Assessment of the Restoration Activities on Water Balance and Water Quality at Last

Chance Creek Watershed Using Watershed Environmental Hydrology (WEHY) Model

M.L. Kavvas, Z. Q. Chen, M. Anderson, L. Liang, N. OharaHydrologic Research Laboratory,

Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Davis

J. Wilcox, L. Mink, T. BenoitFeather River CRM

Feather River Basin

Last Chance Creek watershed(Project area)

Doyle Crossing(outlet of watershed)

Million $ BridgeSacramento

Area = 250.1km2

Pre-restoration condition(May 5, 2002)The deep gully due to instream erosion induces low groundwater level.

Post-restoration condition(July 29, 2004)The deep gully was filled, and a shallow channel was dug nearby.

Slow channel flow

Fast channel flow

More subsurface water storage

Deep gully

Post-restoration

Pre-restoration

ISSUES TO ASSESS FOR RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN THE LAST CHANCE CREEK WATERSHED

1. How does the restoration affect flood flows?

2. How does the restoration affect flows during the summer months?

3. How does the restoration affect the groundwater storage within the watershed?

4. How does the restoration affect sediment discharge from the watershed to downstream?

Use of a Watershed Model in NPS Studies

Watershed model provides a tool for watershed evaluation

to help

protect and restore source areas for

water supply and flood control

and

to reduce NPS substance releases from these areas.

Model can identify source areas (sediment, nutrients, groundwater recharge, runoff)

Model can evaluate potential restoration activities for effectiveness at any watershed

Model can assess any land use/management scenarios

WEHY (Watershed Environmental Hydrology) Model

is a

physically-based, spatially-distributed

continuous simulation model

of

hydrologic and environmental processes.

It was peer-reviewed and published

(Nov/Dec 2004 issue of Journal of Hydrologic Engineering).

Interception and Evapotranspiration Model

Subsurface Stormflow

Overland flow(Sheet and Rill Flow)

Regional Groundwater

Stream Network Flow

Hillslope Pesticide Transport

In-stream Erosion/Sediment, and Nutrient Transport

In-stream Pesticide Transport

Solar Radiation + Snow Accumulation + Snowmelt

Models

Unsaturated flow and Infiltration Model

Precipitation

Snowfall, Temperature, Wind Speed, Relative Humidity

Rainfall

Pesticide load at any desired location within a watershed

Sediment and Nutrient load at any desired location within a watershed

OUTPUT

I. HYDROLOGIC MODULE

INPUT

Hillslope Processes

Stream and Regional Groundwater Processes

Hillslope Erosion/Sediment, and Nutrient Transport

II. ENVIRONMENTAL MODULE

Parameter values related to Topography, Soil, Land Use Land Cover characteristics

HillslopeSurface/Subsurface/GW

Water Temperature

In-stream Temperature Transport

Water temperature at any desired location within a watershed

Streamflow Hydrograph/profile, GW Table Elev/Hydraulic HeadSoil water content, ET, Inf. rates

at any desired locationwithin a watershed

Develop the GIS (Geographical Information System) for the watershed based upon existing databases and build model parameters

Area of Detail

N

EW

S8 0 8 16 Kilometers

StreamSub watershed

1680 - 17601760 - 18301830 - 19001900 - 19801980 - 20502050 - 21302130 - 22002200 - 22802280 - 2350No Data

Elevation (m)

DoyleCrossing

Stream network at Last Chance Creek watershed

Last Chance Creek

Ferri sCre ek

McCle ll an Ca nyo n

C ot tonw oodC r eekStony

Creek

Wi llo

wCr

e ek

Fit ch Canyon

Bird Creek

LittleS

unnyCr eek

Do oley Cr eek

Jord

a nC

reek

C har le

sCr ee

k

Artray Creek

0 - 55 - 45.64No Data

Stream

N

EW

S

Slope map and delineation of meadow land

Green: flat landYellow: steep land

(%)

Cross section near Doyle Crossing

1650

1660

1670

1680

1690

1700

17100 30 60 90 120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

390

420

450

480

510

540

570

Distanse (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

SurfaceEstimated bedrock

Cross section at outlet of domain E

1650

16601670

16801690

17001710

1720

0 30 60 90 120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

390

420

450

480

510

540

570

Distanse (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

SurfaceEstimated bedrock

Cross section at outlet of domain G

1690

1695

1700

1705

1710

1715

1720

0 20 40 60 80 100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Distanse (m)

Ele

vatio

n (m

)

SurfaceEstimated bedrock

Groundwater Flow Domain

Soil database (USFS soil survey)

1 0 51 0 81 0 91 4 31 5 71 5 81 6 01 6 11 6 41 7 01 7 21 7 41 8 31 8 41 9 11 9 21 9 31 9 92 3 12 3 22 3 32 3 42 3 52 4 32 4 82 4 92 5 02 5 12 5 22 5 32 5 72 5 82 5 92 6 02 6 12 6 72 6 82 7 02 7 12 7 22 7 32 7 52 7 62 7 72 7 82 7 92 9 32 9 43 0 4

Soil map unit

Estimated soil parameters for WEHY model over Last Chance Creek watershed (selected)

0 - 22 - 44 - 66 - 88 - 1111 - 1313 - 1515 - 1717 - 1919 - 21

(cm/hr)

Effective Rooting Depth

Mean Saturated HydraulicConductivity

Mean TotalPorosity

0.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.8

(cm3/cm3)

10 - 2020 - 2020 - 3030 - 4040 - 5050 - 60

(in)

Vegetation Map (USFS)

1: Grass & shrub2: Forest

7 0 7 14 Kilometers

N

EW

S

Number of Vegetation Layers

Stream

Precipitation

Interception by vegetation

Through Fall

Infiltration

Direct runoff

Direct Evaporation of Intercepted Water

Sun

Transpiration of Root Zone Water

Root Zone

Bare Soil Evaporation

Unsaturated Zone

Groundwater TableGroundwater Recharge

Infiltration

Snow coverSnowmelt

LAIMYD15

Land CoverMOD12

Statistical Studyof LAI

(Asner et al, 2003)

Statistical Studyof Rooting Depth

(Zeng, 2001)

Seasonally varying LAI for each vegetation type

Local Vegetation Survey by USFS

LAI Plant height, h Rooting Depth, dr

Plant Transpiration Coefficient, Kcb(LAI, h)(FAO, 1998)

Historical Atmospheric Data

NCEP, MM5

ReferenceEvapotranspiration,

ETo

Bare GroundEvaporation

Ground Surface Hydrometeorological

Condition WEHY

Evapotranspiration

Methodology for evapotranspiration with natural vegetation

Estimated monthly LAI based on local vegetation survey and MODIS data

Leaf Area Index0 - 0.50.5 - 11 - 1.51.5 - 1.81.8 - 2.22.2 - 2.72.7 - 3.33.3 - 10

RECONSTRUCTION OF HISTORICAL ATMOSPHERIC DATA

OVER THE WATERSHED AT 9 KM RESOLUTION

BY

DOWNSCALING FROM COARSE RESOLUTION (~280KM)

GLOBAL DATASETS

MM5 Domain Nesting

for

Last Chance Creek

Watershed Model

0100200300400500600700

Oct-82

Apr-83

Oct-83

Apr-84

Oct-84

Apr-85

Oct-85

Apr-86

Oct-86

Apr-87

Oct-87

Apr-88

Oct-88

Apr-89

Oct-89

Apr-90

Oct-90

Apr-91

Oct-91

Apr-92

Oct-92

Apr-93

Date

Prec

ip (m

m)

MM5 Quincy Quincy

010

203040

5060

7080

Oct

-82

Apr

-83

Oct

-83

Apr

-84

Oct

-84

Apr

-85

Oct

-85

Apr

-86

Oct

-86

Apr

-87

Oct

-87

Apr

-88

Oct

-88

Apr

-89

Oct

-89

Apr

-90

Oct

-90

Apr

-91

Oct

-91

Apr

-92

Oct

-92

Apr

-93

Oct

-93

Date

Tem

pera

ture

(deg

F)

MM5 NCDC

Reconstructing distributed atmospheric data for validation and for critical hydrologic periods

Air Temperature

Precipitation

Quincy

Quincy

Snow module to simulate accumulation and melt processes of snow

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

9/30

10/20 11

/911

/2912

/19 1/8 1/28

2/17 3/8 3/28

4/17 5/7 5/27

6/16

Date (2003-04)

Snow

dep

th (m

)

Simulated snow depth at Doyle Xing

Observed snow depth at Doyle Xing

Monitored Data Collected for Model Validation

met

er

1810

1811

1812

1813

1814

1815

Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Jan-04 Jul-04

RC4-2 RC5-2

579657985800580258045806580858105812

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800distance from left pin (feet)

elev

atio

n (fe

et)

Oct. 29, 2001Oct. 25, 2004

Pre-restoration

Post-restoration

Original channel

Cross-section JF4

Simulated Groundwater TableObserved Groundwater Table

Ground Surface

Local groundwater simulation

domainLocal Groundwater Simulation at Rowland-Charles Reach(Oct 1, 2001 – Sep 30, 2004)

Feather River Basin

Last Chance Creek watershed(Project area)

Doyle Crossing(outlet of watershed)

Million $ BridgeSacramento

Area = 250.1km2

Q peak = 4.2 m3/s Stream Flow at Doyle Cross Bridge

(basin outlet)

Contribution to Stream flow

Simulated Hydrological ConditionsWater Year

10/2003-9/2004

Estimated soil parameters for WEHY model over Last Chance Creek watershed (selected)

0 - 22 - 44 - 66 - 88 - 1111 - 1313 - 1515 - 1717 - 1919 - 21

(cm/hr)

Effective Rooting Depth

Mean Saturated HydraulicConductivity

Mean TotalPorosity

0.2 - 0.30.3 - 0.40.4 - 0.50.5 - 0.60.6 - 0.70.7 - 0.8

(cm3/cm3)

10 - 2020 - 2020 - 3030 - 4040 - 5050 - 60

(in)

Comparison of model simulated and observed runoff at Doyle Crossing for Pre-restoration condition (Oct. 2001 - Sep.2002) and

Post-restoration condition (Oct. 2004 - Sep.2005)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

10/1

11/1

12/1 1/1

2/1

3/1

4/1

5/1

6/1

7/1

8/1

9/1

Date (2001-02)

Dai

ly a

vera

ge fl

ow (c

ms)

SimulatedObserved

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

10/1

11/1

12/1 1/1

2/1

3/1

4/1

5/1

6/1

7/1

8/1

9/1

Date (2004-05)

Dai

ly a

vera

ge fl

ow (c

ms)

SimulatedObserved

Pre-restoration (2001-2002)

Post-restoration (2004-2005)

Comparison of model simulated and observed sediment load at Doyle Crossing for post-restoration condition

(Oct. 2004 - Sep. 2005)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

10/2

11/1

12/1

12/31 1/3

0 3/1 3/31

4/30

5/30

6/29

Date (2004-05)

Sed

imen

t loa

d (k

g/s)

simulatedobserved

ASSESSMENT OF RESTORATION ACTIVITIES IN

LAST CHANCE CREEK WATERSHED

FOR TWO SCENARIOS:1) PRE-RESTORATION CONDITION;

2) POST-RESTORATION CONDITION,

under the same atmospheric inputs corresponding to wet water year

(Oct. 1982- Sep. 1983)

ARE SIMULATED AND COMPARED.

Annual flow at Pulga, Feather River North Fork1912 - 2001

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Mill

ions

Year

Ann

ual f

low

(AF)

‘95‘83

‘77

‘92‘88

Comparison of flow discharge at Doyle Crossing between the pre-restoration and post-

restoration conditions (Oct.1982 - Sep.1983)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

10/1

10/3

0

11/2

9

12/2

9

1/28

2/27

3/29

4/28

5/28

6/27

7/27

8/26

9/25

Date (1982-83)

disc

harg

e (c

ms)

Pre-restorationPost-restoration

Comparison of monthly flow at Doyle Crossing between pre-restoration and post-restoration

conditions (Oct. 1982 - Sep. 1983)

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepMonth

flow

(acr

e-ft)

Pre-restorationPost-restoration

Assessment of restoration activities:Monthly Flow at the Doyle Crossing (Oct.1982-Sep.1983)

32.7% reduction of flow in March (wet month) may be expected, and85.8% increase of flow in September (dry month) may be expected because of the restoration.

Comparison of monthly mean groundwater storage between the pre-restoration and post-restoration conditions

(Oct.1982 - Sep.1983)

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Thou

sand

s

Month (1982-83)

Gro

undw

ater

sto

rage

(ac-

ft)

Pre-restoration Post-restoration

CHANNEL EROSION/DEPOSITION

RILL INTERRILL INTERRILL RILLFLOW AREA FLOW AREA FLOW FLOW

EROSION IN INTERRILL

AREA

EROSION /DEPOSITIONIN RILLS

EROSION IN INTERRILL AREA

Comparison of sediment load at Doyle Crossing between the pre-restoration and post-

restoration conditions (Oct.1982 - Sep.1983 )

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

10/1

10/3

011

/29

12/2

9

1/28

2/27

3/29

4/28

5/28

6/27

7/27

8/26

9/25

Date (1982-83)

sedi

men

t loa

d (k

g/s)

Pre-restorationPost-restoration

Comparison of monthly sediment load at Doyle Crossing between the pre-restoration and post-restoration conditions

(Oct.1982 - Sep.1983)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepMonth

sedi

men

t loa

d (t/

mon

)

Pre-restorationPost-restoration

Assessment of restoration activities:Monthly Sediment load at the Doyle Crossing (Oct.82-Sep.83)

17.5% reduction of annual sediment discharge may be expected because of the restoration.

Pre-restoration (t)

Post-restoration (t)

absolute diff (t)

relative diff (%)

Oct 0.2 0.2 0.0 -0.59Nov 2.1 2.1 0.0 -2.02Dec 53.7 53.0 -0.7 -1.37Jan 85.6 73.2 -12.4 -14.45Feb 585.3 442.0 -143.3 -24.49Mar 2687.2 2186.4 -500.8 -18.64Apr 489.1 406.2 -82.9 -16.94May 199.5 191.1 -8.4 -4.19Jun 48.9 55.6 6.7 13.62Jul 7.2 11.4 4.3 59.24Aug 11.8 15.3 3.5 29.74Sep 2.7 6.2 3.5 133.46

Annual 4173.3 3442.8 -730.5 -17.50

Conclusions

1. WEHY (Watershed Environmental Hydrology) Model has been applied to the Last Chance Creek Watershed for the Assessment of the Impact of Restoration Activities on the Water Supply/Flood Control/NPS Pollutant Discharge;

2. WEHY Model demonstrated that restoration activities in Last Chance Creek will store more water during wet periods (reducing flood discharge) while increasing base flows during dry periods; groundwater storage in the watershed will increase by the restoration activities;

3. WEHY Model also demonstrated that the undertaken restoration activities will reduce the sediment discharge from Last Chance Creek watershed.

4. WEHY Model can be applied to any watershed in California for the assessment of restoration activities.

Acknowledgement:This study was funded by CALFED Watershed Program.