Upper Truckee River Restoration Lake Tahoe, California Presented by Brendan Belby Sacramento, California Mike Rudd (Project Manager), Charley Miller & Chad Krofta
Declines in Tahoe s Water Clarity
The Upper Truckee River watershed viewed from its headwaters near Carson Pass north towards Lake Tahoe Source: Tahoe Resource Conservation District, 2003
Historic Land Uses Comstock Era Logging & Mining Grazing Urbanization Channelization Floodplain Encroachment
Historic Large- Scale Logging 60% of Tahoe Basin was clear-cut 95% is second growth forest Source: USDA, Lake Tahoe Watershed Assessment, 2000
Upper Truckee Marsh in 1930 Source: Photo by Dr. Robert Orr, property of California Tahoe Conservancy
Upper Truckee Marsh Today Tahoe Keys Upper Truckee River # homes increased 500-19,000 from 1960-1980 Trout Creek
Sediment Accretion Rates Logging: +600% Urbanization: +350% Source: Steve Winter, M.S. Thesis, U.C. Davis, 2003
Planform Adjustments to Sediment Supply 1940 2003 Sedimentation in response to logging? Minimal planform change reflection of low energy & cohesive meadow soils
Profile Adjustments to Sediment Supply 3.5 3500 Elevation (ft above fixed datum) 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 pzf Mean Daily Flow Bed elevation changes in response to urbanization? 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 Mean Daily Flow (cfs) -0.5 500-1 -1.5 01/01/71 12/31/73 12/30/76 12/30/79 12/29/82 12/28/85 12/27/88 12/27/91 12/26/94 12/25/97 12/24/00 Date of Measurement 0
Channel Response Downcutting Doubling of channel capacity Lacustrine layer exposure
Channel Response Bank Erosion Sod blocks Fine-grained sediment input
Aggradation/Widening Incipient Floodplain Channel Response New depositional landforms Lower base level Slow development Existing Condition: Slope: 0.001 D 50 : 4 mm Width: 65 ft Depth: 5-6 ft Capacity: 700 cfs (2-yr RI) to1,300 cfs (5-yr RI) Taken 5/5/04 at ~350 cfs, RS 16000
Reaches 3 & 4 Airport Reach Clients: City of South Lake Tahoe and California Tahoe Conservancy
Planform Change 1940 vs. 2003 Construction of airport in 1960s eliminated ~75% of historic floodplain
Upper Truckee River Reaches 3 & 4 Major Project Goals Reduce channel capacity to increase overbanking Increase deposition & storage of fine suspended sediment Decrease bank erosion Raise groundwater levels Improve habitat Reaches 3 & 4 New Channel Construction Started in Summer 2008 May 17, 2005 Flood Source: City of South Lake Tahoe
Alternative 1 Existing Channel with Habitat Improvements 1.Construct in-channel habitat structures and bank stabilization features 2.Locally narrow channel at locations with large wood, vegetated bars, or ledges to create a more sinuous flow path 3.Construct an inset floodplain to enhance overbanking
Alternative 2 Construct New Channel with Airport In-Place 1.Construct ~4,000 ft of new meandering channel 2.Re-grade airport terrace fill to create a new floodplain 3.Build large woody debris features for habitat improvement 4.Work within the constraints of the airport and existing utility lines
Alternative 3 Construct New Channel with Partial Airport Removal 1.Remove ~1,500 ft of airport runway for the new channel 2.Relocate sections of existing gravity and forced main pipelines 3.Construct ~4,800 ft of new meandering channel
Objective Restore a more naturally functioning river and floodplain Improve water quality by restoring natural stream and floodplain processes. Restore, enhance and protect aquatic and terrestrial habitat diversity and quality. Develop a cost-effective, timely and implementable design Alternatives Ranking Criteria Desired Outcomes Restore channel form in balance with hydrology and sediment supply Increase frequency of overbanking Increase deposition of riverborne fine sediment and nutrients onto the floodplain. Reduce nutrient and fine sediment loads generated within the Project area or transported through the Project area. Enhance the habitat values of the river and floodplain for supporting native aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. Provide a cost-effective project Provide a permittable project Minimize time to project maturity and benefit
Floodplain Inundation Modeling 760 cfs (2-yr Event) Existing Condition Future Constructed Condition 0 acres 19 acres
Alternatives Ranking Criteria Example Ranking Scores
Channel & Floodplain Design Design a channel and floodplain with an appropriate morphology that is in balance with the prevailing hydrology and sediment regimes
Bedload Supply How much bedload should the channel be able to transport? Measure transport throughout spring runoff Calibrate transport modeling with measurements
Measured & Modeled Transport Qs (tons/day) 1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 ENTRIX Meaured Bedload Transport (2006) Modeled Bedload Transport - Wilcock (2001) Two-Fraction Calibrated Method Modeled Bedload Transport - Ackers & White (1973) with Proffitt & Sutherland's (1983) Hiding Function 0.001 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 gravel τ* rg = 0.01 sand τ* rs = 0.03 Q (ft 3 /s) Are τ* c values reasonable? Source: Wilcock and Kenworthy 2002
Select Design Discharge Total Bedload (Tons) 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 Upper Truckee River Effective Discharge - Based on Measured and Modeled Bedload During Passage of a Sand Wave (High Transport Conditions) Qeff = 398 cfs Based on Ackers & White (1973) equation w ith Proffitt & Sutherland's (1983) hiding function applied at the Sunset Stables Bedload XS (RS 25+670) and all USGS gage #10336610 Mean Daily Discharge from 1971-2005 1000 Effective Discharge Analysis Q eff = 400 cfs Total Bedload (Tons) 700 600 500 400 300 200 0 50 74 98 122 146 170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482 Discharge (cfs) Upper Truckee River Effective Discharge - Based on Measured and Modeled Bedload Without Passage of a Sand Wave (Low Transport Conditions) Based on Wilcock & Crow e (2003) equation applied at the Sunset Stables XS 26 (RS 24+540) and all USGS gage #10336610 Mean Daily Discharge from 1971-2005 506 530 554 Qeff = 398 cfs 578 602 626 650 674 698 722 746 770 794 818 100 0 50 74 98 122 146 170 194 218 242 266 290 314 338 362 386 410 434 458 482 506 530 554 578 602 626 650 674 698 722 746 770 794 818 Discharge (cfs)
How wide should the channel be? Equation: Huang and Nanson 1998 ƒ(q bf, S, n) Bank Type Channel Width (ft) Moderately cohesive sand 44.5 highly cohesive sand 31.4 moderately vegetated and moderately cohesive sand 36.6 heavily vegetated and highly cohesive sand 26.7 Selected Design Width = 38 ft
How steep and deep should the channel be? Equilibr brium Slope 0.0020 0.0019 0.0018 0.0017 0.0016 0.0015 0.0014 0.0013 0.0012 0.0011 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008 0.0007 0.0006 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0002 0.0001 Equilibrium Slope Analysis Slope Depth (ft) 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 38 ft Channel Width (ft) 7 6 5 4 3 2 De epth (ft)
Channel Morphology River Architectural Models Gravel-sand meandering Fine-grained meandering CR: Crevasse channel CS: Crevasse splay LA: Lateral-accretion macroform FF: Overbank fines CH: Channel (abandoned) Source: Andrew D. Miall. 2006. The Geology of Fluvial Deposits. Springer, New York. 582 pp.
Final Channel Design Irregular bends Steeply dipping point bars & low W/D Micro- topography Fill existing channel
Construction Summer 2008
Acknowledgements The City of South Lake Tahoe The California Tahoe Conservancy Mike Rudd - ENTRIX Project Manager Charley Miller - ENTRIX Chad Krofta - ENTRIX