North Fork Feather River Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative

 

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: Fund (Licensee funding level not yet determined) the implementation of coldwater watershed improvement via projects as well as appropriate aquatic resources and water temperature monitoringquality studies throughout the upper North Fork Feather River (NFFR) watershed, including the East Branch (EB) and other tributaries.  The Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFC&WCD) in cooperation with Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (FR-CRM) currently has an ongoing watershed improvement program.  For this alternative, tThe Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFC&WCD) willwould implement selected 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 to support the protection ofand 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 wildlife habitatand hydropower generation. The activities initiated under this alternative will include ongoing prioritization for both public (including National Forest Service lands) and private lands and may include those identified as priority projects to address on-going temperature and sediment issues in the NFFRorth 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).

 

Depending upon the funding levels, pPotential projects identified at this time for possible implementation in the first fifteen years of the license are included on the attached list, and include water temperature effectiveness monitoring as necessary to determine the project’s effectivenessthroughout the term of the license.  During the implementation phase, water temperature monitoring of existing and constructed projects will provide a feedback loop to maximize the effectiveness of projects as they are implemented.  Depending upon the funding levels, tThis alternative maywill 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 water temperature monitoring plan that addresses project effectiveness and contributes to increased understanding of stream water temperature dynamics and coldwater sources during late summer months. The water temperature 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 maywill 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 project self-sustainability.

 

·                  Develop a central data archive as a repository to collect water temperature monitoring 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 EB and the NFFR, and the downstream effects of restoration projects on water temperature and aquatic productivity in the watershed.

 

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

 

·                  Identify and implement as appropriate on-site and off-site projects that reduce temperature, reduce sedimentation, and improve aquatic habitat. This 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 daily mean water temperatures to 20 degrees C in the NFFR 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. Comment: this last sentence is very confusing so I suggest eliminating it.

 

·                  Modeled and measured daily mean water temperature will exceed the 20 degrees C goal in the NFFR within the project boundaries even with implementation of any of the previously evaluated 24 water temperature controlreduction alternatives either singularly or in combinationpreviously evaluated.

 

·                  Portions of the NFFR and EB watersheds can be restored to improve 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, CalTrans, and other landowners will be invited to become active participants in the watershed restoration activities, especially regarding fish passage into coldwater tributary channels in the NFFR Canyon.  Landowners that benefit from the watershed improvements will be expected to contribute funding as appropriate.

 

·                  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 EB thermal input to the NFFR system.  On-going project monitoring in the watershed has shown local water temperature improvements resulting from restoration (see Attachment 1 showing monitoring results from 1985-2005)

 

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

 

·                  Plumas County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (PCFC&WCD) will implement projects in cooperation with Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (FR-CRM) and will continue to seek leveraged funding from other sources.

 

Rationale:

·                  Water-temperature modeling efforts have shown the EB to be a primary source of warmer water into North Fork project waters between the confluence with the NFFR and Belden Powerhouse.

 

·                  Available information (Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, July 2005) prioritizes the following specific sub-watersheds within the NFFR watershed as suitable and cost-effective for restoration: Last Chance; Red Clover; Spanish Creek; Lower Indian; Upper Indian; Lake Davis-Long Valley; and Sierra Valley. (See Attachment 2).

 

·                  Potential for leveraging other funding sources (See Attachment 3) will assist in providing adequate total long-term funding for a watershed restoration and improvement program.

 

·                  Headwater areas can more readily be fully restored to proper fluvial and floodplain function (less land use restrictions).  Restoration can result in reduced peak run-off and extend the natural hydrograph to help reduce downstream water temperature in the EBast Branch and extendincrease natural base flows.

 

·                  Opportunities to work in mid-watershed valleys to maintain headwater water 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 EB includes priority sub-watersheds associated with large floodplains and valleys as identified in the Feather River Watershed Management Strategy (Monterey Agreement, 1994).

 

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

 

·                  Other water quality improvement benefits from watershed restoration and improvements include reduced sedimentation and turbidity.

 

Other Considerations:

·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)  Comment: this does not make sense here; it is a CDF&G law enforcement issue, not a watershed restoration and improvement issue.

 

·                  Supports implementation of Central Valley RWQCB Agricultural Waiver Compliance Program

 

Implementation Strategy:

The alternative would have a ‘front-loaded’ schedule to initiate selected 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. 

 

Conclusions:

The potential benefits of the NFFR Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative are significant and include but are not limited to improving stream health, water quality and other beneficial uses in both upper watershed and possiblelower project waters. The NFFR Watershed Restoration and Improvement Alternative also includes compiling water temperature monitoring information from selected programmultiple 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 from multiple parties, from which the Licensee’s portion of resourceswhich wouldill be guaranteed through FERC enforcement of license articles.   The Proposed alternative warrants additional analysis and consideration.

Attachment 1:

 

Projects Completed and Benefits Monitored 1985-2005*

 

^*Data provided on this table are from various monitoring files housed by FR-CRM, PG&E, DWR, DFG and antidotal observations.  The accuracy of the data provided on this table has not been verified at this time.

¹ Fishery benefits are based on results of electro-fishing, and are highly variable due to other variables such as flow, precipitation, and air temperatures.

² Monitoring efforts on these projects were largely limited to one year pre-project and one year post-construction measurements to confirm conformance to construction specifications.  Long-term, consistent monitoring will be necessary to measure water temperature improvements in meadow re-watering projects.  Water temperature improvements appear to be expressed when additional groundwater stored as a result of the project begins to augment the surface water, downstream of the actual project work.  Detecting change may require more sampling points both within and downstream of the project area to capture water temperature changes.

 

Attachment 2:

Priority 1 Project Reaches: Estimated Costs¹ and Anticipated Benefits²

 

 

 

 ¹ All costs are estimates in today’s dollars.  Costs reflect only survey, design, permitting and construction expenses.

² Anticipated benefits are based on professional judgment and past experience of Plumas County representativeswith similar projects.

 

 

 

Priority 2 Project Reaches: Estimated Costs¹ and Anticipated Benefits²

 

 

 

 

Attachment 3:  Historical Funding of Previous Watershed Restoration Projects in Plumas County

 

Funding Source	Funded 1990-05	% Of Total Funding
Federal Agencies
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%