the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 11 Apr 2022
Evaluating the applicability of a terrain-based floodplain delineation tool for a broad-scale assessment of flood exposure of tailings deposits
Abstract. Construction and abandonment of mine tailings deposits in river floodplains have created environmental risks associated with the release of toxic substances during floods. Assessment tools are needed to understand levels of risk and to prioritize sites for management. These tools need to be computationally efficient over wide areas, potentially whole river basins, which generally excludes reliance on 2D hydrodynamic models. This research evaluates the applicability of a terrain-based floodplain delineation tool (GFPLAIN) to assess flood exposure of tailings deposits by comparing its results against a 2D hydrodynamic model, the Shallow Water Integrated Flood Tool (SWIFT). For this compassion, the case study area of Copiapó River Basin (Atacama, Chile) was used to model two flood scenarios, the extreme flood event of March 2015, and a hypothetical flood with a 100-year return period. Overall, the GFPLAIN flood maps showed limitations in reproducing the list of tailings deposits identified as exposed by SWIFT, with some agreement between some of the top 10 deposits prioritized by these tools. We conclude that GFPLAIN, while fast to apply and potentially able to prioritize sites at risk, has limitations in providing an accurate and complete assessment due to its limited consideration of local terrain and flood dynamics.
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Withdrawal notice
This preprint has been withdrawn.
-
Preprint
(2770 KB)
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-122', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jun 2022
Review of ‘Evaluating the applicability of a terrain based floodplain delineation tool for a broad-scale assessment of flood exposure of tailings deposits’ by Perez-Murillo et al.
This is a very interesting paper. It is well-written and English clear. The project is well executed. There are no problems with the modelling and approach. Well done!
The amount of effort to do this work is clear.
However, I really struggled with the scientific novelty of this work. What is really scientifically new? While the paper is presented as research, it comes across as a consultancy. The big challenge I see for the authors is to present what the new science is?
The basics of the paper is a comparison of two models and their strengths and weaknesses. I need to be convinced that this is really a new finding. At the end of the paper it is not clear which model/approach is the best. So is SWIFT better or GFPLAIN?
I am recommending rejection with the authors encouraged to develop the work to provide new science insights.
Other issues
Abstract.
The Abstract reads quite negative. So is SWIFT better? What is the most appropriate approach?
The Introduction is excellent. Well done!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-122-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Perez, 08 Aug 2022
Dear Editor and Reviewer #1
We appreciate the time taken by the first reviewer to read the article and make comments/suggestions regarding the acceptance of the manuscript and the novelty/contributions to knowledge. We were expecting to have two sets of peer-review comments simultaneously or at least within a reasonable time difference between each other. Given the excessive delay in receiving comments from a second reviewer, we have decided to offer a partial response to comments offered by reviewer #1 only.
We would like to highlight to the first reviewer that this research was conducted in response to the global push toward mitigation of complex environmental pollution problems caused by mining waste, particularly tailings deposits. The readers need to consider that environmental pollution caused by long-term flood-tailings interactions has been relatively overlooked in recent years. This research paper contributes to filling the knowledge gap in scientific literature focused on non-catastrophic flood erosion of tailings deposits. We believe that this manuscript focuses on a relevant topic for the geoscience community, considering that tailings deposits are likely to be exposed to extreme climatological events in the coming years. Tailings deposits are normally built to be part of the natural landscape in perpetuity and to the knowledge of the authors, few efforts are focusing on analysing the effects or the fluvial erosion potential of tailings deposits on event-based modelling efforts (please refer to the introduction section).Our research is one of its kind, offering a direct comparison of a Geomopholigical floodplain delineation tool against a 2D hydrodynamic model solving the Shallow Water equations for flood modelling in a key case study region. We have provided valuable insights into the applicability of terrain-based methods for floodplain delineation to assess flood exposure of large-artificial landforms such as tailings deposits. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the first reviewer in his assessment of the contributions of our manuscript and his recommendations in terms of acceptance for publication.
Given the excessive delay to receive adequate peer-review comments from a second reviewer, we have decided to withdraw this submission of "Evaluating the applicability of a terrain-based floodplain delineation tool for a broad-scale assessment of flood exposure of tailings deposits" to be able to submit this manuscript to a different journal.
I appreciate the time and reviews offered by the interactive community and I invite future readers of this pre-print overview to follow my Google scholar profile and other academic social networks to be updated on the publication of this paper in a different journal.
kind regards,
Gabriel Perez Murillo
The University of QueenslandCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-122-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Perez, 08 Aug 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-122', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Jun 2022
Review of ‘Evaluating the applicability of a terrain based floodplain delineation tool for a broad-scale assessment of flood exposure of tailings deposits’ by Perez-Murillo et al.
This is a very interesting paper. It is well-written and English clear. The project is well executed. There are no problems with the modelling and approach. Well done!
The amount of effort to do this work is clear.
However, I really struggled with the scientific novelty of this work. What is really scientifically new? While the paper is presented as research, it comes across as a consultancy. The big challenge I see for the authors is to present what the new science is?
The basics of the paper is a comparison of two models and their strengths and weaknesses. I need to be convinced that this is really a new finding. At the end of the paper it is not clear which model/approach is the best. So is SWIFT better or GFPLAIN?
I am recommending rejection with the authors encouraged to develop the work to provide new science insights.
Other issues
Abstract.
The Abstract reads quite negative. So is SWIFT better? What is the most appropriate approach?
The Introduction is excellent. Well done!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-122-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Perez, 08 Aug 2022
Dear Editor and Reviewer #1
We appreciate the time taken by the first reviewer to read the article and make comments/suggestions regarding the acceptance of the manuscript and the novelty/contributions to knowledge. We were expecting to have two sets of peer-review comments simultaneously or at least within a reasonable time difference between each other. Given the excessive delay in receiving comments from a second reviewer, we have decided to offer a partial response to comments offered by reviewer #1 only.
We would like to highlight to the first reviewer that this research was conducted in response to the global push toward mitigation of complex environmental pollution problems caused by mining waste, particularly tailings deposits. The readers need to consider that environmental pollution caused by long-term flood-tailings interactions has been relatively overlooked in recent years. This research paper contributes to filling the knowledge gap in scientific literature focused on non-catastrophic flood erosion of tailings deposits. We believe that this manuscript focuses on a relevant topic for the geoscience community, considering that tailings deposits are likely to be exposed to extreme climatological events in the coming years. Tailings deposits are normally built to be part of the natural landscape in perpetuity and to the knowledge of the authors, few efforts are focusing on analysing the effects or the fluvial erosion potential of tailings deposits on event-based modelling efforts (please refer to the introduction section).Our research is one of its kind, offering a direct comparison of a Geomopholigical floodplain delineation tool against a 2D hydrodynamic model solving the Shallow Water equations for flood modelling in a key case study region. We have provided valuable insights into the applicability of terrain-based methods for floodplain delineation to assess flood exposure of large-artificial landforms such as tailings deposits. Therefore, we respectfully disagree with the first reviewer in his assessment of the contributions of our manuscript and his recommendations in terms of acceptance for publication.
Given the excessive delay to receive adequate peer-review comments from a second reviewer, we have decided to withdraw this submission of "Evaluating the applicability of a terrain-based floodplain delineation tool for a broad-scale assessment of flood exposure of tailings deposits" to be able to submit this manuscript to a different journal.
I appreciate the time and reviews offered by the interactive community and I invite future readers of this pre-print overview to follow my Google scholar profile and other academic social networks to be updated on the publication of this paper in a different journal.
kind regards,
Gabriel Perez Murillo
The University of QueenslandCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-122-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Gabriel Perez, 08 Aug 2022
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 434 | 217 | 28 | 679 | 18 | 15 |
- HTML: 434
- PDF: 217
- XML: 28
- Total: 679
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1