FERC Project 2105 Mitigation Proposal
East Branch, North Fork Feather River Restoration Program
Projects and Predicted Benefits
This Project 2105 mitigation proposal (sometimes referred to as “Alternative D”) is comprised of 17 restoration projects in four subwatersheds within the East Branch, North Fork Feather River watershed. The reaches have a Priority 1 or Priority 2 classification based on resources that can be assigned to the worst conditions to measurably meet goals.
Priority One Projects are mostly “meadow re-watering projects” which means that the project includes reconnecting the stream to its natural meadow floodplain and to the groundwater aquifer that is associated with the historic meadow-floodplain. Priority One meadow re-watering projects create significant seasonal and permanent wetland habitat and re-create summer-long groundwater influxes to streams as re-watered groundwater aquifers naturally drain downslope and downstream during the summer-long drought. Because groundwater temperatures range from 50˚F to 58˚F floodplain aquifers provide a significant source of cooler water to streams both within and downstream of a restored stream reach during the summer.
Priority Two Projects are mostly “geomorphic reconstruction projects” that are installed in confined, eroding stream channels with narrow floodplains that have formed within eroding gullies in meadows. For a variety of reasons, it is no longer feasible to reconnect the stream to its historic floodplain meadow. Rehabilitation of the stream and riparian system must be confined within the eroding gully. Rehabilitation work in stream systems that are unconnected to their historic meadows and floodplains is inherently more risky than work in natural stream and floodplain-meadow systems. Entrenched or incised streams, as they are called, carry larger volumes of floodwaters within their stream channels rather than spreading higher flood flows across wide floodplain meadows. Concentrating flood flows within a narrower cross-sectional area of the erosion-caused gully exponentially increases the erosive force of flood waters. In addition, streambank vegetation in entrenched or incised channels tends to be less vigorous, because incised channels are more isolated from groundwater inflows during the summer growing season. More stream power combined with weaker vegetative protection creates the potential for higher failure risks and longer recovery times for incised streams.
The following tables summarize Alternative D in as much detail as is available at this time. It is important to note that all 40 FR-CRM restoration projects completed over the past 20 years were voluntary and implemented with full landowner participation and approval at all stages of the project. Attached is an example of the analysis and notification process that the FR-CRM has initiated with downstream water rights holders to document project effects on downstream flows.
Priority 1 Project Reaches
|
Subwatershed |
Stream Name/Phase |
Miles/Acres |
Restoration Technique |
Cost/Mile1 |
Total Cost |
Timeline |
|
Last Chance |
Mainstem Phase II |
9.0/800 |
Meadow re-watering |
~ $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 Phase I |
3.5/375 |
“ “ |
$314,00 |
$1,100,000 |
2005 thru 2006 |
|
“ “ |
McReynolds Creek |
2.0/100 |
“ “ |
~ $75,000 |
~ $150,000 |
2006 thru 2008 |
|
“ “ |
Red Clover Phase II |
2.0/200 |
“ “ |
~ $200,000 |
~ $400,000 |
2008 thru 2010 |
|
“ “ |
Dixie Creek- Phase I |
1.0/90 |
“ “ |
~ $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 |
7.0/1000 |
“ “ |
~ $150,000 |
~$1,050,000 |
2010 thru 2012 |
|
Indian Creek |
Indian Cr- Genesee |
6.0/200 |
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 |
|
|
TOTALS |
50/3780 |
|
|
$13,525,000 |
|
1 All costs are estimates in today’s dollars. Costs reflect only survey, design, permitting and construction expenses.
Priority 1 Project Predicted Benefits
|
Stream Name/Phase |
Predicted Fishery Improvement |
Predicted Temperature Improvement |
Comments |
|
Last Chance Mainstem Phase II |
No pre-project data. Cannot document fishery improvement. |
2000-2003 daily max temperatures=85-90F, 54-67 weekly avg temps >66F. Predict reduction in max temperatures at Doyle X-ing by 10˚F. |
Trout Fishery Improvement in project area probably after 5 years. |
|
Clarks/Phase II |
No data. Existing fish populations probably OK in new beaver ponds. Predict temporary decrease in fish populations, but long term, no change in trout populations. |
No data. Temperatures probably remain OK in beaver ponds. Predict decrease in temperature at mouth of Clarks entering Last Chance by 1-2˚F, later into summer than current condition. |
Improvement in temperature will be due to water stored in Clarks floodplain, and released later in summer as groundwater inflow to Last Chance. |
|
Last Chance Mainstem Phase III Last Chance Valley |
Trout have been historically present here, but none in 2001 or 2003 survey, most likely due to warm water temperature. Predict increase in trout populations. |
2001 data show max 82F, and 64 weekly avg temps <66F. Predict reduction in max temperatures by 5˚F. |
This project area is probably not as impaired as Phase II, hence smaller temp improvement prediction. |
|
Red Clover Phase I Red Clover Valley |
Predict about same improvement as 1985 demo project. |
Predict temperature decrease of 5F from top of 2006 project area to bottom. No more due to top of project area being tied into 1985 project, and hence not overly impaired. |
Some remnant reaches have pools and shade that should produce more immediate trout & temperature response than Last Chance. |
|
McReynolds Creek Red Clover Valley |
No trout known to exist in this channel. |
Maybe no improvement seen in this seasonal channel. |
Late summer surface water in McReynolds only appears in the gully. Most likely temperature benefit to express as late summer groundwater inflow into Red Clover. (RC) |
|
Red Clover Phase II Red Clover Valley |
Chase Bridge 2003 = 1 trout in 300’ Predict improvement same as 1985 demo project. |
No data. Predict temperature decrease of 1-3˚F or maintenance from top to bottom. Predict summer temperatures won’t be impaired due to upstream Phase I and demo projects’ temperature improvements. |
The FS has conducted monthly flow msrmnts here that should show good late season flow improvements due to Phase I&II projects. |
|
Dixie Creek- Phase I Red Clover Valley |
Fish population condition unknown. Cannot predict. Reduction of sedimentation should improve trout habitat. |
Temperature condition unknown. Cannot predict. |
Relatively small project area, with primary goal to halt upstream migration of headcut. |
|
Dixie Creek- Phase II Red Clover Valley |
Fish population condition unknown. Cannot predict. |
Temperature condition unknown. Lack of observed riparian vegetation. Predict improved riparian condition should improve temperature. |
Response here expected to be similar to Last Chance due to small area of watershed. Improvements should show up in downstream reaches. |
|
Red Clover Phase III Red Clover Valley |
Fish population condition unknown. Expect cumulative improvement from all three phases. |
Notson Bridge 2000-2003 daily max temperatures=79-81F, 5-46 weekly avg temps >66F. Predict reduction in max temperatures at Notson by 10-15˚F cumulative from all three phases. |
Continuous recording station at Notson Bridge should show improvement in late season flows. |
|
Indian Cr- Genesee (Flournoy Bridge at top of Genesee; Taylorsville is downstream of Genesee Valley |
Trout biomass abv Flournoy Bridge = 10ml/100yds in 2001 and 2350ml/100yds in 2003. Trout biomass at Tville = 0 in 2001 and 365 ml/100yds in 2003. Predict improvements above 2003 levels of 100% at Tville (from Genesee project) and 30% at FlournoyBr (from upper watershed projects). |
Flournoy Bridge 2000-2003 daily max temperatures=69-79˚F, 0-41 weekly avg temps >66˚F. Predict reduction in max temperatures at Flournoy Br by 10˚F cumulative from all Last Chance and Red Clover projects. Predict temperature maintenance through Genesee. No summer temperature data from Tville. |
Indian Cr has deeper water habitat and more volume than tributaries, that should provide good trout cover and summer habitat when upper watershed temps coming into the valley are improved.
|
|
Indian Cr- Indian Valley |
No data. Check DWR data. |
No Indian Valley data. Predict maintenance of Genesee temperatures through Indian Valley. 2001 max temp at mouth of Indian of 80F. Predict decrease of 10-15˚F from cumulative Indian Valley and upper watershed projects. |
Priority 2 Project Reaches
|
Subwatershed |
Stream Name/Phase |
Miles/Acres |
Restoration Technique |
Cost/Mile1 |
Total Cost |
Timeline |
|
Spanish Creek |
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 |
|
Indian Creek |
Lights Cr.- Indian Vly |
5.0/1000 |
Geomorphic or Meadow |
~$300,000 |
~$1,500,000 |
2011 thru 2014 |
|
|
Cooks Cr.- Indian Vly |
4.0/400 |
“ “ |
~$250,000 |
~$1,000,000 |
2011 thru 2014 |
|
|
Wolf Cr.- Indian Vly |
3.0/90 |
Geomorphic channel/reveg |
~ $250,000 |
~ $1,250,000 |
2011 thru 2014 |
|
|
TOTALS |
31/1980 |
|
|
$10,600,000 |
|
1 All costs are estimates. Costs reflect only survey, design, permitting and construction expenses.
Priority II Project Predicted Benefits
|
Stream Name/Phase |
Predicted Fishery Improvement |
Predicted Temperature Improvement |
Comments |
|
Spanish Creek- American Valley |
2001 & 2003 fishery data show 35&115 ml/100yds trout production near mouth of American Valley, respectively. Predict improvement of 30% above 2003 level. |
Temperature data at Gansner Park shows 2003 max of 80F. Expect improvement of 10-15˚F after five years when vegetation establishes. |
Trout measurement inherently difficult due to other factors. Fishing an issue at this site. |
|
Spanish Creek- Meadow Valley |
Fish populations probably OK in this reach. Predict no change. |
No data. Temperatures probably OK in this reach. Predict no change or 1-2˚F decrease at bottom of Meadow Valley. |
Suspected presence of yellow-legged frogs may limit restoration options here. Primary objective of project is erosion control. |
|
Greenhorn- Chandler Creeks –American Valley |
Predict trout improvement similar to Greenhorn Farnworth project. Predict trout response will depend primarily on pool habitat. |
Max temps at Greenhorn mouth in 2001 & 2003 = 77 & 76˚F respectively. 20-61 weekly avg temps >66F. Predict improvement of 3-8˚F. |
Temperature and fishery improvements would most likely be due to project work and ag producer projects to meet RWQCB standards |
|
Lights Creek- Indian Valley |
No trout captured in 2001 or 2003. Predict increase to 30 trout per 100 yds. |
Max temps near Lights mouth from 2000-2003 = 84-88F. 79-110 weekly avg temps >66F. Predict improvement of 10-15˚F. |
Temperature and fishery improvements would most likely be due to project work and ag producer projects to meet RWQCB standards |
|
Cooks Creek.- Indian Valley |
No data. Trout populations unknown. Cannot predict. |
No data. Trout populations unknown. Cannot predict. |
Temperature and fishery improvements would most likely be due to project work and ag producer projects to meet RWQCB standards |
|
Wolf Creek- Indian Valley |
No data. Trout populations unknown. Predict populations to still be influenced by Greenville urban run-off, and not much improved by project work. |
No data downstream of Greenville. Predict maintenance or slight increase (<1F) of Wolf Creek Main St bridge (mid- Greenville) temperatures through this reach. |
Temperature and fishery improvements would most likely be due to project work and ag producer projects to meet RWQCB standards |
FR-CRM Program Coordination
|
Activities |
Funding/Year |
Period |
Total |
|
Program Coordination, monitoring, and education |
$125,000 |
0-15 years |
$1,875,000 |
|
Program Coordination, monitoring, and education |
$75,000 |
16-40 years |
$1,875,000 |
|
Maintenance (5% of 1st Priority Total) |
$16,906 |
0-40 years |
$ 676,250 |
|
Total |
|
|
$4,426,250 |
|
Plumas County Coordination |
|
|
|
Projects Completed 1985-2005
|
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 |
|
Red Clover |
Red Clover Demo Pjt |
1.0/70 |
Check dams |
$172,000 |
$172,000 |
Complete 1985 |
|
“ “ |
Red Clover Phase I |
3.5/345 |
Meadow re-watering |
$314,00 |
$1,100,000 |
2005 thru 2006 |
|
“ “ |
Bagley Creek |
.3/15 |
“ “ |
$30,000 |
$9,000 |
Complete 1997 |
|
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 |
|
Spanish Creek |
Greenhorn- Farnworth |
.75/20 |
Geomorphic channel/reveg |
$200,000 |
$150,000 |
Complete 1991 |
|
|
TOTALS |
20/1705 |
|
|
$3,640,000 |
|
Benefits Monitored 1985-2005
|
Stream Name/Phase Project Type |
Fishery Improvements1 |
Temperature Improvements2 |
Other Benefits |
Data Location |
Comments |
|
Last Chance Valley Cottonwood/Big Flat Meadow Re-watering |
Pre=0 Post=1280 trout/mile |
Decrease 2˚C in project area (6/98 anecdotal) |
Flow duration |
New Concepts Paper & Big Flat monitoring file |
|
|
Last Chance Valley- Clarks/ Creek Phase I Meadow Re-watering I |
No benefit yet observed |
No data |
Wildlife |
DWR Clarks Wildlife Monitoring Report March 2005 |
Implementation during drought- dry channel |
|
Last Chance Creek- Stone Dairy Meadow Re-watering |
n/a |
n/a |
Decrease erosion; store water |
n/a |
Intermittent drainage – no channel |
|
Last Chance Creek Mainstem Phase I (CalFed) Meadow Re-watering |
Fish populations in steady decline 1997-2005. 3yrs of data. |
In process; Some improvement, some unimproved. Decrease of 10.7F thru 4.8 miles in late 6/04. 2005 decrease daily max by 1.7F in Jordan Flat 6/15-7/31. 8/31/05 decrease in Alk.Flat by 4.5C. |
Store water – see well data |
FR-CRM Monitoring Computer. DWR Last Chance monitoring files. DWR Draft Report. |
Stanford temperature and evapotranspiration paper to be published soon. Drying channels makes temperature monitoring difficult. |
|
Red Clover Creek Demonstration Pjoject Check dams |
0 trout pre-project; 4-32 post-project |
Coldwater refugia in depths of ponds & immediately downstream |
waterfowl |
Red Clover Cr 10-Yr Research Summary 1995; PG&E |
Fish habitat in deeper pools created behind check dams |
|
Red Clover Creek, Phase I Meadow Re-watering |
Pre-project=1 trout in 2004; 9 in 2005.
|
Pre-project 2005 daily max temperature increase of 6.3F through proj area 6/15-8/31 |
|
FRCRM monitoring computer |
Project to be completed in 2006 |
|
RCC- Bagley Creek |
No data |
No data |
|
|
|
|
Indian Cr- Boulder Creek |
No data |
No data |
|
|
|
|
Indian Cr-Ward Creek |
No data |
n/a |
Water storage |
|
Temperature never an issue here |
|
Indian Cr- Hosselkus Creek , Phase I /II |
n/a |
6/27/05 afternoon, temperature decreased 4.5˚C thru 1400’ project area |
Water storage |
Well monitoring data |
No fishery in this seasonal channel |
|
Indian Cr.- Wolf Creek Geomorphic Channel Reconstruction and revegetation- Phases I-III through the town of Greenville |
No trout captured in ’01 or ’03, both post-project. |
Water temperature increased <1F in one mile in 2001through Greenville |
|
Draft Wolf Monitoring Report |
Project is in an urban setting, which may partly explain the lack of trout. A temperature increase of only 1˚F is a significant improvement where vegetation response was very slow due to the urban setting. |
|
Spanish Cr- Greenhorn Creek Farnworth property |
Pre-project=2 in 408 ft. Call Richard Flint for post-project |
n/a |
Decrease erosion |
DFG |
Temperature was never an issue in this project area |
1 Fishery Improvement measurements are based on electrofishing results, which are, by nature, highly variable between years due to other factors such as flows, precipitation, air temperatures.
2 It still may be too soon to tell temperature improvements in meadow re-watering projects. Big Flat dries up early in the summer, and Last Chance is still recovering from the construction, completed in 2004, with more to continue in 2005. Temperature measurements seem to be highly dependent on depth of the thermometer. Temperature improvements also seem to be primarily expressed when the stored groundwater from the project begins to show up in the surface water, downstream of the actual project work. Detecting change may require more sampling points than we have used thus far.
All studies referenced and quoted in this report are available on the FR CRM website @ www.Feather-River-CRM.org (under “publications”).