pipe beneath the north reservoir, down the tributary, and into Buttermilk Creek just south of the Butter-milk Hill Road bridge. Extreme flooding results in overflow across a wide sluiceway east of the south reservoir and directly into Butter-milk Creek. Stage height when the bottom profiles were obtained was 411.2 m and 411.0 m for the south and north reservoirs respectively. A beaver dam in the dredged channel produced this uneven stage. Reservoir No. 1 (South) - The pre-reservoir valley cross-eections show a V-shaped form eroded in Lavery till, probably not unlike the present Franks Creek. Sedimentation from 1963-1980 has been by: 1) pro-gradation of a delta at the south end of reservoir; 2) density under-34
TABLE 5 Drainage Basin Areas m km2 ha Buttermilk Creek 78.41 7841.5 Franks Creek Total 5.92 591.75 Lower Trunk 8.47 Middle Trunk 8.64 Upper Trunk 14.65 Outwash 1.35 135.29 Quarry 2.95 294.79
'R-1 217,184 21.72 NP-2 25157 2.52 NP-3 112p72 11.21 Lagoon 0.53 53.03 Burial 47,839 4.78 Erdman 0.89 88~.96 North Reservoir 4.36 435.82 Stuth Reservoir 8.07 806.77 s:.
s. gf; 35 l L ..
.4 DRAINAGE ORDERING SCHEMATIC BUTTERMI FRANKS g Q Oi E MIDDLE 6 FRANKS g) $us E
- 2) UPPER $
[ f FRANKS z
<x:
g P-1 $ I[ pg Of .kh N D5 A& a R era b
$g O)p
$n O& BURIAL DU (NRC) y&
FIGURE 12 Drainage ordering schematic for the western tributaries of Buttermilk Creek. '
BOTTOM PROFILE TRANSECTS RESERVOIR NO.1 (SOUTH) D is FA 3 EXPLANATION 0 22 PROFILE TRANSECT I E DELTA DEPOSITS l R SUBSURFACE DEPCSITS D ls D FORMER CREEK THALWEG sn o 100 9 METERS
,' .,e
*s',
7 '(; fib 3 F1 g - 't 6 j.;, lV , II
, l1; SURFICIAL DEPOSITS 16
. :sy ; FLUVIAL DEPOSITS Tb !3 ^
OW 5 bc FA b1 INACTIVE 6 I pt b3 ABANDONED i
-a
' GLACIAL TILLS 13
'sM g Tb l3 TILL PLAIN
's f FIGURE 13A Tb gg TILL SLOPES MgARTIFICIAL FILL Map of reservoir No. 1 (south) showing bottom profile transects.
Delta of inflowing tributary is at the top of the diagram (station 11); dam is at the bottom (station 12). 37
rc FIGURE 138 RESERVOIR NO.1 (SOUTH) PMFIW SEWOM INFILL: 1963-1980 oeLTA rnowr FILL VOLUME UP TO SECTION tg, gt;- 3 TV %213.3 M 411.2 M ELEV.
- 22 s
W"# w .-- v e# 12,515.3 M3
' .7, 19,216.9 M 3
'\ '
/*
27,245.9 M3 7L .
?.t 33,721.4 M 3
? 7
[ TOTAL FILL VCLUME I // 44,370.4 M3 v. e.
/ 0-v:. - '" '
' 'O 20 40 werene Cross-sections of reservoir No. 1 (south). Shaded area (fill) divides original section (1963), from measured section (1980) .
Grid pattern delineates th- present reservoir. Section 8/21 to the delta front contains fluvially-derived sediment. Other infill is due to slumping. 38
I BOTTOM PROFILE TRANSECTS RESERVOIR NO.2 fI r (NORTH) ll FIGURE 13C O b I EXPLANATION 44 30 PROFILE TRANSECT t .I E DELTA DEPOSITS f ',
. j b SUBSURFACE DEPOSITS
. SURFICIAL DEPOSITS
\ ALLUVIAL FAN ABANDONED 47 .
FA g FL AL DEPOSITS FLUVIAL DEPOSITS 45 FI b3 ABANDONED TW 8 l Tbi, GLACIAL TILL Mg A IAL FILL
,. 9 l FORMER CREEK THALWEG 4
7 , LP Fib 3 0 50 100 ( i s METERS [i 'I Map of reservoir No 2 (north), showing bottom profile transects. Del.tB of the inflowing tributary is at the top (station 37), dam is at the lower right (station 28). 39
RESERVOIR NO.2 (NORTH) INFILL: 1963 -1980 ON SEMM FILL VOLUME UP TO SECTION 5,710.4 M3 ma u new
' L- V" 6,443.9 M 3 b'
\3MTNPP5AW 8,156.3 M 3 M M g 10,790.4 M 3 t%
l ;qygf C [ 13,253.1 M 3 h'dtQ5d]&:$. M TOTAL FILL VOLUME
~l l /sa 15,243.9 M 3 j g.- , ,
"'
- I
' FIGURE 13D uma, l
. ,. - l w rens Cross-sections of reservoir No. 2 (north). The flat floor of the reservoir from the delta front out to profile 46/32 is indicative of density underflow sedimentation, although evi-dence for slumping is present on the last three profiles.
40
~
.. , t .o
,m .
_.h ' ( i= TABIE 6a Reservoir Volumes South Reservoir, No. 1
- I Delta plain 3
. Surface area Voltsne (m )
W 57 m2 (.96 ha)- 7213.35 3 Tran- Cross sectional area (m2) Inngit.
~
Voltne' m .
. sects . distance . 'Ihtml Fill II20 % Fill (m) Fill 112 0 % Fill- Fill Delta 100.30- 100.0 fztat 47 5301.99 1718.84- 75.5' 12515.34 9/22 125.32 73.14 63.1 *- 51 6701.6" 6887.73 " 49.3 19216.98 ,
8/21 137.49 196.M 41.1 53 8028.93 133M.42 37.6 27245.91 7/20 105.48 306.22 35.1 i 41 6475.46 13115.56 ~ 33.1'
.33721.37 6/19 150.39 333.56 31.1 50 10619.02 24405.87 30.4 44370.39 5/18 210.50 493.75 29.9 Prusent Reservoir 112 0 Voltsne 361,658 m3
-Area 46,049 m2 (4.6 ha) i
- i. U
)
a mh 6 3 3 0 9 8 3 l 9 3 4 1 8 9 al tl 3 6 0 3 3 6, (2 oi 4 5 9 5 4 5 TF 1 1 7 2 2 52 d G 8 0 3 5 r 1 1 1 9 0 0 3 l 2 l 2 2 1 i 0 7 F 6 8 3 0 5 7 4 4 4 3 3 % m e 8 2 6 7 6 t s 9 3 1 1 0 t l o 1 5 0 1 6 1 6 7 8 Vo h 3
) l 2 8 4 6 G 3 1 3 3 3
( m e4 G 0 7 s r 5 3 1 6 8 e u0 t l l 2 0 m l1 3 2 4 u o7 i F 3 1 3 6 9 9 l V5 /' 7 G 4 o 1 2 2 1 b V G r Eio .ec t n B v A r T es igta )m 3 1 5 2 5 2 5 2 e mis r ( 1 2 R Id
) )
a 2 l h ( m l 0 3 9 5 9 7 a2 i 3 2 7 1 a F 0 1 3 e m6 0 6 4 4 3 r z a( m% a 1 l t ed o cn l 9 5 5 5 2 V 2 a a O 6 2 6 2 7 a
.f7 n ( 0 e r4 o I 5 6 0 2 5
2 4 2 r 11 A o u2 i 3 3 4 1 1 N S6 t 1 1 r c
, e i r s o v
i 2 4 5 8 3 3 o s ll 4 4 6 0 9, 3 r v s e r n o iF 6 6 6 4 2 G s e i r 5 5 0 0 9 G e s a C 1 1 R e l R p h a s at 6 5 4 3 2 t n e t t nt tn 3 3 3 3 3 s r l ac lo / / / / / e o e re er 0 9 8 7 6 r N D Ts Df 5 4 4 4 4 P 3ot
,l 1
flow of fine-grained material down the delta front and.prodelta slope 3 onto the reservoir. floor; and 3) slumping and debris flow o( the sub-merged valley walls down the side slopes. 7 Inspection of Figure 13a indicated that the delta plain has prograded , about 140 m into the reservoir. The c~ross-profiles near the delta front (8/21 and 9/22, Fig. 13b) show a flat to gently concave-up reser-voir floor. Cross-profiles further away show a more U-shaped section with terraces and uneven filling. The flat profiles probably reflect fill by density _ underflow, and the others, fill by a combination of slumping and underflow. The total fill values (Table 6a) calculated from profiles closest to the delta better indicate sedimentary infill' ' of materia), delivered by fluvial processes. 1 Reservoir No. 2 (North) - The north reservoir is about one-half the surface area, but only 15 percent of the volume, of the south reservoir as a result of differences in depth and valley form (Fig. 13c, d). The pre-reservoir valley,_where dammed, was not incised as deeply and had not developed an extreme V-shaped cross-section. The drainage basin for this reservoir is about one-half the size of the basin area of the south reservoir (Table 5). s The delta plain has prograded approximately 90 m into the reservoir. The cross-profiles show a flat floor adjacent to the delta front similar to the south reservoir. Side wall bulges, presumably slumps, are not as pronounced but are present (46/32, Fig. 13d). 4.9. Buttermilk Stage and Discharge Stage-height records are available from July 18, 1980 onward for this phase of the study. The stage recorder installed at Thomas Corners Road bridge by the NYSGS in August 1978 was removed by Hurricane Fredric flooding in September 1979 and was reinstalled on July 18, 1980. Selected stage-height records for the summer and fall of 1980 are shown in Figure 14. Velocity-area information and suspended sediment samples
-collected during the summer and fall period, and shown on the stage-discharge, suspended sediment concentration-discharge plot (Fig. 15 and Table 7). Regression lines were not computed for these data because there are too few readings to give a meaningful result.
However, the stage-discharge plot can be used in a non-statistical, but geolegically meaningful way to evaluate stage-heights for which there are no accompanying discharge data sets. Flood Events - The hydrographs of three flood events are illustrated in Figure 14 and include a relatively low-discharge event (Oct. 12), a moderate event (Aug. 11), and a high-discharge event (Oct. 25-26). The moderate and high events show the "spikey" nature of the flooding as described by Boothroyd and others (1979), particularly the rapid rise in stage to peak flow in a matter of hours. 43
jdfn t In V .Av A'. , s 'A l*; A B
/
200 200 O=17.0 m3 sec'I
' # ESTIMATED 1 O=3 soc" 100 s-wrs ncs O g _h i ,s ne,a
- !.!!s;.N...> .
J - _ . g sisiir p O
,+ ~
O . . . . - . e- 11 13 15 12 14
-Z AUGUST OCTOBER v.
I I I I I F C ,
,,,I3. 1 FIGURE 14 I V ,,ss ,4.454,..r FLOOD HYDROGRAPHS g
-id 200 0-20 ss-tase .i 7"'y' AUGUST, OCTOBER- 1980 -'
THOMAS CORNERS RD BRIDGE I / f,,,s,3, ,3 ., BUTTERMILK CREEK y ss-0.s24 .rt _ l NFS RES O j O=0.5 8 m3sec-1 .. . ; . I x ~ I O ' ' ' ' 30
-3 24 26 28 3 OCTOBER NOVEMBER '
' ~ ~
fm;teQ l y x c.,<
;i _
)
1 m, J,1Sk:'e. 1..;
"d I gyp y,; ( 4-
)
9' p'11! a -
~
- 1. 28 ^
J. I Figure 14. Stage-height records, Thomas Corners. Road' bridge (NYSGS), 1980. A. August 11, 1980 flood hygrogrgph. A moderate event with peak flow estimated at 17.0 m sec-1 Movement of small clasts occurred on bar complex 4-6. B. October. 12,1980 ~ flood hydrograph measured peak flow of 3.57 mJsec-I. A small event with a C. October estimatedat60 25-26,19g0. msec-{largefloodeventwithpeakflow (the first high spike). Times of discharge measurements.and suspended sediment sampling are shown. 45
Stage / discharge and suspended sediment concentration. Thomas Corners Road brib e, 1980. Consult Table 7 for details. l ! l l l llll i ! ! !+lt ' ~ ~~~ Z STAGE / DISCHARGE & SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 8 _e. _ . _ _ THOMAS CORNERS RD DRIDGE 1980 9 SUSPENDED SEDIMENT 2 5 DISCHARGE iD [
~ 'J, 2 10 _ __ .._ . _.
1.0 g
~
s .
-i _ _
Z - - - 8- F S 52 s - - - --- - 05 5y tu . -. - - -- - I .- O 2 - - - - - --- 0.2 In <> aPii us O 1.0 . _ ..
- rr; 0.1 Z Z.- : m OL5 -1513 Q
.. a ___ _ _ _ . _ . __ - ._
O O.2 - .-- - - - - 0.1 _ . _ _ . . .
.01 0.1 0.2 05 1 2 5. _ 10 20 50 100 DISCHARGE O (M3 .SEC-1)
FIGURE 15
TABLE 7 Stage, Discharge, NW_ Sedhnent
'1hanas Corners Boad Bridge Stage Suspended Date Height Digcharge Sediment (1980) Time cm r:r) sec-1 g . liter-1 Ranarks t
.i July 18 16:15 042 0.175/0.169 0.035 Under bridge /
22 m upstream July 22 14:54 050 0.410 0.142 Aug. 1 12:30 042 0.046 Aug. 11 8:45 158 *17.0
- Estimated Oct. 12 13:45 094 3.57 0.752 Oct. 24 16:15 051 0.518 550 Class Oct. 25 18:14 224.5 46.52 From Bridge 21:38 223.5 4.414 2 rom Bridge Oct. 26 7:11 160 20.17 1.266 From Bridge 12:08 142.5 15.39 0.624 From Bridge i
> 47 L
7 ,
-2 g_,
0
.9
. AreviewoftticUSGSstage-disbhargedataandratingcurve(USGS,
~
- L ,
11968; in Foo droyd'and others,'1979, Fig. 17) reveals that the. .
.0ctober-25-26' flood is within t.he range of~the. yearly maximum dis-charge event:as determined by the USGS for. 1962-1968. Diract com-
- parisons of stage.cannot.be.made between NYSGS records and the USGS~
$ data because the no-flow, stage-height calibration has not been ;
- determined forLthe NYSGS gage.;
i The Hurricane Fredric flooding tha't carried away- the stage recorder
,. - was probably. equal to, ' or greater .than, the indirect measurestant of
'110 m3sec-1 determined-by?the USGS'(1968)'for'a large flood in 1967. ,
1 Flood ~1evels, as determined by' debris levels in trees,Lis shown in Figure 16 for,three, bar-complex 4-6 transects. :Also shown are the-base-flow, water-surface elevations and the flood' flow of October
'25-26, 1980.
Suspended Sediment - Suspended; sediment concentration at'a given dis- '. charge increases rapidly with increase .in discharge during a flood event, peaks early, and then. falls off more rapidly than a proportion-al decrease in discharge. .This. relationship'is common.to small streams-with rapid runoff and little infiltration (Gregory and Walling,1973). Three suspended; sediment samples were obtained during the October.25-
-26 event. One was taken just past peak stage and the other two during
., falling stage (Fig. 14c, 15; Table 7). Note-the rapid decline in sediment concentration during the falling stage. Compare the.last-value to the much lower discharge, but similar sediment concentration,- at the ceak of the October 12 event. I ' NFS Reservoir ' Slug' Discharge - The sharp spikes. on the hydrograph
-of about one-hour duration represent controlled releases from the NFS' reservoirs. The gate at Dam No. 2 ~ (north ) opens automatically.
when the reservoir- stage rises 30 cm (1 f t) above 412.4 m (1353 f t), which is the full level. Discharge is released through a 91 cm (36.in)
- pipe at a rate of 5.66 m3sec-1 (200 cfs)'. This continues until the water level in the reservoirs is lowered enough to allow the gate to close. Reservoir information was furnished by P. Byrne, NFS ' (personal communication, 1981).
A check of the reservoir release hydrograph after the October 25-26 4 flood (Fig.14c) indicates that when using the stage height of a J
' slug' peak, occurring during otherwise low flow, and reading the equivalent discharge on Figure 15, good agreement is found with the r known reservoir discharge. This provides a crude calibration of the ,
stage-discharge curve. f 4.10 Clast Movement Clast movement stations were established at transects 5, 11 and 16 of bar complex 6 as described in the procedures section. Plots of the
- narked clasts are given on Plate 10 and precise locations are tabu- .
lated in Appendix E. Photographs of selected localities are shown p 1 48
BAR & CHANNEL CROSS-SECTIONS TRAN 16(1980) g o H FREDRIC ,yoo
\
.. (f. # ,cusiy-r ,25 OCT .
soo
.x r -
%- - BASE l- *
, ;, .. +;t y .,, .-. _ ; p. . , W s ""'s"<
+ m ;._<y s ',e 500 4
~}.P . s ,; ). s .x , ** ,
%N, o
~n/ ...cr %~. , ~ * -
- t ,s A: s ' , + . h , , rh, s ?-; * \. .
60m 5'O 4'O aiO 20 10 TR AN 11 (1980)
,H FREDRIC . goo
[9%< ctasr j' . -yThm o 25 OCT , 700 600 too nevuos- moou y C. , +l , - [ . k, Sh[' - [ hnBASE jfj
, ;: Q'o
. '.,: ;;/l-1 g f , D M 7 if r:5ll:[*'[;
j , R b ~ y , ,-l% 3,[;,&
~ % Q~'f,%^"?'S <" 'J4;.y'.,
,f;,y',- ',
l THOMAS CRNRS. RD. BRIDGE 60m 60 r- ' 40 "s' . 30 9 - J' 20 10 goo NOV 1980 TOP OIRDEA m TRAN 5 (1980)
,H FREDRIC go 3 wu asocr s
-f
\
-N o 25 OCT k* /* m se oct 2fg ctAlf 700 J'41
*:yg *r#
W' ,, ,
-7P:%'
g,<z. MP-]
' 7 fd 7
- 3s s, ,
' /;2-W'g's
. ll '. ; ; ; M ;'3; s 600 j y;[n;,'
- p. . ' J
. ..;. yx1 ,a c %
, ,;jf,fj I
,5 l W, , ," J f ' , ' y-Q*
Q Y, MAQ. s ., ; 4
- y. L ~ \
#Q, 4 i
g c4 , *, 50m 4'O 30 20 s O u 17m WEST EAST FIGURE 16 Bar and channel cross-sections, bar complex 4-6. Sections _ were constructed at the locations of the clast movement stations utilizing topography from the bar map (Plate 4). Water-surface elevations are indicated for base-flow, the October 25-26, 1980 flood event, and Hurricane Fredric flooding. Also includel is the flood discharge measuring station at Thomas Corners Road bridge. l l
as: Figure 17, east side of transect 5; Figure 18, east side of tran-sect 16; and Appendix F, details of the east side of transect 5. A clast rovement station marked during 1978 (Fig. 19a; Fig. 14, Boothroyd and others,1979) was relocated and remarked (Fig.19b) and one moved clast found (Fig. 19c). Please refer to Figure 3, the morphological change maps of bar complex 4-6; Plate 4, the topographic map; and Figure 16, the bar cross-sections; for details of geometry. Auguts 11, 1980 Event - Summer flooding after a heavy rain resulted in a stage height peak of 1.58 meters (Fig.14a) and an estimated discharge of 17.0 m3sec-1 (Fig. 15). Depth of flow over the submerged portions of the transects was not recorded. Clast movement was confined to bar edges adjacent to the base-flow channels and involved mainly smaller clasts (yellow line markers), although three medium-sized and one large clast did move on transects 5 and 16. The largest clast to move (transect 5) measured 33 cm L-axis and slid about one clast- width forward. The medium-sized clasts on transect 16 moved 802 and 1078 cm respectively. The small clasts on transect 16 recorded the greatest movement, up to 2676 cm away perpendicular to the transect line. This was probably because flow depth was greater over the gently sloping bar surface than at transect
- 5. The size range of the smaller clasts that moved was 1.5-15 cm L-axis.
October 25-26, 1980 Event - Rapid flooding during and after an intense rainfall resulted in a stage-height peak of 2.39 m, a measured discharge l of 46.52 m3sec-1 (af ter the peak), and an estimated peak discharge of approximately 60 m3sec-1 (Fig. 14c, 15). Most of transect 5 was sub-l merged and maximum depth over the critical movement area was 40-60 cm. The sloping surface of transect 16 was submerged to a maximum depth of 85 cm. Movement of large clasts at transect 5 was confined to the eastern high-bar surfaces and edges shown in Fig. 17a. The largest clast moved had a L-axis of 40 cm and it traveled 428 cm. This movement is sig-I nificantly different from that recorded for August 11. Figure 17b shows movement trajectories for some of the large-and medium-sized clasts. The yellow marker line was obliterated in this area and only a few smaller clasts recovered. Maximum movement recorded was 2138 cm. Transect 16 movement was greater because of greater depth of submer-gence. All clasts were moved from a 6-meter wide area adjacent to the base-flow channel. No clasts wer e recovered. They could have been moved downstream into the channel, flipped over so that the paint did not show, have been scoured clean of paint, or have been buried. Along the transect, in areas of shallower water, medium-sized clasts moved a maximum of 3168 cm. Figure 18 shows this part of the transect before movement and trajectories of moved clasts are indicated. 50
Clast movemer*. station, transect 5, bar complex 4-6. Looking east toward the high bar where most movement occurred during the August and October flood events (area shown in box) . Marked line is shown by tape; transect 5 stake by arrow. A small base-flow channel runs through the center. Compare with Plate 4 and Figure 16.
.n -- x - -
,A%,:cm =-
g "~ c ,,% m
-pa ? e ,,
t .
-~. . . q- g - -
Q r t,,.1. - . t. - -
- u. ,
. u--.. m Gh g ,w:.l Q.;. M^' N.W$ Q.. N~,5 .[:,> s n ..'; ~6 -
w s
.,1
. . . . g..,
e y 4, 1)....s
.. r - , ,m, ,;.
, g l % p w 1 4-% g.
r., y >. . % p... < . 9. .
- 5. ,,.
3 .. .
- f ,[.
. ~ , ~-l#b.l. } . ^ ,k . '.-.
r er ' A.> - W .. - -* -D'i,- - - -
, ~~k',*-
[ j'l - b ' w
,,1~ 2ts,. , .. : .
, . > . < . . . . , - ? m.,
', - . a- .
,,;r- ~* c- f*w g p;W D . .
- y. . , , -- . *
~
W, .
. -? h l.
4,44 ...}- -- * .; ..~- ,
^.
?.
;V - 4 ::. , . - _g,; :?.; y, ...C er. .r : .., .:; . :.
,g .
-S
- .e . ..$
7 < , ., , 7. ,. ;.. if 7.y' ~eg ' ;* O.:, ,c. A ,~ , _..,,. ,; #;g &^ ,5 2 .YS : . 'Y j. c % = ' e. u:- -
;._. ?
- e. .w :
3, . 3 -
. 9_. .
- w . -f.
.jfl Q ):Q- '
E *
.s,..' , l
' . . ,..d
' f*. JW . ; .f~.[~ <g ._- - * +Q . ..'.a
*_,.' % e : 4" g' - *- ' ', :?:
; gl2 Q . *; - :.. * .
27 . .
. .: . c- , g
* -- *. . . -. '. jyga g_-
a _
- A.
s
' 4'
. 3 . . ,
Close-up of part of boxed area in A. Large marked clasts green) are light gray, medium clasts (blue) dark gray. Note the marked line (yellow) and white. Selected movement tra-jectories are shown, View is downstream and before movement occurred. Scale is 30 cm. 51
w' A
~.
- y.
. . . .. ,, w . +- -
^ f,[}
~
D; ., N' * - '
$_ '. _ ;~ .,
kk. ..-
> e n' Cg .v
- n
& s. ,
_ ' ~' g m g [ h.
*Te ,
E, M e ~
/ A t t. CtA$T5
'I g '.. \: . y,,.. ..' -
, ,m 9 "*% ,, fu,yovro , ,-
0' * - , OC T 25 1980
-[+ 7 i
~
, c 31 n. '
.. ey r ., - .. % + fewe 4 ,
e 4"; wj y"
,^
2 & y <. _
.7%+
'~,
y' --,'q.,
,. , g u '< .
c,' n , :. - . . . . w Figure 18. Clast movement station, transect 16, bar complex 4-6. The part of the line shown is on the shoulder of the bar where maximum , measured movement occurred on October- 25-26, 1980. Markings as in Figure 17; view is downstream, before movement occurred. Selected trajectories are shown. Scale is 30 cm. i
l i 1978 clast movement station (transect 8-9) recovered in 1980. E View in 1978. Note the tightly-grouped, imbricated clasts (outlined), and the location of clast 49 (arrow) (from Booth-groyd and others, 1979), Fig. 14). Downstream is to the lefte 1 4 tXh; n,e
,p Ild? ,
e h n m/ . 's,'
?. -
, g
^
$f
> ~ ..z ,
E : . ... View in 1980. The tight grouping (outlined) is visible just to the upper left of the scale. A sand and silt drape has partially buried the clasts. Clast 49 is missing,.
.2kg m. hNum '
^
M M ::: W.ug~vry _ ,c hY ,. 4214.}+;y
,.- ; y .
~- ~
?
.w W n ).
l4 ,. l L a * . "~Q . . , ; ! . . p p ~ *'t -. pv 1
; --v l
l
, .~.
^.
. k. ~%% *y i4 ha ?' .
f% & : m :. _ ' z ,_ , 53
'l Clast 49 (arrow) relocated downstream of transect 11, on the high point of a new transverse bar (see Fig. 3 and Plate 4 for location). Downstream is to the left. Scale is 30 cm. .
i i
~g
.l + . . . . . 2 $ l l l l l l 54
' - ~ '
7- .
, l m 1 Hurricane.Fredric Event (Sept. 1979) Inten'se rainfal'1 associated l
' ~~
with Fredric result'ed in a flood discharge estimated to be at'least._. as; great-asithe 1967: peak'of 110 m3sec-1. -(USGS , 1968) . .. Flow depths over bar -complex.4 transects. 5,;11 and 16 are shown in Figure 16, which are bar cross-sections. Maximum depth over the highest bar asurfaces,-as measured by debris levels in trees, was'70-120.cm. Large volumes of gravel;were transported and the geometry of the bars was greatly rearranged as documented by bar mapping (Plate 4) and: . morphological thange diagrams.(Fig.3), .Most of_the.clasts marked at stations during the-Phase I study were not recovered. The exception wss on top of the'large transverse bar between transects 7.and 8 as: illustrated in Figure 19a,b.- Flood flow plucked isolated clasts from the. station but did not move the tighter-packed, well-imbricated clasts.- Declining flow then deposited a sand and silt drape (Fig. 19b). OneL of the moved clasts was found on the bar. top of a new transverse bar. 63 m downstream -(Fig.19c). The clast followed'a path directly down-stream which was skewed from the direction of bar slipface migration. It was deposited on the highest point of a newly-formed bar where a channel had existed in'1978. 4.11 Buttermilk Valley Sediment Volume - The measuremen's t for volume removed from Buttermilk valleyLand the Franks Creek /Erdman Brook tributary system are shown in Table 8. -The' j' Buttermilk. Creek value was derived by measuring the' difference from the' plateau surface to the channel bottom of the Creek. Tributary- '
. valleys were not . measured. The Franks Creek /Erdman Brook value was-also derived by measuring from the plateau surface to the creek bottom.
The upper reach of Erdman, upstream of the railroad tracks, was omit- ,
-ted from the calculation.
The volume of sediment presently in low terraces was derived in a similar manner. Three thicknesses were calculated because of difficulty .
; in measuring an average upper surface of terraces and Lars to the ,
s accuracy needed for volume calculation. This calculation was done in order to estimate the amount of material, mostly gravel, subject to channel sweep and reincorportation into the active bar system. i l w l. l l' 55 1
~ . , - - . -- - . - - ._ , --- ,
TABLE 8 Buttermilk Valley Sediment Voltane Buttermilk Creek Total Volume 65,923,331 m 3 Low Terraces Base flow - 3 m elevation 1,706,964 0.5 m -3m 1,422,470
- 1. 0 m -3m 1,137,976 Franks Creek /Erdman Brook Total Volume 4,220,274 m 3.
l l l 56 I' . . . . ._.
A h - 15.0 DISCUSSION L5.1 Bar and Channel' Geometry
~Bar Migration Changes to bar and channel geometry at bar complex' 4-6 were to a s'dar.
r extent the, result _of migration of large trans- l' verse bars in equil'ibrium with very large floods, in this case.the Hurricane Fredric avent. The upper' transverse bar (BC-4) attempted to migrate forward;but the east-side slipface encountered the debris pile and terrace at the kink in the channel (Fig. 3a). The intense turbulence created by this situation caused rapid erosion and removal of terrace gravel. This resulted in formation of a wider bend in the.
-channel-(Fig. 3b). The gravel was redistributed onto bars further-downstream, effectively recycling the low-active-terrace material.
The difference in hydraulic _ head laterally across the surface of BC-4 with greater head on.the west, caused more effective transport of material from the west side of the bar (areas 2, 3; Fig. 3c). The
- complete bar form migrated downstream approximately 60 m by a combina-tion of'stoss-side accumulation (Fig. 4) and bar'slipface migration (Fig.
20s). An erosional channel developed where the two.bar elements split into different paths (area 2; Fig. 3c). Additions of east side terrace i gravel-resulted in the vertical accretion and slipface migration of smaller transverse bars on the downstream part of the complex (BC-5). Terraces and Chutes - In addition to removal of terrace material and recycling it back to active bars, active bar gravel was deposited up on the low-active terraces as longitudinal bars during Hurricane Fredric (Fig. 20b). At bar. complex ":-6 unvegetated chutes adjacent to active bars were filled and excess gravel deposited on the west-side terrace ' (area 7, Fig. 3c) . Higher elevation chutes on the terraces i were activated during peak flooding and gravel longitudinal bars accum-lated in them (east side, area 7, Fig. 3c). ) GravelBudget,BC4-6-Thegrossgravelbudggtforbarcomplex4-6 (Table 2) shows a net deficit of about 1160 m . More gravel was eroded from terraces and bars than was deposited within the complex. This is a crude _ estimate and does not represent a precise measurement
- of'the differences between the 1978 and 1980 topographic maps. How-
, ever, superimposition of the two maps delineates areas of erosion, deposition, no change, and magnitude of elevation difference. Volume changes were determined by planimeter. The supposition is that some of the gravel deficit was redeposited with-in the bar complex 4-6 area, but that the remainder was transported to the next-bar complex downstream. Inspection of 1978 photographs of
- bar complex 6 and_ visual comparison with the present (summer, 1980) suggests that vertical accretion has occurreo.
3 5.2 Discharge Events and Gravel Transport Clast Movement - The August 11 flood was probably the threshold event for initiation of movement of medium-sized clasts on the lower bar 57
l 20A slipface of large transverse bar (arrow) located downstream of transect 11, bar complex 4-6. Maximum flow depth over the bar top was at- least 85 cm as measured by debris in trees. See Figure 3 for more detail. View is upstream. I i
'^ '
b .G N*, ,
-;..e,~,.
~
, ;' , . . .1, : .., { ' '
g :. . ,o-s
.e,-
e _ .- .. r
~,-.
, /. . ~,',, ,
- / , .
. i n- - .- . ~ : .:s f [ ')]- .
7dj^ -
.n. ,
,,~ ',9 ;y -
y ; / * ~f [4 f*Q~ '~: ',. .; g; e
' . y -- - ' -
,1 4'
- 3, . ' y,f.. ~B;:2.$
k$llk }' 4,s
. 'ft l .
N '
.- -y'
' - ' " - *' y l _
s .m
' ' ~ ~
M <di. M NM 4. ,..i4.-'
~
20p Longitudinal bar complex (arrow) deposited on a low-active terrace at bar complex 25, just upstream of the Bond Road ; bridge. View is upstream,
~
t
'..'..~' ., . . , . , .
- p. h .~.~~ , ,
, [
i . 7 V '%
~
- == ,
.g y 4 . -
. . -e s.
n ., l
% jg f j p
,i &
. ;.rr ./
,m , . a: \
l Figure 20. Hurricane Fredric bedload gravel transport. l 58
a ,, i l
.curfaces. An event of this discharge-(9.5 m3,.c-1, estimated) (Fig.
- 15) occurs several times a year . based on the USGS' (1968) data (Boothroyd and others,.1979; Fig. 17).
The' October 25-26. event (46.52 m3sec-1 measured; 60 m3sec-1 estimated) moved some large' clasts on bar edges and shoulders an average of 3 m (Fig.'17,18; Appendix E). This event may be considered to be just ' chove the threshold of movement for large-clasts, although not all of them moved. A flood of this discharge falls in the range of events with a one-year recurrence interval (USGS, 1968). Indirect Measurement - It was impossible to get onto the bar during the flood-peak, high-current velocity nor to observe the flood peak because it occurred at night, no direct velocity-area measurements were made at the clast movements stations. It is possible to calcu-late bottom shear stress using the known depth of water over the clasts, an. estimated water-surface slope, and the well-known DuBoys equation: r - pas where r is boundary shear stress (kg m-2), p the density of the fluid
~(H O), d is the depth of water, and s the water-surface slope. Baker 2
aM Ritter (1975) present a graph for estimating threshold of movement of gravel-sized particles knowing the boundary shear stress (or vice versa). This calculation was not done because we have direct measure-ment of moved clasts at a given creek discharge and can calculate transport rates versus discharge. However, the indirect calculation can be done in the future as a check on other methods. Gravel Transport Rates-- The following ca'1culations use the bar volume changes (Table 2), distances of clast movement (Appendix E), and esti - I mated flood frequency and recurrence interval. All calculations should be regarded as preliminary, open to interpretation, and in need of
- future refinement.
Transverse bar migration results in the following gravel movement (amount and distance): 850 m3 moved 60 m (.06 km) If the Hurricane Fredric event has a 10 year recurrence interval, then movement per year is:
.06 km er event
= .006 km yr-1 The Buttermilk-Bond reach is 4.8. km long, so time to move the gravel bar package through the reach is:
i . 4.8 km = 800 years
.006 km yr-1 L
59
Volume of bar movement per year is: 850 m3 = 85 m3yr-1 10 yr The volume of gravel moved (85 m3yr-1) as a discrete bar represents only part of the total bar movement over complex 4-6. Other bars are also migrating and it would be necessary to sum their rates and volumes tc arrive at a net amount of gravel bar movement. Individual clasts, especially small sizes, migrate faster and farther than the transverse or longitudinal bar mass and can move to the next bar complex downstream. Thus, the rate and volume of discrete bar movement is ocly a piece of the total transport package. Rate and Volune of Clast Nbvement - Two approaches to estimating clasts movement are: 1) determine a gravel-volume bypassing rate, or'2) determine magnitude of movement of individual clasts.
~
- 1) The gravel volume approach relies on the gravel budget deficit of 1160 m3 (Table 2) and assumes that terrace gravel has moved downstream from bar complex 5 to BC-6, a distance of 130 m (Boothroyd and others, 1979; Fig. 4a).
Volume of gravel moved per year is: 1160 m3 10 yr
= 116 m3y r-1 Distance of movement of the gravel package per year is:
130 m 10 yr = 13 m yr-1 (.013 km yr-1) Time needed to move the gravel through the Buttermilk = Bond reach is: 4.8 km
.013 kn yr-1 = 369 years Notice that both the rate of movement and the volume of the package are greater than the discrete bar migration. The bar and the package values should be combined to give a comprehensive rate and volume for bar complex 4-6.
- 2) The clast movement approach uses data from the clast movement station (Plate 10, Appendix E) for which there are two sets of measure-ments. The two sets are the October 25-26 event and Hurricane Fredric flooding.
Large clasts moved an average of 3 m during the October 25-26 flood, i This event can be considered to have a one-year recurrence interval. l 60
Rate of clast movement (one-year storm): 3 m yr-1 (.003 km yr-1) Time needed for a clast to move through the Buttermilk-Bond reach is: 4.8 km
.003 km yr-g = 1600 years Clast 49 (our only data point) moved 60 m during Hurricane Fredric giving:
Rate of clast movement (10-yr storm): 6 m yr-1 (.006 km yr-1). Time needed for a clast to move through the reach is: 4.8 k
= 800 years
.006 km yr-1 Clast movement rates have no specific volumes attached to them.
Volumes must be derived from other data as discussed in the Butter-nilk valley section. 5.3 Discharge Measurements and Transport of Suspended Sediment Susp?nded Sediment Supply - Lavery till, Kent till, and associated lacustrine silt and clay (LaFleur, 1979) constitute the fine-grained sediment supply for Buttermilk Creek and tributaries. Erosion of the valley walls by channel incision of alluvial fans, landslides, and crosion of valley bottoms beneath the bar gravel of the tributaries and Buttermilk Creek exposes fine sand, silt, and clay. This mateFial is transported even during minor flood events. C Our grain-size analyses of till samples (Table 3), analysis by Hoffman cnd others (1980), and inspection of outcrops on the valley walls and at the base of the channels (Fig. 6) indicate that the till is composed of 85-90 percent fine sand, silt and clay by weight. This supports information provided by LaFleur (1979) and Dana and others (1979). In-place density measurements of till in research trench III on the plateau between Erdman Brook and Buttermilk Creek give values up to 117 lbs ft3 (1.882 g cm-3) (Hoffman and others, 1980). If the till is 85 percent fine sand, silt, and clay by weight then the unit weight per volume of the fine-grained sediment supply is: 1882 kg m-3 . 0.85 = 1599.7 (1600 kg m-3 ) Suspended Sediment Discharge - The concentration of suspended material (suspended-material load) measured during flood events (Table 7) in Buttermilk Creek can be used to compute a suspended-sediment discharge. The calculations given below are for the flood values of October 25-26, 61 I
t-1980 (Refer to Figure 4 and Table'7)'.
-1) . _ Peak water discharge suspended-sediment sample (4'.4's (46.52 1- 'm3sp)c-1) taken at the'end persisted of the for flattened 6.5 hrs with a peak.
Instantaneous sediment discharge (Qis) is 0.0044 kg 1-1 . 46,520'l sec-1 = 204.688 kg sec-1 (4.4 g 1-1)
~
(46.52 ta2sec-1)
. Cumulative sediment discharge (Ocums) for .the 6i5 hours (23,400 sec)
~
peak flow ist 23,400 see . 205 kg see-1 = 4,797,000 kg The equivalent in-place. volume (Volt ) of till needed to supply the sedi-
- ment is
4,800,n00 kg , 3 1600 kg m-3
' 2) 'A reduced water discharge greater or equal to 20.17 m 3 .e-1, occurred over a 11.5 hour time span ~with a suspended sediment'concen-tration of 1.27 g 1-1 Qi ,: 0.00127 kg 1-1 . 20,170 1 see-1 = 25.616 kg sec-1 Qcums: 41,400 sec , 25.6 kg sec-1 = 1,059,840 kg
' Volt : 1,060,000 kg = 662.5 m3 !
i 1600 kg m-3.
- 3) A further. reduced water discharge of 15.39 m3sec-1 occurred for 5 hours with suspended-sediment discharge of.1.266 g 1-1 The calcu-lations are :-
Qg,: 0.001266 kg 1-1 15,390 1 sec-1 = 19.5 kg sec-1 f- , Qcum: 18,000 see 19.5 kg sec-1 = 351,000 kg l Vol t: * * = 219 m3 1600 kg m-3 l . l Thetotalvolumeoftillneededtosuppgythefine-grainedmaterial for:the October 25-26 event is: 3881 m l-l The assumed in-place density of till was the largest of the research
- trench values obtained (Hoffman and or hers,1980), but the instanta-neous suspended-sediment load values are conservative. The initial 62 w- -t-- 1s-ry w us ehww w ir w- 4 4--.- w '-aw a *ewai-v4+----m+cs%w --e-
6
-cediment' sample was obtained after the peak water discharge and most likely'after the peak suspended-sediment discharge. ~The volume of till cvailable will be discussed in-the Buttermilk valley section. - 5.4. A11uvialLFan Erosion and ; Sedimentation ;
1 mas stated previously (Boothroyd and others, 1979), we believe that i process 3s associated with alluvial-fsn development are important agents in the widening of Buttermilk Creek and its tributaries. Gravel, sand, cod some silt and clay eroded from the upper incised channels are de-posited on the fans. Some silt and clay may collect in ponded depres-cions on the terraces. . The stakes placed on the.BC-3 fan (Plates 5, 6) were placed there in an attempt to measure the rate and amount of sedi-rent accumulation. A resurvey is needed to assess the accumulation or arosion. An unknown amount of fine-grained sediment bypasses the-fan and is fed directly into Buttermilk Creek and'its tributaries as suspended-material load.- Data from the NP-3 gaging and sampling station (Plates-1, ' 2), will help determine the magnitude of this process. Measurement
.of sediment retained in the NP-3 fan, when subtracted from suspended-sediment cumulative discharge (Qcums), will give a bypassing rate and Caount. ~5.5 Landslide Processes Movement of the BC-6 landslide as recorded on Plate 7 and in Table 4 gives an indication of the rate and areal dimension of slumping and earthflow processes that supply sediment to Buttermilk Creek. . Slide Rate and Volume ~- The lower center of the slide is the actively coving mass (Fig. 7) with an area 50 m wide by 70 m long (slope distance).
It is about 3 m thick. Volume of tha moving slide is: 10,500 m3 The calculated mean value of vertical movement, based on 1978 stakes recovered in 1980, is 3.35 m. Constant movement is assumed for the time period that the Buttermilk low-flow channel is at or near the slide toe. More rapid movement would result if undercutting by large flood events occurred. Therefore, the rate of downslope movement is about 1.5 m yr-1
' Slope distance down the valley wall from the upper rim to channel floor is 110 m.
The time required for slide material to move from the valley rim down to Buttermilk Creek is: i 110 m = 73.3 yre 1.5 m yr-1 63
The average volume per year of material delivered to Buttermilk Creek i is:' y 10.500 m3 ,.150 m3y r-l' ' 70 yr The weight of material per year available for fluvial transport can be derived by using in-place densitics of similarly compacted' till from the caps of.the low-level waste-burial trenches. The lowest trench-cap value (Hoffman- and others,1980) 'is 104 lbs f t-3 (1667 kg m-3). . The weight per year of sediment'available for fluvial transport t is:
=1667 kg m-3 150 m3 yr-1 = 250,050 kg yr-1" The ~ amount of gravel and sand is: 37,510 kg yr-1 (22.5 m3y r-1 l 212,540 kg yr-1 (127.5 m3yr-1)-
' Fine sand, silt and' clay are: ) )
l Interpretations based.on the assumption that calculated yearly averages are valid for a mass-wasting feature, likely to fail catastrophically, should-be viewed with some suspicion. A sudden' block glide, and sub-sequent earth-flow of a large segment of. the heretofore slowly creep-ing slide, such as happened in 1977 (Fig. B1, Appendix B), could instan-taneously deposit 5000 m3 of material in Buttermilk Creek. . The recur-rence interval of this. type of event has not yet been determined. 5.6 Reservoir Sedimentation-Limitations - Precise location of shore stakes could not be determined from available maps because the valley-wall contours drawn from photos with heavy forest cover are not accurate. Avat aile sarial photos had too much edge distortion to be useful in accura e galineation of reser-voir. boundaries. Figures 13a,c and Plate 1 show tr e e former channel thalweg and the pre-reservoir entrenched meander systems. Cross-profiles intersect some of these meander bends. It was stifficult to distinguish slump and earthflow deposits from filling by density underflow. Fluvially-derived Sediment - The volume beneath the delta plains and the fill between the delta front and the first lacustrine-cross-profile in front of the delta are used in the following calculations.
- 1) Reservoir No. 1 (South) - Tho volume of fill, including delta plain to cross-profile 9/22, is 12515 m3 (Table 6a, Fig.13b). Infilling has occurred from 1963 to 1980 (17 yrs).
Volume of infill per year is: 17 yrs
= 736.2 m3 yr-1 64
_. _ . . _ . = =
- 2) Reservoir No. 2 (North) - The volume of' fill, delta plain to cross-pro' file 50/36, is 6444 m3 (Table 6b, Fig.'13d).
Volume of infill per year is:
= 379.1 m3 yr-1 17 yrs Sediment Loss Rate - The drainage basin of the south reservoir (806.8 ha) is almost twice as large as that of the north reservoir (435.8 ha)
Table 5). Correspondingly, water discharge and sedimentary material would be greater for the south reservoir. ALsimple calculation of caount of sediment supplied per year per unit area indicates a sediment loss rate in the drainage basins (Gregory.and Walling, 1973). Drainage basin sediment losses per hectare per year are: 3 South reservoir: 736.2 m yr-1 = 0.91 m3 ha-lyr-1 806.8 ha North reservoir: 379.1 m3yr-1 = 0.87 m3 ha-l yr -1 435.8 ha-The values have not been converted to weights because we do not know the in-place density of the reservoir fill. It is certainly lower than an in-place till density. What is interesting is the good agreement between the two values. The rate derived here has been applied to the total Buttermilk drainage area (see discussion in Buttermilk valley section). 5.7 Buttermilk Valley Denudation A Simple Denudation Rate - The volume of sediment removed from Butter-milk Valley as a function af time can be calculated using the age of terrace 22W (9920 1 240BPj (Plate 8). This age is assumed to be close to the time of initial incision and downcutting of Buttermilk Creek. The total volume of sediment removed, neglecting tributaries, was 65,923,331 m3 (Table 8). The simple denudation rate is: 65,923,331 m3 = 6592 (6600 m3 yr-1) 10,000 yrs The denudation value represents the amount of bedload and suspended-load transport per year by Buttermilk Creek necessary to remove valley fill and produce the present configuration. Variations in rate due to chort-or long-term climatic change have been ignored. Evaluation of Denudation Processes - The rates of bedload transport including bar migration and clast movement, and the rates of suspended-l 65
N T load transport can be compared with the simple denudation rate to' gain.
.some consensus on thejrelative-value of each type of measurement. Table
~
9 summarizes the sediment volumes.and transport rates derived in the preceding discussion.-
-1) Gravel Movement - The Buttermilk valley sediment aggregate is com-
-po' sed of about 5 percent gravel, 85 percent fine sand,-silt and; clay, and 10 percentLeoarse and medium sand :(Table 3) -(Hoffman and others, .
1980). :Using d'enudation rate and sediment distribution,_the' volume of-each'available size can be' calculated and a transport' rate' determined. Volume of gravel available is: 66,000,000 m3 . 0.05 = 3,300,000 m3 Gravel available per. year for-transport is: 6600'm3y r-1 0.05 = 330 m3 yr-1 There is temporary storage of gravel in bars and low-active terrace systems (Table 8). The gravel stored in a one meter thick section'is 570,000 m3,.and in a two meter section, 1,140,000 t.3.- A comparison of all the derived gravel transport rates reveals th&t:
- 1) -The gravel bar' migration rate plus volume deficit rate agrees quite well with the amount of gravel provided by simple gravel denudation.
The -bar migration rate is low because 'it is based on movement of large ' clasts.only. More information is needed on small-clast movement. 2) i The amount. stored.in the bar and terrace system is about 20-35 percent of that made available by denudation per year. This material is re-cycled at an unknown rate, but the volume deficit for bar complex 4-6 may be a good indication of that rate. This gravel deficit must be up from more gravel-rich units upstream in Buttermilk or in the tributaries.
- 2) Suspended-sediment Transport - Using the simple denudation rate and selected grain-size distribution of till, the fine-grained material available per year can be calculated.
Volume of fine sand, silt and clay available is: 66,000,000 m3 0.85 = 56,000,000 m3 [ t L Fine sand, silt and clay available for transport is: 6600 m3 y r-1
- 0.85.= 5610 m3 yr-1 The cumulative suspended-sediment discharge of the October 25-26, 1980 event (one-year storm), a conservatively calculated value, was 69 per-cent of the simple yearly suspended-sediment denudation rate. Fine-grained material is transported even during small floods and most l i
66
75 - 1 91
. gravel is not. The total yearly transport of fine-grained material
- cppears to balance that estimated to be eroded from the Buttermilk-
, : Bond reach plus an added, unmeasured contribution from the tributaries cnd upper Buttermilk Creek. Additional.information is'needed on the tributary contribution, particularly the Franks Creek drainage.
- 3) Sediment Loss in the Buttermilk Drainage Basin - The sediment-loss
. value derived for the reservoir drainage basins (Table 9) can be applied to the total Buttermilk drainage basin. It is understood that the relationship of sediment loss to basin area may not be linear.
The sediment loss per unit area per year in the Buttermilk drainage basin is: 1 7841.5 ha . 0.89 m3 ha-lyr-1 = 6979 m3 yr-1 The sediment loss result compares will with the simple denudation rate. This larger value is to be expected because it includes the tributary and upper Buttermilk Creek sediment contribution. 5.8 Holocene Landscape Evolution Buttermilk Fluvial Terraces - The 153 separate terraces (85E, 69W) illustrated on Plates 1 and 8 have been divided into categories accord-j: ing. to elevation above active bars. Arrays of terraces also can be 4 grouped according to events that generated them or allowed their pre- ! servation after they were formed. The events are site specific. The , groups of terraces generated or preserved by each event are shown on Plate 8 (shading patterns). The low-active terraces are associated with the present processes of 1 Buttermilk Creek and its tributaries. Most of these terraces are subject to recycling into active bars as the lateral sweep of Buttermilk channel occurs. Some terraces may be preferentially preserved as discussed below. The largest nur.ber of terraces that are higher in elevation than the t low-active level are associated with the confluence of tributaries with Buttermilk Creek. Gravel transported down the tributaries is deposited as slightly-dipping, fan-shaped bar complexes at the mouths of the tributaries. The fans are skewed in a lownstream direction relative i to Buttermilk Creek. This is because of redistribution by Buttermilk bedload processes. Continued incision of Buttermilk Creek and the 1 associated tributary leads to the abondonment of the bar complexes. ' By definition, these bars become terraces. The excess of gravel sup- _ plied over transport capacity may temporarily, or permanently, retard
- the lateral sweep of the Buttermilk channel and destruction of the terrace array.
i l t 67 . N,, , - - ,, - - -- -
, , , - - - - - - r- , , , , r --
w, .r- n - h-
TADM 9 Sediment Voltanes and Transport Rates . Time Amount 1btal Distance thru Voltane Weig5t voltsme - Process noved read (yr) (ilyr-1) (kg yr-I). .M) Gravel bar migration .006 km yr-1 800 85 Gmvel voltane deficit .013 km yr-1 2 116 I Gast novenent (1 yr stom) .003 m yr
-1 1600 Cast movenent (10 yr stom) .006 m yr-1 800 Suspended sediment cn Instant (Qi3) 204.7 kg sec-1 co Peak % 3000 4,800,000 Total % 3881 6,469,627 lanchlide 1.5 m yr-1 150 250,050 10,500 Gravel, Sand 22.5 37,510 Ps,Si, Gay 127.5 212,540 Remrvoirs No. 1 South 736.2 No. 2 North 375.1 Duttemilk Valley Single denudation 6000 66,000,000 Dasin sedhnent Ims GEF79 Gravel denudation 330 ~3,300,000 Gravel terraces and 570,000 (1 m) 1,140,000 (2 m)
Es,Si,G dena1ation 5610 56,100,000 Ekh t fi .y
'Other terraces are deposited in a similar manner at the base of, and
- cdjacent to, alluvial fans that developed within Buttermilk valley.
Some fans ~are small, such as the BC-3 fan. Others are larger, with upper _ drainages well-incised into the plateau above Buttermilk valley. l' Some: terraces at the lower end of the Buttermilk-Bond reach are bedrock- l l
' defended. ~The channel of Euttermilk is incised into Devonian bedrock )
!- cn the west side of the valley preventing further channel sweep. g We speculate that a third array of terraces, including the set that
- l. contains the dated wood. fragments and the set that includes the l " Racetrack", have been preserved because the Buttermilk channel has j remained stable on the east side of the valley for long periods of l time. We do not know the cause for this channel behavior.
i Tributary Development - The larger tributaries of Buttermilk Creek are inherited-_from the late-glacial drainage system as noted by Boothroyd , cnd others (1979). The segments of the tributaries aligned parallel + to Buttermilk Creek originally flowed as separate streams down the 3 m-km-1 paleoslope toward Cattaragus Creek. These parallel segments are now entrenched and link with upper-drainages that are incised within, or at the margin of, the Holocene alluvial fans of LaFleur (1979) (Unit Haf, Plate 3). Some of the smaller tributaries head in the uplands adjacent to Butte. milk, but others began as small fans on the Buttermilk vallcy wall.
, Headward erosion of'the upper drainage rescits in incision of the Lavery till plateau. Stream capture, such as may have occurred to the Franks /Erdman system, can redirect stream patterns and result in re-juvenation when base-level lowers.
Figure 8 illustrates a range of gradients of longitudinal profiles of streams in the Buttermilk basin from the steep BC-3 alluvial fan, to
- the lower gradient Buttermilk Creek. The middle example, Franks Creek, can be subdivided into morphologically distinct segments above and be-low the knickpoints.of the Erdman Creek section. The valley above the knickpoints is not being actively incised at the present time. The valley walls appear to have mass-wasted, either by earthflow or soil creep, onto the valley bottom. The flat floor of the valley is not composed of' gravel terraces, but consists of hummocky till with tension cracks. The' incision will resume as the knickpoints progress up the
-valley.
Erdman Brook, below the knickpoints, and Franks Creek are undergoing active incision resulting in extreme V-shaped cross-profiles (Fig. 10). Terraces are rare along the Franks Creek segment, but do exist along
; Erdman Brook. A small fan-shaped bar complex is present at the mouth of Quarry Creek, perhaps the forerunner of a terrace array. The reason for the steeper gradient along this section is unclear. As downcutting continues, both Franks and Erdman valleys can be expected to widen by
[ 69
) parallel retreat of slopes because of slumping of wall material and rapid removal by flood events. Future Evolution - The base-level of Buttermilk Creek is controlled by the elevation of Cattaraugus Creek at the Buttermilk confluence. The Cattaraugus is entrenched in bedrock about one-half kilometer below the confluence, as is Buttermilk near the Bond Road bridge. Tbc bedrock retards downcutting of the active channel. This, in turn, results in a decreased gradient and decreased sediment-transport capacity. The effect of the temporary bedrock base-level is not yet reflected in the gradient of Buttermilk Creek and is interpreted not not to be important over the ' middle' term (tens to hundreds of years). We believe that tributary lowering and widening will occur somewhat independent of the lowering of Buttermilk Creek. The convex profile of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook is interpreted to mean that it is unstable. It will be subject to continued downcutting and widenint even if the base-level at the confluence does not change. This conclusion is spec-ulative and more work remains to be done. 70
T .
+
, *'_ u. ;
y- ; a
6.0 REFERENCES
.h Baker , V.R. , and Ritter, D.F. , 197 5, Competence of rivers to trant;> ort .
coarse bedload material: Geol. Soc, America Bull., v. 86, p. '
'(.- k *t 975-978. .T
'-.Q .
Boothroyd, J.C. , Timson, B.S., and Dana, R.H.Jr., 1970, Geomorphic and erosion studies at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, '. * ;, , 2-West Valley, N.Y. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical ' ..
' $. 4 Report NUREG/CR-0795 (NYSGS/79-2406,RE,RW), 66 p.
^
Dana, R.H.Jr., Fakund iny , R. H. , La Fleur , R.G., Molello, S.A., and
- I" #
Whitney, P.R., 1979, Geologic study of the burial medium at a ' low-level radioac tive waste burial site at West Valley, New York: ; e '.
~
New York State Geological Survey Final Report NYSGS/79-2411, to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 70 p. ; lf m Dana, R.H.Jr., Ragan, V.S, Molello, S.A., Bailey, H. , Fickies, R.H., ~ y,J. ..;f Fakundiny, R.H., and Hoffman, V.C., 1980, General investigation f of radionuclide retention in migration pathways at the West Valley, F>- . New York low-level burial site, Final Report, 1978-1980: U.S. ;
. J *'.- ,<
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical Report NUREG/CR-1565 (NYSGS/24.01.029,RE,RW), 140 p. I *, ?[ * #-
,$ 7 Folk, R.L., 1974, Origin of sedimentary rocks: Hemphill Publishing 3 f , l l1 Co, Austin, Texas, 182 p. L.- /,
s 4 :: ; ,,, Gregory, K.J., and Walling, D.C., 1973, Drainage basin form and process: .
# "i John Wiley and Sons, New York, 458 p. .a Hoffman, V.C., Fickles, R.H., Dana, R.H.Jr., Ragan, V., 1980, Geotech- ,
nical analysis of soil samples and study of a research trench at &,- _< the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, N.Y.* tj U.S. Nucl ea r Regula tory Conmission Technical Report NUREG/CR-1566 . , . . (NYSGS/24.01.030,RE,RW), 69 p. f"s i y-
, y. ,
t La Fl eur , R.G., 1979, Glacial geology and stratigraphy of Western New ~.- [N ., ,) .hii,, York Nuclear Service Center and vicinity, Cattaraugus and Erie . ' 7,,. Counties, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Opetr. file Report 79-989, . . .. l' p. s( , " i" " ' La F l eu r , R.G., 1980, Late Wisconsin stratigraphy of the upper Cat- . .J.
- taraugus basin: Guidebook for 43rd annual reunion, Northeast f Friends of the Pleistocene, 64 p. 'j ' .
Predic, D.E., 1979, Recha rge to low-level radioac c ive-wast e burial .I. ,;.. trenches I) through 14, West Valley, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey 4 ' f ', x Open-fila Report 79-990, 5 p. F Ne. . . ; 3 9. ~M b, , p
.. m- . -
l . * ,g y l ...y , a 71 i -
[ E Prudic , D. E. , and Randall, A.D. , 1979, Groundwater hydrology and sub-surface Tigration of radioisotopes at a low-levei solid radioactive-waste disposal site, West Valley, New York: p. 853-882 in Carter,
; M.W. , Me9hissi, A. A. , and Kahn, B. , t3 ., Management of low-level r radioactive waste, v. II. Pessam.on Press.
United States Geological Survey. 1068, Buttermilk Creek near Springville, New York, Plood of Sept. 28, 1967; contraction measurement : U.S.
- Geol. Survey Open-file Report, 42 p, s
- F N
=
l 72
s
~
APPENDIX A Bulk Sediment Sample Lccalities Figure'A1. Terrace ~ scarp at BC-3, west bank._ Samples are:
~GS-1, till; GS-2, bar-gravel; GS-3, pond-silt'and clay.
Figure A2. Terrace, transect 16, east bank. ~ Sample GS-10,
~
bar gra' vel. Figure A3.1Bar complex.4-6, transect 16, top of unit bar. Sample"GS-4. Figure _ A4. ~ Bar complex 4-6, transect 8, top of transverse .
'bar. Sample GS-5.
Figure A5. Bar complex 4-6,. transect 11, highest point of largeLtransverse bar. Sample GS-6.
-Figure A6. Bar complex 4-6, transect 12, shoulder of large longitudinal bar with sand drape. Sample GS-7.
Figure A7. Bar complex 4-6, transect 15, large longitudinal bar. Sample GS-8. Figure A8. Bar complex 4-6, transect 17, transverse bar crest. Sample GS-9. Figure A9. Till, exposed in channel bottom at the base of the BC-6 landslide (arrows). Sample GS-11. D 73 l
--aw a m -.n - a .a4, ,,.,a.1 m 'u -
4 4- ,- -
.a.na n' __
m-s -,. 4 l l k # MA
*y
^
v
*,e
['
'l g
% *A, i
/nt ,- .
, .4c- , b . .,
, ,c1 s
-' k, *
~
. . i
- g. .
L[",';,..nle 1 y8gt3.,Mi . 4;i L.i l
.c p .
,i '
E ng3).,,..p'
' f.
x- . y y ,Q .. , l
,s r
- - ?
f
, ,. , A
., l-;;I "' lf e s9 3'
- ., f.<,,* ,
w,/ .
- .Q:qu
~
f 17 .~ j,.e .N
'~
;;.$:~.,<i n
. 4.n.N. uk W: s z:ut .;;y.v
- a. g
~nyr g - .
z.*. g ,_; f_., . . , yyd , .s.
-O+s,g ~7% - -e '
o y , ;kn . - .s-q . . '. . ..A .. ... , . r qN, i
. bgp n p,. -
yr .mn-1 . ~ 1 s:M g., t.
< $ c.%p.
.x,,
;4 19 .:. ..E', , .
3 E ), 4 . j
., %yga % ' y' -
src . s.? . ( j m. i wa-
~
~,,
f s; . . . . n ;qt - w, s,,4 f... ;e~ s . c..
. ns. . .y y , ; ..
.- p f.
* ._, h f- u '. 6. -
- 74
.,s.
, ,,. 5 w, l*y Th $
$*f - =
, , ) "~
s . 4 u% 7: -
; gqp$q;Ah?'.l ,
4-l ,- n.w
' ~ ~
n'
>..a (h [a .
4:w i 9 y c. a
,~ z [%
75
ew - -- - 4 r i
~
i
..* * * " ' -[ q" .ei'* , ' .
,. g Y. ' f, ' ~
- An>
h 'Q ,, s ,_ __I
'l h ' - ' ' , + l_ , *Y h '-
& l .-g~~
e.
,y'g";~ ,,r
.' f $ ' s ., . .
, . . , .h
',,Q **
? ~
y s -
^
c',, _ &Q'
. - p: ; %: ..
j-p;, 1p '5 ~ ,
~
aP # j ',, ,* @ 4.
* % .I** '
~
I
, _ W h *
+' q
- i. ' Ip _ ., ; 1. f T _ -
f4' ,' ; , u. t..,T..,.
..;w . .-
l ,
...s <,Q-1
\ * ',.
; .- _ 4 .y .- .s -
' $'}$ M/ .
. 't y
(b Y' & (. **} .
.- ^
, A '
l fr . '{;;[ .. , . g_- N' .' l , l ' '.[ 3 . ; {': ,, ] g.h'. +- Y . 7 .
. p.. .. .,
e ~; '*
.~.
s4
&'4 . s -
g,-
\
p
} -
- . 47 ,
t 4,
- . .,) L1
~' A l * *. y ;;j sc "M4 .. " '
'(q1 s
+ O s
,W P -
en g l,, ,
's g- ,.
- t i, . ' ; 7 . ass %f '
y.,., esddsf 's; 43.4.
. iD.
. i '~ > L. '-- ' -+ M '
f,' - 76
q -( ~ - ., gs. .- mg. . -
. m: -~- -
4 'f Y YY , G
, .. xlZ.. , . , ,
.- . , r:, 'j$ "f~.
; , h *, ,. % ,j 6 ,k' f f - f ~ ,.i l
~ f<. n .. ; _f . $ xy* .ch 7 j .
+ >: &T. j d". .
iQ r .
~
#, , .g
~
= a .. ' ( /
g y yy E ;p
- j ..
s.. I J. , y .. .
. -ss:n. si -.
77
o' 7 m n c q-ga 5 i.,-- , , . .
** ** - " G : /', ' _ j jfw . ;y 7 s'
*' }&_,a ',, [ . ,.- g '*
... . e .,, ... q , '..~,'
_s
~ -
- v. o . . .. . .-
f[ 3 s - C
~
. s, . , a ..P, ,
i;' - .'~~ h',', } '
,A-
,s ,. }
- g?
y_ ,,,,*.. _
.s
.i' , '
.. g .
,e ..$g .
ja ), Er --rf.4 ,
,,3j~ ; .w: ,
pye
~ , M,nf .,w : ,n g ';.~;.-v^.
; 3 4;f g ; L7. & y-
, %, < % , w ,
'~' ~
, a .x ,,. s{'l. m ,f x.
.:.;; % ': .h "'Q:
m - 3 78
T. ..
' APPENDIX-B'~
BC-6 Landslide Panoramas'
' Figure'B1. April 1977.
Note the recent earthflow deposit in Buttermilk Creek (arrow), and central-position of the low-flow ' cb annel . Figure B2. April:1978. 'Earthflow-is partially removed .
-(arrow). Low-flow 1 channel impinges on landslide (left);
' flood. flow partially-covers bar surface 1(right).
Figure B3.:-April?1980. Post-Fredric bar and channel config-uration. The earthflow deposit has been totally. removed.
~ Photographs taken;by D. Prudic, USGS.
4 6 4 79
.. . . . - - ,,m . -- - - - . - - , . - - - , . _ . -- - - - - -
a b 0 W3 , ',, f ^. ~rs ek
. y.'
~
.g. ;.,f'; i ,:.. . ..:
3 9 :;.. pl: y. . y;;. -. .. - +
., . ;_::.:. - k., ,G 4
.. , ' [6% "' .i ' 9.. 'I : ' ( l * ,2
? {&gj N'
. l [
.i) TI[ {l 23#w6.11. :. ,h p 1y
. *a . ~. . ,...e x yf!:.
U$d;
*t ,
~ . . . -
5, ' g p
~
i... h
't . 'I y
T
'c*a' Q N l'
- l _ . [ . _ U_. 0. .* ':.[,. ... , ,
a m
,_. &.n& ,
- g. W;'= 6 '. .9 ' .
. [ (f
;f l
; .. ,;.w. n y ,
p,.s sympv.x ;g I
- g ly:t (
. , , , pp
.m, *. ....;>;,.q~ py ; ; .:
. a .. . . +
-< , c 4
~ .:..'3 ' p :i:.
~
_ ,$ ;[ :. WE2 ' .,]
.-'c. .,c
.h. s. ,
$ % ?* ?;c- . -
;y- 'l
.l l. l.hy z,., \$
- l.r # g ,. 3. y y.ji # q} f;:.;
. y
- E.: ". > : Y ^: S,$.k hic p
.. . 2: .. <
.. s y.m.[;;f .
-.. ..;3w .
f~;y,Jp ; :$. [ y a d/ d
# _E l, : -j:ty $,
7% ' 't
; *: ps >
,.g;+[w"
.. .f
.* ,~ ,,
/
. .*~L.-1 r =
g
. . ? -r gl..:., .
-F? .' .' ,_, , ,4 .
l< t: s~ 4 fp;'
%, ':4 g- r .
u ,7 : , l A a; Q.;j;
.:, - - 9c ,. ,
- f ,,
,F ; , ~ .y't v u.b 1% .,-p hNti,l' . i ':)kf; . .
wy[ < el
'c? *
.+,.
p_ > 7 : . n . u l My~ , f +, g ,I y -+
-- 4 } jl j .
E. s a f a ll
's @ j ,.,, f .c
...y.E$ .
;, N; - jv ; , };, N l
;Q~;r,%3 ,
;n.
t e . ,; .. T)H..d-,;+ . 2 '
' l' .& ,
. weag1 ..-- . . ,
/
' r.s
. ,1 A A P.aMaassummmm. .
( 80
------ -, 4 _ m.m,._ m .. , -- , . -
.ik&,!
Myt! Q q)) i
${f$II Ih ,
Q. \ a(h,
#Wt a pre Wij b
$b ,!i l ,,.;
e h!:) TG ., --
? j(
4
. .. i 81 1
APPENDIX C ~ BC-6 Tands=11de Resurvey 1978 Stake Locations Surveyed July 23,-1980
.Instrtunent Station #1'(BC-6) Elev. 373.574 m 4
Station Azimuth Horizontal Elevation (m) Distance (m)
' IBM 2 950 10' 39.93 374.47 3C 2060 33.199 379.97.6 f 4C 2170 36.82 381.695 4IB 2430 30' 29.185 376.58 2N 2480 5' 28.268 376.26 3D 2390 3' 36.386 380.82 4D 2330 33' 44.54 384.32 5D 2280 28' 53.156 389.39 5C 2110 2' 47.35 387.48 5UA 1980 57' 44.98 386.86 4UB 2060 13' 42.259 384.38 4UE 1930 25' 47.329 386.29 6AA 1930 58' 63.637 394.84 7U 2070 47' 63.51 396.69 7C 2160 46' 58.776 392.043 6C 2110 21' 58.452 392.97 6D 2260 10' 62.176 391.903 7D 2220 65.786 395.05
! 8D 2200 12' 77.389 401.64 8C 2150 10' 75.07 400.85 8U 2080 4' 68.517 399.24 82 l-l i
b a + APPDIDIX D Buttemilk Fluvial Terrace locations Elevation- Distance Down Reach Terrace # Meters- .,ltn 1E (9) E403.2 -
.0614- 0 2E (10): 404.1 - .012 - 0 '
3E . (8)'- 396.5 0 -
.061 4E (8) 396.2 .061' .244 SE (7) 394.7 .061 - .183 6E (4) 386.7 0 .- .061 7E (3)' 385.5 0 - .244 8E (2) 384.3 0 -
.122 9E (2) 383.7 .207 - .366 10E (3) 385.5 .232 - .256 11E (5) 387.9 .305 - .342 12E (6) 391.0 .256 - .329 13E (7) 394.7 .256 - .305 14E (6) 391.0 .281 - .317 15E (7) 393.7' .366 - .427
- 16E (7) 410.8 .488 - .573 17E (?) 409.6 .488 - .573 18E . (2) 377.9 - 376.7 .427 - 1.488 19E (5) 381.25 .549 - .573 20E (4) 380.03 .561 - .585 21E (3) 378.8 .610 - .683 22E (2) 377.9 - 376.7 .427 - 1.488 23E (3) 378.5 - 377.6 .793 . 915 24E (5) . 380.3 - 379.7 .793 - .915 25E (2) 376.4 .915 - 1.004 l 26E (3) 377.6 - 376.9 .915 - 1.004 l 27E (4) 378.8 .915 - 1.004 i
. 28 E (7) .- 383.4 .915 - 1.037 4
83 r
y . Elevation Distance Down Reach Terrace # . Meters Km
, i 29E (6) 382.1 .J76 - .988
- 30E (6) 382.1 1.037 - 1.049 ;
31E (5) 381.2 ~1.037 - 1.22 j 32E (7) 385.8 1.037 - 1.098 33E (.8) 388.8 1.037 - 1.281 34E (7) 385.8 1.281 - 1.403 35E (6) 381.8 1.317 - 1.403 36E (2)- 374.2 - 373.6 1.037 - 1.403 37E (5) 379.7 1.342 - 1.549 38E (3) 373.6 1.342 - 1.464 39E (4) 375.15 1.464 - 1.525 40E (3) 373.6- 1.525 - 1.586 41E (4) 375.15 1.549 - 1.586 42E (4) 374.5 1.525 - 1.647 43E (3) 373. - 371.8 1.647 - 1.83 44E (2) 369. - 368.1 1.647 - 2.135 45E (5) 375.15 1.647 - 1.891 46E (5) 375.15 1.647 - 1.891 47E (4) 373. 1.952 - 2.074 48E (3) 370.6 1.952 - 2.135 49E (2) 369. - 3,68.1 1.647 - 2.135 50E (3) 373.6 2.110 - 2.135 51E (5) 375.15 2.110 - 2.135 A52E (6) 377. 1.556 - 1.83 52E (2) 367.2 - 364.5 2.275 - 2.745 53E (3) 367.8 2.375 - 2.476 54E (4) 369.05 2.562 - 2.684 55E (3) 367.3 2.68 - 2.74 56E (4)- 368.8 2.71 - 2.87 57E (5) 370.3 2.74 - 2.80 58E (4) 365.75 2.87 - 2.99 A58E (5) 367.3 2.93 - 2.99 n 84
Elevation Distance Down Reach Terrace'# Meters Km SOE ..(3)_ 364.84 2.93 - 3.05 00E (2) 364.2 2.93 - 3.05 61E (5)~ 364.84 3.05 - 3.13 62E (4) 363.3. 3.11 - 3.23 63E (3) 362.7 3.17 - 3.29 64E (5) 365.75 3.17 - 3.41~ 65E (7) 373.4 3.23 - 3.29 66E (2) 350. 3.23 - 3.54 67E (4) 364.2 3.29 - 3.41 68E -(5) 365.75 3.17 - 3.41 69E (6) 365.75 3.35 -- 3.41 70E (7) 373.4 3.48 - 3.51 71E (3) 359. 3.59 - 3.66 72E (4) 359.7 3.54 - 3.66 73E (5) 361.2 3.59 - 3.68 74E (6) 364.2 3.54 - 3.66 75E (6) 364.54 3.59 - 3.61 76E -(4) 359. 3.66 - 3.69 77E (3) 356.6 3.69 - 3.72 78E (5) 359.7 3.69 - 3.72-79E (3) 355.1 3.96 - 4.27 80E (5) 359.1 4.12 - 4.15
.1W (2) 382.7 .012 - . 055 2W (2/3) 382.7 - 381.86 .109 - . 146 3W (2/3) 381.5 - 380.0 .183 - . 488 4W (4) 381.25 .366 - . 451 5W (5) 384.3 - 382.7 .366 - . 488 6W (2) 380.0 - 378.2 .366 - . 695 7W (4) 382.2 .488 - . 561 8W (5) 383.4 - 381.25 .549 - . 707 9W (4) 381.25 .671 - . 744 10W (2) 378.2 - 377 .817 - . 9f76 85
-e ,. , ._ , _ - - - - - +
- --- w. -- ,v y,r-. -~ ..-.-- - - -
l Elevation Distance Down Reach Terrace # Meters Km 11W (7) 391.9 1.330 - 1.366 12W (2) 370.5 - 368.4 1.464 - 1.708 13W (3) 372.7 - 370.8 1.342 - 1.708 14W (4) 373.0.- 371.5 1.403 - 1.665 15W (2) 368.0 - 367.5 2.013 - 2.257 16W (3) 369.6 - 369. 1.891 - 2.318 17W (4) 371.2 - 369.6 1.891 - 2.379 18W (2) 366.6 - 366.0 2.318 - 2.501 19W (3) 367.5 2.379 - 2.501 20W (11) 397.0 2.318 - 2.379 21W (10) 396.0 - 395.0 2.318 - 2.501 22W (12) 408.7 2.342 - 2.379 23W (13) 410.2 2.342 - 2.379 24W (11) 397.7 2.379 - 2.501 25W (2) 365.7 - 364.0 2.562 - 2.806 26W (9) 390.5 2.56 - 2.63 27W (10) 393.6 2.56 - 2.63 28W (12) 408.4 2.50 - 2.57 29W (13) 410.8 - 410.4 2.50 - 2.75 30W (10) 395.0 2.68 - 2.74 31W (13) 410.3, 2.68 - 2.74 32W (3) 366.5 2.86 - 2.93 33W (2) 366.2 - 365. 2.925 - 3.050 34W (2) 365. 2.92 - 2.99 35W (2) 333. - 331.5 3.05 - 3.30 36W (4) 364.5 3.10 - 3.15 37W (5) 372.1 3.05 - 3.12 38W (6) 373. 3.10 - 3.14 39W (7) 374.2 3.10 - 3.24 40W (8) 377.5 3.08 - 3.12 41W (9) 379.0 3.20 - 3.25 42W (8) 377.4 3.20 - 3.25 86
Elevation Distance Down Reach Terrace # Meters Km 43W (3) 362. - 361.4 3.175 - 3.29 44W (4) 372. 3.325 - 3.45 45W (5) 362.5 - 361;5 3.325 - 3.55 46W (4) 361. - 360.5 3.325 - 3.58' 47W (3) 358. - 356. 3.325 - 3.83 48W (2) 357.5 - 356.5 3.325 - 3.83 49W (8) 381.75- 3.6 - 3.78 50W (7) 379. 3.77 - 3.84 51W (6) 377.5 3.80 - 3.85 52W (8) 378.8 3.85 - 3.87 53W (7) 377.8 3.90 - 3.96 54W (8) 381.25 3.96 - 3.99 55W (7) 374.5 4.00 - 4.026 56W (12) 397.1 4.026 - 4.087 57W (13) 404.7 4.026 - 4.074 58W (2) 355.3 - 354.7 4.209 - 4.453 59W (3) 357.7 4.209 - 4.331 OOK (5) 358.9 4.209 - 4.27 61W (6) 360.5 4.209 - 4.27 62W (9) 385.2 4.12 - 4.27 63W (10) 383.1 4.27 - 4.37 64W (12) 397.1 4.18 - 4.27 65W (8) 384.3 4.39 - 4.49 66W (10) 383.1 4.39 - 4.636 67W (6) 372.1- 4.51 - 4.562 68W (7) 373.6 4.45 - 4.51 69W (8) 376.7 4.51 - 4.575 i N 87
! , j.
i
^
Elevation Distance Down Reach Terrace # Meters Km SSE- (4)- 356.6 ' 4.39 - 4.42 84E (3) 355.1~ 4.45 - 4.63 85E (2)'- 354.2 4.45 - 4.63 4 88
APPIDOIX I CIATT M7JDIENT STATIGE BAR CD8UK 4 Transect 5 Marked: July 15, 1980 Measured. Nov. 6, 1980 (Oct. 25-26 event)
*(Aug. 11 event)
Dist Dist Dist. Dist.
.Clast Size Clast alN da/ Clast line downstroom size location along up= L-/ Dist.
line downstream noved L I S 420 '867 10 D G Edge Main 421 874
~1 11 U G 422 888 22 U G 423 1028 02 U G- '424 1126 23 D G 425 1154 105 D G 1110 173 D 70 32 28 C3 426 1218 52 U G -
427 1231 82 U G 428 1363 16 U G 429 1455 58 U G al mint 1472 074 U 26 32 22 04 430 1495 86 U G 1522 239 D 333 35 27 05 431 1524 72 U G 1550 015 U 62 25 24 05 432 1512 70 D G 1480 420 D 355 40 38 05 433 1561 141 D G
- 434 1530 281 U G 1601 135 D 428 40 18 06 435 1588 247 U G 1616 048 D 300 34 27 03 436 1767 131 U G Edge Semi 1868 71 U 11S 39 30 09 437 1830 000 G 2015 483 D 522 32 20 08
*1931 022 D 04 438 1938 16 D G 1975 033 D 44 34 24 04 439 2707 110 D G 440 3028 101 U G 441 3051 06 U G 442 3264 66 U G Hi Point 443 3350 62 U G 89
QAST IDVDENT STATIGES BAR GEEUX 4-6 Transect 5 Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstresen/ Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Size
# line downstreern size Incation line downstream noved L I S 444 3236 93 D G 445 3371 05 D G 446 3455 36 D G 447 3529 107 U G 448 3790 08 D G 449 3775 OU G 450 4272 3G U' G 451 4618
[ 187 D G On Terr. 452 4624 249 D G 1/2~ 453 693 55 U B Main 454 729 77 U 1 B 455 721 108 U B 456 852 115 U B 457 907 42 U B 458 939 44 U B 459 894 58 U B 400 895 60 U B 461 849 34 U B 462 847 63 U B 463 913 04 U B 464 994 04 D B 465 971 77 U B ! 406 1009 66 U B 966 010 U 88 28 12 04 467 1009 53 U B 90
0.ATT 10YBENT STATIGE BAR CDEUX 4-6 Wansect 5 Dist.. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstream / Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Size L S
# line downstmem size location' line downstream noved I 468 1138 57 .U B Hi Point 460 1147 ' 12 U B 1004 282 D 335 26 15 03 470 1150 61 D B 471 1170 00 B 1065 483 D 498 18 13 06 472 .1252 97 U B 1266 ' 015 D 112 22 16 - 04 473 1278 104 U B 1328 231 D 340 20 17 02 474 1287 26 D B 475 1283- 60 D B 476 1348 35 D B 1250 325 D 307 26 22 08 477 1436 80 U B 1382 168 D 255 21 17 04 478 1541 23 U B 1602 307 D 358 23 20 05
.479 1621 104 U B 480 1598 88 U B 481 1621 73 U B 482 1609 56 U B 1750 447 D 525 27 16 05 483 1621 22 U B 1794 632 D 678 19 14 03 484 1539 23 U B 485 1650 08 D B 486 1653 110 U B 487 1564 268 U U Hi Point 488 -1624 237 U B 489 1695 233 U B 490 1698 10 D B 491 1725 40 U B 1920 213 D 318 20 15 08 1 492 1753 30 U B l 91
a -i.
"Y_.
'l l
CLAfr NNDeTr STATIGS BAR ENPLIX 4-6 Transect 5 Dist.- Dist. . Dist. Dist. . Dist. Clast Size Clast along upstream / Clast alcog upstream / line downstream noved L S-line domstream size ' location I
~
493 1798 80 U B 494 1829 68 U B 1950 122 D 230 23 22 05 495 1861 92 U B Semi Main 1887 094 U 26 21 18 06 496 1809 78 U B D 1888 M6 U 21 22 15 04 497 1899 05 U B *1899 049 D 52 29 18 03 498 1952 50 D B 499 2399 50 D B 500 2578 49 U B 501 2792 13 D 8 502 2856 24 U B 503 2891 28 U B 504 2987 35 D B 505 3057 81 U B 506 3288 MU B Hi Point SM 3277 13 U B- Bar 508 3316 12 U B 500 3334 13 U B 510 3364 74 U B 511 3450 06 D B 512 34M 34 D B 513 3571 26 D B 514 3865 08 D B 515 3722 104 U B 516 3735 78 U B 517 3767 31 U B 518 3858 06 U B i i 92
^
si CIA 9r EMBENT SDL7'IQE5 EUt 035 U X 4-4 Transect 5 - Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstream / Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Sire
# line downstzwam sine location line downstrosa noved L 'I S 519 4125 00 B Piiled 520 4267 55 D B 521 4351 45 D B Terr. 1/2 522 -4439 125 D B 523 4492 87 D B 524 4629 175 D B 525 4720 190 D B .526 4061 263 D B 527 4093 272 D B _
Measured Aug. 21, 1980 (Aug.11 event) Nov. 6, 1980
*(Oct. 25-26 event)
Dist. Dist. moved Clast along Dist. L to Clast Site size location line downstream line L I S E Near 2505 All 26 5 1.5 1.0 E ****
% 2427 70 11 8 5 E (West) 2399 39 15 7 4 E 2354 83 4 2 1.0 E 2339 21 9 8.5 1.0 E 2299 12 11 7 2 l
I 93 I
QAST lOVDEYa' STATICNS BAR (DRE 44 Transect 5 Dist. Dist. noved Clast along Dist. .L to Clast Size size locaticn line downtzwan line L I S YIC 2300 30 7 6 4 YIC 2250 71 5 3.5 1.0 YLC 2252 51 6 4 1.0 Ylf 2250 20 6 3 2 YLC Bar Edge 1889 103 12 8 2 YIC ( ) 1833 63 8 4 2 YIC 1825 72 11 6 2 YIf 1539 70 4 1.5 1.0 YlC 1650 99 3.5 3 1.0 Ylc 1650 fr7 3 2 0.5 YIC Bar 'Ibp 1524 17 3.5 3 1.5 Ylf 1495 16 5 3.5 1.0 YIC 1455 219 5 2.5 1.5 YIC Bar Edge 1252 28 4 3 1.0 YLC I ) 1218 98 4 2 1.0 YIC 1170 200 3 2 1.0 YIC 1120 230 3 2 1.0 Ylc 1084 289 6 4 3 YIC 1080 30 5 3.5 1.5 YIC 1070 360 3 1.5 0.5 Ylf 939 371 3.5 3 A.5 YIC 913 376 3.5 3 0.5 YLC 849 3G3 5 3.5 2 YLC 867 267 5 4 0.5 94
[ CUEr MADIEhT STATIQG BAR CDEEK 4-6 Transect 5 Dist. Dist. nrwed Clast along Dist. I to Clast Size size locaticm line downstmam line L I S E 849 244 3 2.5 2 E 913 211 7 5 1.5 E 939 96 4 3 1.0 E 907 58 5.5 4 1.0 E 874 53 7 5 1.0 E 1530 *254 15 11 4 E S12 *1229 4 3 1 E 675 *2138 4 3 0.5 E 2080 *312 5.5 4.5 1.0 t ~ l [ 95
CLAST POVDETTP STATICNS BAR (D PLEK 4-6 Transect 11 Marked July 16, 1980 Measured:Nov. 6, 1980 (Oct. 25.-26 event) Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstream / Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Size
# line downstream size locaticn line donnstream noved L I S 530 3236 100 U B Edge Bar 531 3231 152 U B g 532 3214 173 U E 533 3099 53 D B 534 3091 10 U B 535 3078 38 U B 536 3014 55 U B 537 2978 WU B 538 2960 144 D B 539 2753 134 D G MO 2696 116 U G 541 2712 123 U B 542 2669 142 U B 543 2M1 122 U B 544 2632 166 U B 545 2639 47 U G 546 25M 98 U B 547 25M 69 U G 548 2560 09 D G 549 25's. 38 U B 550 2498 19 U B 551 2493 40 D B 552 2376 94 U G 553 2344 53 U B 554 23M 92 U B 555 2266 158 U B 556 2243 164 U G 557 2251 142 U G 96
-. f p :
QMr ENBENT STATIGiS BAR 035UK 4-6 Transect 11 Dist. -Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along . upstream / Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Size
# .line downstream size location line downstream . moved L I S 558 2246 115 U - G j 559 2265 110 U B l 555A 2331 05 D G l 560 2226 130 U B 561 2215 - 104 U G 562 2265 76 U B 563 2210 39 U G 564 2276 15 U G 565 2200 13 U B 506 2239 00 B 567 2273 14 D B M, 2283 53 D G 569 2117 88 U G 570 2110 25 U B 571 2060 -38 D G 572 1965 29 U B 573 1962 00 B 574 1917 15 D B 575 $867 20 U G Hi Ibint 576 1389 00 B' 577 1854 25 D B 578 1827 53 U G Highest 579 1839 152 D G 580 missing 581 1788 136 D G 582 1642 13 U B 583 1572 31 U B 97
CUGT HADIENT STATIOG BAR CDdPLEX 4-6 Transect 11 Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstream / Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Size
'# line downstream size location line downstream noved L I S SM 1539 37 D G 585 1503 48 U G 58G 1550 06 D B 587 1435 126 U G 588 1399 108 U G 589 1222 15 D B 49 1791 376 D G 590 1179 21 D B 591 1119 18 U B 592 1127 29 D G 593 11M 16 D B SN 1098 02 D B 505 1Crl5 14 U B 59G 1080 49 D G ,
597 919 48 U G 2% 598 873 53 D G 599 809 95 U G 600 795 77 U B 601 761 09 U B 602 702 16 U G 603 606 04 li B M1 686 44 U B 605 713 106 U B 60G 725 145 U G 607 557 10 D G 608 461 29 U O'Ut' B 609 456 24 D B 610 470 34 D G 98
QAST )G'DDTT STATIOE " BAR CINPUX 4-6 - Transect 11
.n Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist.
Clast along upstream / Clast alcug upstream / Dist. Clast Size
# line downstrezn size locatico lini domstream noved L I S 611 415 Of D B 612 390 00 B 613 368 23 U B 614 171 167 U G 615 160 41 U B
.1 9
99
l CIAST KMNENT STATIOG BAR (INPLEK 4-6 Transect 16 Marked July 16, 1980 Measured. Nov. 6, 1980 (Oct. 25-26 event) Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstream / Clast almg upstream / Dist. Clast Size
# line downstream size locatim line damnstream noved L I S 630 4203 14 U B Near Main *4203 802 D 816 21 13 02 I
631 4118 67 U B 632 4092 156 U B 633 4082 192 U G 634 4006 187 U B 635 4010 158 U B 636 3955 89 U B 637 4003 18 U B 638 3940 09 U B 639 3920 08 D B *3910 1070 D IW8 23 09 03 MO 3910 10 D B G11 3982 49 U B 642 3818 138 D G 613 3774 145 U B 644 3792 131 U G 615 3780 90 U B 616 3658 24 D B 647 3629 00 B Not ikmW (After Oct. 25-26 event) 618 3579 30 U B 649 3565 19 D G 650 3581 13 D B 1900 2263 D 3168 16 13.5 01.3 651 3522 50 D B 652 3369 32 U B 2M8 1507 D 1600 20.5 16 02 653 3343 17 D G 3310 558 D 531. 27 17.5 OS 654 3310 46 D B 655 3140 22 U B 100
. ' ..T..._ _ _
F s-i E-L CIAST MADD.T STATIOG BAR CIMPLEK 4-6 Transect 16 L _: Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist . L Clast along upstream / Clast along upstream / Dist. Clast Size L I
# line downstmam size location line &wnstream noved S 656 3120 15 C G
-- 657 3065 152 U B 2920 130 U 330 21 16 01.5 658 3074 149 C G 659 28t+1 114 C G 660 2740 78 C B y M1 2747 66 C B l 662 MOO 63 U B I 663 2682 42 C B
- 664 U10 08 U B g 665 2500 07 C G E
666 2524 57 C B 667 2523 03 C B E 668 2457 12 D B b 669 2299 151 U B Hi Point 670 2298 119 U B h w 671 2303 90 U G B y 671 2256 80 D G E 673 2282 96 D G " 674 2210 46 D B [ 675 21M 100 D 6 L 676 2152 /4 D B 67~ 1966 63 U G = 678 19 % 87 U B h 679 1920 103 U B 680 1900 59 U B _ 681 1703 28 U B m E.- E 101
CIAST MA'DDTT STATICNS BAR COIPLTJ 4-6 Transect 16 Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast along upstream / Clart , alcmg upstream / Dist. Clast Size
# line cbestmam sirs Incation line downstream moved L I S 682 1683 00 B 683 1670 19 D B 683A 1616 16 U B GM 1578 131 U B 685 1274 364 U G Swale 686 1175 344 U' G 687 1179 219 U G 688 1156 298 U B 689 1113 295 U G 678A lW9 85 U B 690 1158 227 U G 691 1160 IN U G 692 1177 152 U G 693 1156 110 U B 694 1211 61 U G 695 1195 15 U G 696 1132 22 U G 697 1118 31 U B 698 1110 55 U B 699 IW7 37 D B 700 1068 53 D G 701 MO MU B 702 858 46 U B 703 836 04 D G 701 8W 25 D B i4 102
CLAST E'DDTI STATICNS BAR CDIPIEX 4-6 Transect 16 Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. Clast alcrig eL W Clast along wLQ Dist. Clast Size
# line downstrean size Ia:atica line downstream noved L I S 705 881 61 D G 706 808 43 U B 707 773 116 U G Qante 708 749 33 U B 709 7M 22 U B 710 724 127 U B 711 687 77 U G 712 579 14 U B 713 563 28 D B 714 544 OS D B 715 602 89 U B 716 596 52 U G M7 476 UU B Measured: Aug. 21, 1980 (Aug.11 event)
Nov. 6, 1990
*(Oct. 25-2G event)
Dist. Dist. noved Clast along Dist. .L to Clast Size size locaticri line cbwnstrearn line L I S Tic 3882 All 18 6 5 2 Ylc Base-Flow 3623 Ibanstream 19 8 6 2 1 Ylc 3530 177 3 2 1.0 Ylc - 200 5 4 1.0 103
t QMr MND!ENT STATIOG BAR CD @ LEK 4-6 Transect 16 y Dist. Dist. Dist. Dist. noval - Clast along upstreara/ Clast alcmg Dist. .1. to Clast Sim
# line danstream sim location line downstream line L I S HC 3706 218 7 6 1.0 YIC 4000 509 13 9 1.0 Y1C 3G29 996 9 7 1.5 Y1f Shoulder 3310 1314 7 4 1.0 HC dh 3196 1472 5 3 1.0 Y1f 3205 1480 4 3 1.0 1 Y1C 3140 1499 2 1.5 0.5 =
HC 3211 1477 1.5 1.0 0.5 HC 3283 IMO 2.5 2 1.0 - HC 3310 1906 S 7 1.0 _ YIC 3581 IBM 5 3 1.0 HC 3056 1722 7 5 3 Y1C 2523 2676 5 4 2 HC iM9 *2568 9 6.8 1.3 W
=
3
'Y m.
e 104
APPENDIX F Clast Movement Station Transect 5, Bar Complex 4-6 Figure F1-4. Bar top, east side. Sequence is from east (F1) to west (F4). Large marked clasts are light gray (green), medium are dark gray (blue), and transect line is white (yellow). Photos taken July 15, 1980. 105
~<'
.,.e - e ~. er r-=-7 g y . i,= -
<= ~
.'j 6
,~j y^
w n%W q :n . . R : g. , GF ,1 c'-
*l j',- ggg ? r ,. D ,x
. Z 'fg, f',
Q* ;) dp%"
^
f *
~
^ f*M . .Jy *
- q ** *% ,,
Qr a . , ,.[,'. . W e;' ~- -w g '-
- f. ):- . ,y ~
Q:' , fg - -
so.. . :q_ ~ , ':
- w. 7, y <(. , it' ,
( f:{45':RW
.: . . . : **y .'!.. :n .a.m ,-- Fs, .. .; f ;
- m. -
n-W
~ * "
.g
- 7"( h *\ , + r f * - an =
"*g < ' h ,. *. -1 s? '
- h . e .. '
'?:4? ,'*W -&.- '
- 'I' -
'.[-' .
Y,+
* 'JP ,k (' ' % '" - c
,i e
; .;sW- -.yg;-T-QV'n'~AQ
-n f p *'6 .
*'-V 9_ ,, y b x.
~
. . . - '~9 . . d :
, g g. , '^ $
0 _5 } - v;- , d 3y_ . ' ., s
! ! !?.
op _ ,A
, '*%f
+,,.
'A Qg__:;&
s 9 7
$N
. m W'f ,W .
10 $
'~
. , l
- y .
.m
.. .m,a .
s . 9 I j.
'+~... .
p
.s 5-e; . ~
vt 5
?
N;t 7;.
^ ,
u s'. .
,a 4y%sg E '*p , t *~ -bg7 , 7.T , ' [,f.
*:- ~-n.
% . q i g t, % h. .. ; +.
. _ t<.. 4 . ,A)
.. . . N: ' t 4
w: ugsAf p .
* . , 'g
. hgd:
. 1G-%: ~
- u. n kf* b -
.w=
.59,; ffg;31 s
[. ,
, J.p 2 w %y- e<7.; . g!x yk'? l*'&f. ,- r s 13pg 5 _
. Q7 ' '% '
e
.n. ; , Q -gy;}s , y f f,.;. p mm ,
.nj,.45%.xyyy
~
g ' ; a: '; 2 f ,
&AjQA)n[,;.y ~ :1k yNy y-q m4 q, ; .
R ;;;h0 f ,
~
%$: I
+
ma c 1
-4 s Wn W,c,Naw' t- ; %,n f,~ $ g & $ q$ v$ 5 t -.? :. Jx 107 l -- - . . - _ _ __ ___ - -. _
Rus s 5P u.s. NuCLEA i REcuLATOnv cOuuisslON BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/CR-2862 TLE AND SU8 TITLE (Add Voome Na. af appreones,J 2. (Leave blevAl eomorphic Processes and Evolution of Buttemilk Valley nd Solccted Trubutaries West Valley, New York 3. RECIPIENWCCESSION NO. JTHO R G) 5. DATE REPORT COMPLETED M ON TH
.C. Boothroyd, B.S. Timson, L.A. Dunne agn, lVEAR jog 7 ERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADORESS (include 2,p Codel DATE REPORT ISSUED ew York State Geological! Survey / State Museum " '" l"^"
ew York State Education Department July lon? lbany, New York 12230 5"""*"*'
- 8. (Leave Nanki SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS (include l<a Codr1
- 10. PROJECT / TASK / WORK UNIT NO.
Division of Health, Siting, and Waste Management 3ffice of Nuclear Regulatory Research it. CONTRACT NO U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission FIN B6350 Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC-04-79-105 rYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD COVE RE D //nclusere dears) SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14- (L'8d W8'*/ ABSTRACT C00wwds weess> Repetitive bar and channel mapping at several scales , clast size and v ment measurements, suspended-sediment sanpling, and stream gaging of a 5 km reach of ttermilk Creek and selected tributaries at West Valley, New York, were performed to de-mine short-term depositional and erosional processes, and long-term valley changes in e vicinity of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center. Changes to bar-and-channel ametry in Buttemilk Creek result from migration of large transverse bars in equilibrium th large floods (i.e. Hurricane Fredric, Septenber 1979) with large amounts of lower rrace gravels being recycled. Downslope movement of landslides by slumping and earth-aw is a continuous small volumetric sediment source, except for infrequent large scale avity block deposits. Bedload transport, suspended-load sedi nt tra ir infill rates compare well with the denudation rate (6600 m yr 1). nsport, Middle-to andhigh-reser-elfluvial terraces in Buttermilk Creek are either adjacent to tributary confluences and eserved by an excess of bedload over transport capacity, or survive due to the stable annel on the opposite side of the valley for unknown reasons. Convex longitudinal pro-le of Franks Creek /Erdman Brook suggests instability with continued rapid downcutting. 11ey widening occurs by parallel slope retreat. Future lowering of Buttermilk Creek is 1 trolled by bedrock floors in Cattaraugus Creek and lower Buttermilk Creek. Tributary vering and widening will enntinue indonendent nf Ruttermilk crook h,wa level channer_
<EY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17a DESCRIPTORS geomorphology, fluvial processes, sedimentation, landslide, glacial
. IDENTIFIE RS OPEN ENDED TERMS 19 SE CURITY CLASS (TA,s reporf/ 21 NO OF PAGES lQVAILABILITY STATEMENT Unclassified limited 20 SE CURITY CLASS (Thes cep/ 22 PRICE l unr1 3 ssma e s FORM 333 (7-77) e U,$. GovEP.NMElfT PRINTING OTTICE 1982 0 - 304-794
)^ . . . .. . -
DOCUVIENT ' PAGE . PU _ LED . i ANO.e -~ l NO. OF PAGES , i REASON f D PAGE ufGS2 CF l C MARD COPt FE.ED AT. PDR own - 3 3_ D DETER COP (REQUESTED ON _ A*E 100 LARGE 10 FEM. HARD CCPt FRID AT. PDR '. DMR DUM
%FEMED ON APERTURE CARD NO h ,
! h%s.tcAN- % ' 1 1}}