North Fork Feather River Watershed Restoration Alternative (Off-Site Compensatory Mitigation Alternative ‘D’)

 

 

Purpose of Analysis: 

This is intended to be a conceptual screening analysis to be used for evaluating the proposed alternative to determine if it warrants additional analysis or consideration. 

 

Alternative Description:

Implement coldwater improvement projects as well as appropriate aquatic resources and water quality studies throughout the upper North Fork Feather River watershed, including the East Branch and other tributaries.   The Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFC&WCD) will implement projects in cooperation with Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (FR-CRM) and other groups (e.g. Plumas Water Forum, Resource Conservation Districts).  The projects will be designed to address stream temperature improvement and additional beneficial uses as described in the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan including cold freshwater habitat, domestic and agricultural water supply, recreation, and hydropower generation. The activities initiated under this alternative will include ongoing prioritization for both public (including NFS lands) and private lands and may include those identified as priority projects to address on-going temperature and sediment issues in the North Fork Feather River in existing studies and planning documents such as FR-CRM MOU (1985) and Feather River Watershed Management Strategy (2004).  The activities will be consistent with guidance included within the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Plumas County, July 2005).

 

Potential projects identified at this time for implementation in the first fifteen years of the license are included on the attached list, and include effectiveness monitoring throughout the term of the license.  During the implementation phase, monitoring of existing and constructed projects will provide a feedback loop to maximize the effectiveness of projects as they are implemented.  This alternative will include the following actions:

 

Implement priority restoration projects as identified in existing plans for the watershed or identified in the future by the implementing authority.  Foster and support innovative restoration projects.

·                 Develop a monitoring plan that addresses project effectiveness and contributes to increased understanding of stream temperature dynamics and coldwater sources during late summer months. The monitoring plan will also track the sustainability of implemented projects and identify any maintenance needs.  Consider utilizing thermal imaging technology (helicopter flights currently used) to establish baseline stream temperatures, identify cold and warm water sources and provide periodic review of benefits derived. Continuous recording thermographs will be installed at key areas throughout the watershed to build on the existing FR-CRM network. The monitoring plan will include an aquatic resources and habitat monitoring component on a sub-watershed scale to complement other monitoring efforts in the watershed.

 

·                 Maintain or modify implemented projects if necessary to establish self-sustainability.

 

·                 Develop a central data archive as a repository to collect information that is currently maintained by various entities and to utilize information more efficiently, track activities, and monitor results.  This information will assist in determining real and potential effects in the East Branch and the North Fork Feather River, and the downstream effects of restoration projects on water temperature and aquatic productivity in the NFFR.

 

·                 Utilize information from selected stream restoration projects to aid in future project design considerations.

 

·                 Identify and implement as appropriate on-site and off-site aquatic habitat improvement projects that may include culvert modification, fish ladder installation, and other measures to improve access to cold-water refugia.

 

 

Assumptions:

·                 This alternative assumes that all reasonable on-site alternatives to reduce water temperatures to 20 degrees C in the North Fork Feather River within the FERC 2105, 1962, and 2107 project boundaries have been identified. Actions (except for construction of the Prattville Curtain) included in the FERC 1962 license to address temperature have been implemented.

 

·                 Modeled and measured water temperature will exceed 20 degrees C in the NFFR within the project boundaries even with implementation of any of the 24 water temperature reduction alternatives previously evaluated.

 

·                 The North Fork and the East Branch FR can be restored to increase cold-water habitat.

 

·                 It is possible to bring alluvial valley and canyon streams in Plumas County much closer to their natural function to provide cold-water habitat and cold-water supply.

 

·                 The Union Pacific Railroad and CalTrans will be invited to become active participants in the watershed restoration activities, especially regarding fish passage into coldwater tributary channels in the NFFR Canyon.

 

·                 It is unknown what synergistic effect upper watershed restoration activities would have on temperatures within the lower Belden, Rock Creek-Cresta and Poe reaches.  Long-term monitoring of these actions may show a reduction of East Branch thermal input to the UNFF River system, affecting river water temperatures downstream of the East Branch confluence with the Feather River.  On-going project monitoring in the watershed has shown water temperature improvements resulting from restoration (see Attachment 1 showing results at Last Chance and Hosselkus Creeks)

 

·                 Funding will be escalated for inflation through the term of the license.

 

Rationale:

·                 Numerous water-temperature modeling efforts have shown the East Branch to be a primary source of warmer water into North Fork project waters.

·                 Available information (Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, July 2005) prioritizes specific locations within the NFFR watershed as more critical than others. (Also see Attachment 2)

·                 Potential for leveraging other funding sources (See Attachment 3)

·                 Headwater areas can more readily be fully restored to proper fluvial and floodplain function (less land use issues to work around).  Restoration can result in reduced peak run-off and extend the natural hydrograph to help reduce downstream temperature and flow issues.

·                 Opportunities to work in mid-watershed valleys to maintain headwater temperature and other beneficial uses (e.g. Indian, American, Genesee valleys) will require the interest of willing landowners. While landowner interest has been slowly but steadily evolving, the pace is expected to increase markedly above existing levels due to new (2004) Clean Water Act Agricultural Waiver compliance regulations.

·                 The East Branch includes priority sub-watersheds associated with large floodplains and valleys as identified in the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy (Monterey Agreement, date?).

·                 Biological connectivity – Rehabilitation of the upstream watershed has the potential to help seed lower river reaches with excess productivity from increased populations of the macroinvertebrate, fishery, and riparian communities.

 

 

Other Considerations:

·                 The lack of screens on agricultural diversions may reduce effectiveness and use of improved aquatic habitat.

 

·                 Potential for salmonid fish passage actions that might necessitate additional enforcement personnel to address poaching (relates to measurement criteria to be used to evaluate effectiveness of upstream restoration activities)

 

·                 Supports implementation of Central Valley RWQCB Agricultural Waiver Compliance Program

 

 

Implementation Strategy:

The alternative would have a ‘front-loaded’ schedule to initiate restoration activities during the first 15 years after issuance of a new project license (FERC No. 2105) and allow adequate time to monitor long-term synergistic responses within the NFFR watershed and provide valuable information for use during future NFFR relicensings. 

 

Cost Calculations:

For analytical purposes, four alternative methods to calculate stream restoration cost (e.g. pond and plug, channel stabilization) are presented.  These do not include unit costs associated with specific tributary barrier removal/modification actions that may be included in this alternative (all costs are based on 2005 dollars):

 

1.   Total contribution over a 40-year term would be $20 million.  This total amount could represent restoration of 35 miles of degraded channel utilizing the pond and plug methodology and 20 miles of vegetative planting, $15 milllion; repair and maintenance, $3.5 million; archiving of monitoring data, effectiveness and implementation monitoring, strategic planning, $1.5 million.  (Hawkins method)

 

2.  Project 1962 negotiated $7 million mitigation fund for 18.1 miles.  This correlates to $8 million for 20.5 (2105) miles and $3.3 million (2107) = $18.3 million for 2105, 1962 and 2107 combined. (Hunter method)   

2.a.  Project 1962 negotiated $7 million mitigation fund for 18.1 miles of temperature-affected stream.  This correlates to $3.7 million for 9.6 (2105) affected miles and $3.6 million (2107) affected miles = $14.3 million (PG&E modified Hunter method).  Note: 1962 amount has been funded and is under the control of the Project 1962 ERC (See Attachment 4).

 

3.  Unit costs per mile range from $200k/mile to $300k/mile.  Using a percentage of time when temperatures exceed 20 degrees C to calculate ‘affected’ stream miles, and using the higher, $300K/mile to allow for monitoring, the restoration fund totals  $6.96 million.  (Tom Jereb method - see Attachment 5). Note: Dollar amount does not include Project 1962 funding.

 

4.  Unit costs per mile range from $30k/mile to $400k/mile over specific identified locations (See Attachment 4), dependant on channel size and degree of degradation to treat 73.5 miles = $21.5 million over the first 15 years.  Monitoring, coordination and outreach, land use education efforts, and maintenance costs per year would be $125k per year for years 0-15 and $75k/year for years 16 through 40 years for a sub-total of $4.9 million.  Total restoration and monitoring = $26.4 million.  (Wilcox method)

 

Because of long-standing partnerships in this watershed, shared funding will likely result in comparable contributions from various sources, thereby allowing expansion of the attached list of projects. (See Attachment 3 showing funding contributions from others)

 

 

Conclusions

The potential benefits of the NFFR Watershed Restoration Alternative are significantly greater than other alternatives evaluated.   The benefits include but are not limited to improving stream health, water quality and other beneficial uses in both upper watershed and lower project waters. The NFFR Watershed Restoration Alternative also includes compiling information from multiple agencies’ stream restoration projects and the potential to leverage outside funding for expanded project implementation and management. To be fully successful, this alternative requires a long-term commitment of resources, which will be guaranteed through FERC enforcement of license articles.  The proposed alternative warrants additional analysis or consideration.   

 

Attachment 1:

 

 

Location

Time

Degrees Centigrade

Farenheit

Hosselkus Cr abv the project

1355

23.5

74.3

Hosselkus Cr at bottom of project

1250

18

64.4

Hosselkus Cr at mouth

1240

21

69.8

Indian abv Hosselkus

1315

20

68

Indian blw Hosselkus

1230

19

66.2

Temperature Data collected on June 27, 2005.  Weather mostly cloudy.  Air temperature = 24.3C.

 

 

Attachment 2:

EAST BRANCH, NORTH FORK FEATHER RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM- 

Schedule Of Work 1985-2015

Subwatershed

Stream Name/Phase

Miles/Acres

Restoration Technique

Cost/Mile1

Total Cost

Timeline

Last Chance

Cottonwood/Big Flat

1.0/47

Meadow re-watering

$100,000

$100,000

Complete 1995

  “          “

Clarks/Phase I

1.0/56

“           “

$75,000

$ 75,000

Complete 2001

  “          “

Stone Dairy

.6/22

“           “

$92,000

$56,000

Complete 2001

  “          “

Mainstem Phase I

7.0/800

“           “

$140,000

$980,000

Complete 2004

  “          “

Dooley Creek

1.0/60

“            “

$57,000

$57,000

Complete 2005

  “          “             

Mainstem Phase II

9.0/800

“            “

~ $300,000

~$2,800,000

2006 thru 2008

  “          “

Clarks/Phase II

1.0/70

“            “

$100,000

$100,000

2009

  “          “

Mainstem Phase III

10.0/1000

“            “

~ $300,000

~$3,000,000

2009 thru 2011

Red Clover

Red Clover Demo Pjt

1.0/70

Check dams

$172,000

$172,000

Complete 1985

  “          “

Red Clover Phase I

3.5/375

Meadow re-watering

$314,00

$1,100,000

2005 thru 2006

  “          “

Bagley Creek

.3/15

“            “

$30,000

$9,000

Complete 1997

  “          “

McReynolds Creek

2/100

“            “

~ $75,000

~ $150,000

2006 thru 2008

  “          “

Red Clover Phase II

2/200

“            “

~ $200,000

~ $400,000

2008 thru 2010

  “          “

Dixie Creek- Phase I

1/90

“            “

~ $75,000

~ $75,000

2005 thru 2007

  “          “

Dixie Creek- Phase II

5.0/150

“            “

~ $150,000

~ $750,000

2011 thru 2013

  “          “

Red Clover Phase III

7/1000

“            “

~ $150,000

~$1,050,000

2010 thru 2012

Indian Creek

Boulder Creek

.6/30

“            “

$40,000

$22,000

Complete 1997

  “          “

Ward Creek

1/165

“            “

$220,000

$220,000

Complete 1999

  “          “

Hosselkus- Phase I /II

.75/65

“            “

$220,000

$156,000

2001/2005

  “          “  

Wolf Creek Phase I-III

2.5/70

Geomorphic channel/reveg

$240,000

$600,000

1990 thru 1999

  “          “

Indian Cr- Genesee

6.0/1000

Geomorphic channel/reveg

~ $400,000

~ $2,400,000

2006 thru 2012

  “          “

Indian Cr- Indian Valley

7.0/170

Geomorphic channel/reveg

~ $400,000

~ $2,800,000

2008 thru 2015

Spanish Creek

Greenhorn- Farnworth

.75/20

Geomorphic channel/reveg

$200,000

$150,000

Complete 1991

  “          “

Spanish- American Vly

7.0/170

Geomorphic channel/reveg

~ $400,000

~ $2,800,000

2007 thru 2009

  “          “

Spanish- Meadow Vly

7.0/170

Geomorphic channel/reveg

~ $400,000

~ $2,800,000

2006 thru 2010

  “          “

Greenhorn- Chandler

5.0/150

Geomorphic channel/reveg

~ $250,000

~ $1,250,000

2011 thru 2014

 

TOTALS

90/6865

 

 

$24,000,000

 

   1 Costs in bold are known, all others are estimates.  Costs reflect only survey, design, permitting and construction expenses.

 

Attachment 3:

 

Federal Agencies

 Funded

1990-05

% of Total Funding

USDA-United States Forest Service

$467,650

7%

USDA-Natural Resources Conservation

Service

$82,500

1%

Environmental Protection Agency

$15,000

<1%

Bureau of Reclamation

$980,000

14%

 

 

 

State Agencies

 

 

California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection

$105,000

2%

State Water Resources Control Board

$3,422,104

49%

California Department of Water Resources

$920,500

13%

Central Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board

$109,000

2%

California Department of Fish & Game

$100,000

1%

California Department of Transportation

$100,000

1%

California Department of Parks and Recreation

$39,930

<1%

UC Cooperative Extension

$2,100

<1%

 

 

 

County & Local Public Agencies

 

 

Plumas County

$234,263

3%

Plumas County Community Development Commission

$1,900

<1%

Quincy Community Services District

$3,800

<1%

Plumas Unified School District

$1,600

<1%

Feather River College

$1,600

<1%

NorCal Nevada Resource Conservation and Development

$9,500

<1%

 

 

 

Private Groups

 

 

Pacific Gas & Electric

$352,000

5%

Landowners

$7,710

<1%

Sierra Pacific

$15,000

<1%

Collins Pine

$10,000

<1%

Total

$6,981,157

98%

 

 

Attachment 4:

(Appendix A, Paragraph 4 of the Rock Creek-Cresta Settlement Agreement states that the Licensee shall evaluate whether “additional reasonable control measures are available.”  The analysis is to be conducted independently of the Prattville temperature curtain evaluation.  The ERC and FS shall make an “affirmative determination whether additional reasonable control measures are available.  The report shall include recommendations for the implementation of any such measures.”  “This affirmative determination shall be based on the best scientific information available, the use of sound scientific methods, consideration of the relative cost of different control measures, and other relevant factors.”  A total of $7,000,000 is available for coldwater habitat and fishery mitigation ($5,000,000 initially and an additional $2,000,000 at the end of 75 months.  The fund may be “used to undertake other measures that directly enhance coldwater habitat and fishery in the Rock Creek and Cresta reaches, it the ERC and FS determine that further expenditure on temperature control measures will not be effective in maintaining a mean daily water temperature of 20 degrees C or less in these reaches.”

 

 

Attachment 5:

 

River

Reach

Total

Miles

% time

exceed

20 degrees

C

Impacted

Miles

Cost @

$300k/mi

Cost @

$200k/mi

Seneca

10.9

0%

0

0

0

Belden

9.6

71%

6.8

$2.04M

$1.36M

RC-C

18.1

66%/50%

10.7

$3.21M

$2.14M

Poe

9.3

61%

5.7

$1.71M

$1.14M

Total

47.9

 

23.3

$6.96M

$4.64M