Streambank Erosion On The Restored Lower Kissimmee River, Florida: What .
STREAMBANK EROSION ON THE RESTORED LOWER KISSIMMEE RIVER,FLORIDA: WHAT SITE FACTORS INFLUENCE RATES?ByANDREW MICHAEL HORANA THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOLOF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCEUNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA20121
2012 Andrew Michael Horan2
To my parents, Mike and Carol Horan3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThere are numerous individuals that helped me in this project from start to finish. Iwould like to thank first and foremost my graduate chair, Dr. Joann Mossa, for her easypatience, constant availability, helpful criticisms, and overall guiding hand in this project.She is paramount to my success on this thesis. I would like to thank Dr. Pete Waylenand Dr. William Wise for their help with big questions early on, and their overallassistance as part of my committee. I want to thank the South Florida WaterManagement District for funding the project and also Jose Valdez and Joe Koebel forbeing the project managers and Joann Mossa as the PI. I want to thank each of my boatdrivers, Jessica Wilson, Amber Graham, Brent Anderson, Michael Cheek, AndrewRodusky, and Therese East, for without them this project would have been infinitelymore time consuming and difficult. I want to thank my field assistants Ursula Garfield,Michael Suharmadji, Michal Jones, and Angela Bell. I want to thank my two labassistants, Angela Bell and Hannah Herrero for help with the soil analysis. I want tothank Dr. Tim Fik for help with statistics. I want to thank David Anderson for help incollecting hydrologic data and navigating the DBHYDRO website. I want to thank myparents, Mike and Carol, my two sisters, Natalie and Leah, and my brother, Matthew, forencouraging me throughout all the standstill times during this long and arduous process.And lastly, I want to thank Patty Griffin and Steve Earle for giving me musical guidanceand equanimity during the many late nights and early mornings writing and researchingfor this project.4
TABLE OF CONTENTSpageACKNOWLEDGMENTS . 4LIST OF TABLES . 7LIST OF FIGURES . 8ABSTRACT . 13CHAPTER1INTRODUCTION . 15Background. 15Objectives and Research Questions . 17Study Area . 182LITERATURE REVIEW . 22Kissimmee River . 23Impacts of Channelization . 23Process of Restoration . 24Phosphorus and Nutrient Loading . 24Streambank Erosion Processes . 25Fluvial Entrainment . 26Bank Weakening Processes. 27Bank Erosion Mechanics and Types . 28Meander Bend Erosion . 30Bank Erosion Hazard Index and Framework for Kissimmee . 313METHODS AND MATERIALS . 36Study Area . 36Bank Erosion Observations, Rates, and Measures. 38Bank Profile Measurements . 38Kissimmee River Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) . 39Bank Sediment Analysis . 40Areal Change and Lateral Retreat . 42Geographic Information Systems (GIS) . 43Radius of Curvature/Channel Width Measurement . 44Stage Height and Discharge Hydrograph . 44Statistical Analysis . 45Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient . 45Kruskal-Wallis Test. 46Spearman’s Rank Correlation . 475
Pearson Correlation Coefficient. 474RESULTS . 63Lost Sites . 63Site Characteristics . 65BEHI Model, Sediment Loss, and Lateral Bank Retreat . 65Evidence of Erosion . 68Sediment Characteristics. 69Stage Height and Discharge . 70Statistical Analysis . 71Geographic Information Systems (GIS) . 745DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . 95BEHI Model and Measured Erosion Rates . 95Spatial Variability of Erosion Rates . 96Possible Influential Variables on Erosion Rates . 98Radius of Curvature/Channel Width . 101Stage Height (m) and Discharge (m3/s) . 102Further Research . 103APPENDIX BANK PROFILE GRAPHS . 106LIST OF REFERENCES . 133BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . 1396
LIST OF TABLESTablepage3-1Run and Connector name with number of erosion sites . 593-2Four main BEHI categories and respective index value. . 593-3Grain-size analysis sieve numbers and corresponding sieve apertures andaggregate name, in order from stacked top to bottom. . 603-4Point-biserial tests of site factors vs. each site response. 603-5Kruskal-Wallis tests of site factors vs. site response . 613-6Spearman’s Rank tests of site factors vs. site response . 613-7Pearson Correlation tests for site factors vs. site response. . 624-1Kissimmee River gates with stage height (m) and flow (cms) for each timeinspection. . 754-2Lost sites with corresponding gross changes for recorded time steps. 754-3Lost sites with corresponding net changes for recorded time steps. . 764-4Gross quantities of erosion for each site. . 774-5Net quantities of erosion for each site . 784-6Mean occurrence of evidence of erosion per reach location . 794-7Mean values of geological variables per run name. . 804-8Pearson’s p-values when a point-biserial correlation coefficient is applied. . 814-9Kruskal-Wallis test chi-square values for the BEHI variables vs. erosionalchange. 814-10 Spearman’s Rank Test performed on geological and planform variables, andalso the total BEHI score. . 824-11 Pearson Correlation Test performed on the parametric variables of bankheight (cm) and distance downstream (km) . 827
LIST OF FIGURESFigurepage1-1Map of the Lower Kissimmee River, Florida. . 212-1Illustration of the process of backfilling in the Kissimmee River. 332-2Illustration of various types of bank failure . 332-3Illustration of the effects of pore-water pressure and bank failure . 342-4Site MB03L, showing mass wasting of material. 352-5Rotational slumping of material, shown here in Red River of the North. 353-1Overview of Lower Kissimmee with all 50 initial bank erosion sites . 493-2Map of Micco Bluff shelter area erosion sites. . 503-3Micco Bluff Shelter. 513-4Map of Montsdeoca Run south sites, including the connector channel. . 523-5Map of Fulford Run sites and the much smaller Strayer Run. . 533-6Map of River Run #1 sites. . 543-7Map of UBX Run sites. . 553-8Map of Montsdeoca North Sites . 563-9Demonstration of taking bank profile measurements. . 573-10 Example graph of bank profile measurements . 573-11 Kissimmee River hydrographs for both PC 62 and PC33. . 584-1Kissimmee River map showing the location of the 3 gages. . 834-2Graphs of erosion quantities vs. BEHI scores of sites . 844-3Graph of bank height (cm) vs. Distance downstream of RR01 (km) . 864-4Graph of percentage of silt/clay content vs. distance downstream of RR01(km) . 864-5Graph of percentage of sand content vs. distance downstream of RR01 (km). . 878
4-6Graph of bulk density values (g/cm3) vs. distance downstream of RR01 (km) . 874-7Graph of D50 median grain size (mm) vs. distance downstream of RR01(km). . 884-8For each site, graphs of the number of lithological layers vs. erosionquantities. . 894-9Hydrographs for PC62 and PC33 for time period 01/01/2008 – 01/01/2012. 914-10 Flow duration curves from 01/01/2008-01/01/2012. . 924-11 Graphs of erosion quantities vs. radius of curvature ratio. 935-1Correlation of % silt/clay vs. bulk density . 105A-1RR01R . 106A-2RR02L . 106A-3RR03R . 107A-4RR04R . 107A-5RR05L . 108A-6UB01L . 108A-7UB02R . 109A-8UB03R . 109A-9UB04R . 110A-10 UB05L . 110A-11 UB06L . 111A-12 UB07L . 111A-13 UB08R . 112A-14 MN01R . 112A-15 MN02R . 113A-16 MN03L . 113A-17 MN04R . 1149
A-18 MN05L . 114A-19 MN06R . 115A-20 MN07L . 115A-21 MN08R . 116A-22 MN09R . 116A-23 MN10R . 117A-24 MN11R . 117A-25 MN12L . 118A-26 MN13 . 118A-27 MN14R . 119A-28 MN15R . 119A-29 MS01R . 120A-30 MS02R . 120A-31 FF01L . 121A-32 FF02L . 121A-33 FF03R . 122A-34 FF04R . 122A-35 FF05L . 123A-36 FF06L . 123A-37 FS01L . 124A-38 FS02L . 124A-39 FS03R . 125A-40 FS04R . 125A-41 ST01R . 126A-42 ST02R . 12610
A-43 OX01R . 127A-44 OX02L . 127A-45 OX03L . 128A-46 MB01L . 128A-47 MB02L . 129A-48 MB03L . 129A-49 MB04R . 130A-50 MB05R . 130A-51 Front of Kissimmee Bank Erosion form with BEHI variables and other fieldinformation collected. . 13111
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONSBEHIBank Erosion Hazard IndexDBHYDROEnvironmental Database from SFWMDEPAEnvironmental Protection AgencyFDEPFlorida Department of Environmental ProtectionFDOTFlorida Department of TransportationGISGeographic Information SystemsLOILoss on IgnitionNBSNear Bank StressSFWMDSouth Florida Water Management DistrictSPSSStatistical Package for the Social SciencesTMDLTotal Maximum Daily LoadUFUniversity of FloridaUSACEUnited States Army Corps of EngineersUSGSUnited States Geological Survey12
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate Schoolof the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of theRequirements for the Degree of Master of ScienceSTREAMBANK EROSION ON THE RESTORED LOWER KISSIMMEE RIVER,FLORIDA: WHAT SITE FACTORS INFLUENCE RATES?ByAndrew Michael HoranMay 2012Chair: Joann MossaMajor: GeographyThe initial purpose of this investigation was to evaluate how different vegetative,sedimentologic, and geomorphic site factors influence erosion rates in an18-km stretchof the recently restored Kissimmee River in Florida. A modified version of Rosgen’s(2001) Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) was used to characterize potential erosionseverity. Fifty streambanks were measured and monitored over a nine month period,from November 2010 through August 2011. At each study site, a toe pin was installedand used as a constant point of reference for each site throughout the study. Verticaland horizontal measurements of the bank profile were taken three separate times andrecorded and graphed. Bank profiles were overlaid to calculate the bank areal changeand bank retreat that was lost or gained due to erosion or deposition. Sediment coreswere extracted and assessed for bulk density and a grain size analysis. The five mainvariables Rosgen used were assigned a BEHI value and corresponding rating to eachsite.The streambanks displayed an inaccuracy in rating related to actual sedimentloss. Erosion rates showed a slight decreasing trend downstream, with the most erosionoccurring upstream, including Montsdeoca, UBX, and River Runs. A few sites13
downstream, however, also showed excessive erosion. Vegetation cover, root depth,and the number of different sediment layers in the bank profile were the most significantvariables contributing to erosion rates. Streambanks positioned along meander bendswith a radius of curvature/channel width value between 1 and 2.5 to be the mostconsistent indicator of excessive erosion.A time series analysis of stage height and discharge of PC62 (upstream) andPC33 (downstream) displayed much variation. The pooling effect of the S65C structurein the southern reaches tends to stabilize water levels and mitigate repeated wettingand drying of banks, causing little erosion. The findings of this study can be used toexplain excessive sediment yields in the river following prolonged periods of unusuallyhigh discharges and stage heights. The results will also be used to continually modifyRosgen’s BEHI method to the Kissimmee for quick and accurate bank failure ratings inthe future.14
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTIONBackgroundErosion and the associated sedimentation, non-point source pollution, and landloss occurs naturally in every watershed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)reports that material from eroding stream banks is the leading cause of water qualityproblems, and corresponds to significant sources of sediment transport into the bedmaterial load within watersheds (EPA 2011). It is estimated that 30-80% of totalsediment loading into streams is directly related to stream bank erosion from pervasivehydraulic action in the channel (Simon and Darby, 1999; Fox et al., 2007). Bank erosionis tied to site-specific conditions and will vary accordingly along river channels as afunction of sediment grain size, bank angle, cohesiveness of material, moisture content,vegetation, and variations in shear stress from fluctuating hydraulic processes (Thorne,1982).The Kissimmee River, located in South-Central Florida, flows from LakeKissimmee at its headwaters, to Lake Okeechobee at its mouth (Figure 1-1). Since theKissimmee was ditched and channelized into one main artery, the C-38 canal, from1962 to 1971 (Bousquin et al. 2005), the environmental impacts were so damaging thatthe United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in conjunction with the SouthFlorida Water Management District (SFWMD), decided that the river and its floodplainmust be restored back to its historical flow regime (Koebel 1995). Recent restorationstudies have concluded that the river has been found to yield increased sediment loadsthat may be attributed to accelerated streambank erosion (Schenk et al. 2011).Furthermore, restoration of the Kissimmee River could pose a problem with bank15
erosion and sedimentary loads as the river continues to adjust through lateral migration,channel widening, and other hydraulic processes.Increased sedimentary loads can harbor adverse effects to the Kissimmee byenhancing transport of pollutants, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, downstream andeventually into Lake Okeechobee, therefore affecting Total Maximum Daily Loads(TMDL). A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a certain pollutant that awaterbody can sustain before breaching water quality standards (water.epa.gov). TheEPA has listed Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for Lake Okeechobee forphosphorus to be 140 metric tons to achieve a phosphorus concentration of 40 ppbwithin the lake (FDEP 2001). Lake Okeechobee has been given a designated use as apotable water supply to the local communities as well as critical habitat for endangeredspecies such as snail kites, and recreational use for fisherman and bird hunters (FDEP2001). Therefore, increased erosion and transport in the Kissimmee River can enhancetransport of phosphorus pollutants downstream and straight into Lake Okeechobee,directly affecting its TMDL for phosphorus. As the Kissimmee interacts more with itsfloodplain and permits nutrient removal capabilities characteristic of pre-channelizedfloodplain marshes (Toth 1990), quantifying sediment loads from bank erosion isparamount to understanding the status of nonpoint source pollution into the river.Some possible site factors involved in the erosion of bank material along theKissimmee may include shear stress following high discharges of water, slumping,rotational sliding, and bio-geomorphic influences such as invasive catfish burrows, cattletrampling, and vegetation. Cohesiveness of may amplify erosion where non-cohesivebanks can be more susceptible to cracking and mass wasting from subaqueous16
weathering, contributing to failed banks. In cohesive banks, tension cracks may formnear the top of the bank and lead to the removal of large blocks of cohesive materialand deposit them at the bank toe, allowing not only temporary scour protection but alsoan increased hazard of lateral bank migration (Hagerty 1980). Hydraulic action forcescan also be subdivided into actions of surface flow, such as waves propelled frompassing motorboats, and actions occurring at the bank toe, eventually leading toundercutting and subsequent overhang of bank material. To evaluate the magnitude offailed bank material into the stream it is imperative to analyze the discrete processesinfluencing streambank erosion under existing conditions.Objectives and Research QuestionsThe main purpose of this study is to better understand the relative role of differentvegetative, sedimentologic, and geomorphic site factors that influence bank erosion onthe Kissimmee River. This is facilitated through the use of a modified version of theBank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) method (Rosgen 2001). Establishing permanentbank erosion sites along the newly restored portion of the Kissimmee River will facilitatefuture studies on erosion and help monitor geomorphic change until the river is fullyrestored. A rapid and accurate method of estimating sediment contributions fromstreambank erosion is a requisite component in developing a watershed budget for theKissimmee River.Another objective is to locate areas of excess erosion in the Kissimmee River todetermine if there is a spatial pattern based on erosion quantities. This information canbe used by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) for future studieson geomorphic monitoring, increased phosphorus loading in the watershed, or formitigation and protection of river banks. The study will also add to the increasing17
amount of bank erosion studies using Rosgen’s BEHI method and assess the validity ofthe method in relation to the Kissimmee. The following research questions were asked: Where is active bank erosion occurring and where is it most severe? How are specific vegetative, sedimentologic, and geomorphic variables tied tobank erosion rates?The results of this study will serve as a baseline of bank erosion monitoring onthe Kissimmee River for state agencies as the river continues to be restored furtherdownstream. Evaluating and mapping sites of severe erosion hazards will act as aguide to the future natural migration of the river and a tool to apportion sedimentcontribution of streambank sediment sources to the total load transported by the river.Study AreaThe Kissimmee River is located in south central Florida, and flows from LakeKissimmee at its headwaters 169 kilometers south into Lake Okeechobee (Figure 1-1).The Kissimmee and its associated streams and small watersheds comprise the largestsource of water into Lake Okeechobee and are part of the greater Evergladesecosystem. The approximate 7594 km2 watershed can be subdivided into twogeographic boundaries, the upper and lower basins. The upper basin consists of 4135km2 of land area and includes approximately 24 lakes varying in size from 0.5 to 152km2 of water area. The lower basin, which encompasses the Kissimmee River itself,Lake Istokpoga, and other associated small tributaries, consists of 1731 km2 watershedarea and flows into Lake Okeechobee. The river flows southward on a gentle slope of0.07 km-1 from an elevation of 15.5 km at Lake Kissimmee to 4.6 m at LakeOkeechobee (Koebel 1995). The geology of the basin contains the Ocala Group andAvon Park Limstone, both composing the Floridan aquifer for th
1 streambank erosion on the restored lower kissimmee river, florida: what site factors influence rates? by andrew michael horan a thesis presented to the graduate school
A quantitative prediction of streambank erosion rate provides a tool to apportion sediment contribution of streambank sediment source to the total load transported by a river. A method for developing quantitative prediction of streambank erosion ra
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
Rosgen’s Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) procedure to rate the potential severity of streambank erosion. The following seven factors are used in the BEPI (Bank Erosion Potential Index), adapted from Rosgen, David L. “A Practical Method of Computing Streambank Erosion Rate.”
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Mary plans to take Colin to see the secret garden. Mary’s visits make Colin feel a lot better. Martha’s brother, Dickon, visits Colin one day with Mary and brings lots of tame animals with him. Colin is delighted. Mary and Dickon take Colin secretly into the garden. Colin realises it is his mother’s garden, and says he will come every day. Colin spends a lot of time in the garden with .
