Final Report Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex Consolidated Grants Proposition 40 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Prop 40

Transcription

1 Final Report Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex Consolidated Grants Proposition 40 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Prop 40 Agreement No ARRA Agreement No State Revolving Fund Project No. C Plumas Corporation, Feather River Coordinated Resource Management June 2010

2 Table of Contents Project Summary... 1 Figure 1. Project Locations... 2 Little Last Chance Creek... 3 Figure 2. Little Last Chance Creek Project Locations... 4 Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch Background... 4 Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch Project Description (Implementation)... 5 Figure 3. Little Last Chance Creek- Guidici Ranch Bank Treatment Areas... 6 Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch Project Funding... 6 Figure 4. Photo of revegetation efforts on Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch... 6 Figure 5. Pre- and Post-project photos Pasture Treatment Area on Guidici Ranch... 7 Figure 6. Pre- and Post-project photos Treatment Area A on Guidici Ranch... 8 Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch Project Monitoring and Performance... 8 Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch Project Lessons Learned... 9 Little Last Chance Creek-Guidici Ranch Project Follow Up Activities... 9 Little Last Chance Creek-Riffle Augmentation Background... 9 Little Last Chance Creek-Riffle Augmentation Project Description (Implementation) Figure 7. Typical cross-section of Riffle Augmentation Project Design Little Last Chance Creek-Riffle Augmentation Project Funding Little Last Chance Creek-Riffle Augmentation Project Monitoring and Performance Little Last Chance Creek-Riffle Augmentation Project Lessons Learned Little Last Chance Creek-Riffle Augmentation Follow Up Activities Boulder Creek Boulder Creek Background Boulder Creek Project Description (Implementation) Figure 8. Typical cross-section of Boulder Creek gully, fill, and channel dimensions Boulder Creek Project Funding Boulder Creek Project Monitoring and Performance Figure 9. Turbidity data collected on Sulphur Creek Boulder Creek Project Lessons Learned Boulder Creek Follow Up Activities Smith Creek... 20

3 Smith Creek Background Smith Creek Project Description (Implementation) Figure 10. Typical cross-section of Smith Creek gully, fill, and channel dimensions Figure 11. Aerial photo of Smith Creek Project June Figure 12. Photo of bank stabilization segment on Smith Creek Smith Creek Project Funding Smith Creek Project Monitoring and Performance Smith Creek Project Lessons Learned Smith Creek Follow Up Activities Long Valley Creek Long Valley Creek Background Long Valley Creek Project Description (Implementation) Figure 13. Aerial photo of Long Valley Creek Project June Long Valley Creek Project Funding Long Valley Creek Project Monitoring and Performance Long Valley Creek Project Lessons Learned Long Valley Creek Follow Up Activities Sulphur Creek Bank Stabilization Sulphur Bank Stabilization Background Sulphur Bank Stabilization Project Description (Implementation) Figure 14. Before and After Photos of Sulphur Bank Stabilization Project Figure 15. Typical cross-section of Sulphur Creek Bank pre- and post-project dimensions Sulphur Bank Stabilization Project Funding Sulphur Bank Stabilization Monitoring and Performance Sulphur Bank Stabilization Lessons Learned Sulphur Bank Stabilization Follow Up Activities Coordination Conclusions Appendix A Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex Monitoring Report... 35

4 Project Summary The Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex Project was initially funded by the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) in 2006 with Proposition 40 funding. When Proposition 40 funding was frozen in December 2008, the project was re-authorized with funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in June This report summarizes project work under both funding sources; where possible, ARRA-funded activities are discussed separately. The Feather River comprises 22% of the Sierra Nevada water supply to California. The Middle Fork is the second-largest fork of the Feather, and has been subject to over 100 years of watershed impacts such as mining, logging, grazing, road building, and most recently, housing developments. These impacts have resulted in systemic down-cutting of stream channels, significant increases in bedload, and a loss of the system s resiliency to perturbation. The Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex project addressed systemic and ecological function to restore the system s resiliency. The project consisted of a suite of five channel/floodplain and bank stabilization restoration projects on five tributaries to the upper Middle Fork Feather River: Little Last Chance Creek, Boulder Creek, Smith Creek, Long Valley Creek, and Sulphur Creek. Little Last Chance Creek was reconnected to the floodplain using boulder vane treatments and riffle augmentation. The pond and plug technique was used on the other three tributaries. Due to construction cost-savings in the Proposition 40 Agreement, the Sulphur Creek project, a 500 foot bank stabilization project, was included in 2009 under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) funding agreement. In the original Proposition 40 grant application, we stated that four projects would restore 1,235 acres of floodplain, and 8.26 miles of stream channel. The actual area of restoration was 833 acres of riparian area, and 7.6 miles of channel. This discrepancy was due to using the project analysis area acreages in the grant application versus the affected area of hydrologic change acreage after implementation. The reduction in acreages occurred from mitigations imposed due to resource constraints ranging from sensitive botanical and archaeological sites to existing infrastructure and water rights constraints within the analysis areas, along with changes in landowner participation. The total Proposition 40 award amount was $1,068,000, with $897,555 in non-state match that the project partners would contribute. When the contract was re-authorized with ARRA funding, an additional $35,000 was awarded, for a total project budget of $2,000,555. Match requirements were met under the Proposition 40 Agreement and therefore were not carried over to the ARRA Agreement. Total project funds from SWRCB project agreements used for on-the ground construction of five restoration projects, design and environmental clearance, project effectiveness monitoring, reporting, and program coordination was $1,102,974, with $907,982 in matching funds contributed for a total project cost of $2,010,956. The primary purpose of the Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex project was to restore the function of the channel/floodplain system and stabilize eroding banks in five tributaries. All five tributary project locations are shown in Figure 1. Functional channel/floodplain systems provide myriad benefits. For the landowners, benefits include halting the loss of land from erosion due to gully expansion, more efficient irrigation, and improved productivity for grazing. Public benefits are realized through watershed function and water quality. The primary function of the floodplain is infiltration, which leads to flood attenuation, increased base flows, less temperature fluctuation, and less sedimentation. In addition, all of these benefits are achieved while improving aquatic and riparian habitats for fish and wildlife.

5 Figure 1. Project Locations Calfed objectives met through these projects include: 1a) maximizing use of existing water supplies; 1b) increased flexibility of water systems; 1c) & 5a) development of new, local groundwater storage; 7b) better habitat for fish at critical times; 8h) rehabilitate natural processes; 8j) protect and restore functional habitats; 8l) improve and maintain water and sediment quality. Four of the projects rehabilitated the natural process of floodplain function (i.e. restoring the elevation of the shallow floodplain groundwater aquifer) and the Sulphur Creek bank stabilization project reduced bank erosion, thus achieving the objectives listed above. In preproject conditions, when the channels were an average eight feet below the elevation of the floodplain, any precipitation that infiltrated into the floodplain seeped out the gully walls relatively early in the season. In the restored condition, water in the floodplain aquifer moves both toward the channel, and down valley, providing an incremental source of cool groundwater to each channel s surface water supply. While all projects showed an improvement in soil moisture, water supply and use objectives were particularly relevant on the Little Last Chance Riffle Augmentation project and the Long Valley project, which were the only two projects 2

6 involving irrigated lands. Water entering the channel is cleaner and cooler once it does enter the channel. Project monitoring showed that two of the five projects reduced maximum water temperatures, and three of the five projects reduced turbidity. As floodplain vegetation improves over time (increasing infiltration and shading), temperature, turbidity, and other water quality parameters (i.e. nutrients) are also expected to improve. Other fish habitat parameters were also improved by the projects: fine substrates were decreased in two of the five projects, bank stability was increased in all five projects, and pool habitat was increased in all five of the projects (if the entire project length, not just the sample segment is considered). Fish population sampling and evaluation was problematic due to the inaccessibility of the best fish habitat in the restored condition (i.e. fish were most likely to be in the pond bottoms during post-project sampling; however, those areas were not accessible with a backpack electroshocker). The Feather River Coordinated Resource Management group (FRCRM) will monitor fisheries in future pond and plug projects using catch-per-unit-effort to avoid this difficulty. The quality and extent of riparian habitat was improved in all five projects, simply by restoring the channel to the floodplain elevation and reducing bank erosion allowing establishment of riparian vegetation. In the pre-project condition, functional riparian habitats were confined to the gully or non-existent. Photo monitoring in Appendix A shows the dramatic improvement in riparian habitats as a result of the project. Benefits are described further in Appendix A in terms of the Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan (PAEP) and in more detail under each tributary project below. Little Last Chance Creek This project is located in two separate areas shown in Figure 2: 1) Adams Neck on the Guidici Ranch; and 2) Sierra Valley above Highway 70 in Vinton. The projects are respectively referred to as the Guidici Ranch Bank Stabilization and Riffle Augmentation. Each of the two project areas are described separately below. The Guidici Ranch portion of the project was used as match for the Proposition 40 funding for the Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex Project. Both Little Last Chance Creek project areas were advertised, awarded, and administered as one construction contract. 3

7 Figure 2. Little Last Chance Creek Projects Little Last Chance Creek Guidici Ranch Background The project area, located just downstream of a Forest Service campground, encompasses a onemile segment of Little Last Chance Creek that traverses both USFS-administered lands and the Guidici Ranch. Within the project area, Little Last Chance Creek has downcut deeply into its naturally-evolved valley and no longer accesses its floodplain. The sediment supply and annual hydrograph are also heavily influenced by the effects of Frenchman Dam, which is located four miles upstream of the project area. 4

8 The project was brought to the FRCRM staff by the landowner, Don Guidici and then-county Supervisor B.J. Pearson. The landowner was concerned about the continuous, active erosion occurring in numerous locations along the one-mile reach on both private and public ownership. The erosion was repeatedly undermining fences used to control livestock as well as claiming valuable agricultural lands. Concurrently, sediment from these sources was impacting onsite and downstream aquatic communities. These migrating banks, up to 11 feet high, were also contributing to finger gully development into the adjacent pastures. One actively eroding bank was within 10 feet of Forest Road 23N07. Due to the requirements and focus of the Plumas County RAC, who funded this project, it was monitored separately from the Proposition 40-funded projects. A full project final report (including monitoring) can be viewed on the Feather River CRM website (feather-river-crm.org). Little Last Chance Creek Guidici Ranch Project Description (Implementation) The goal of this project was to prevent further loss of meadow and degradation of water quality and fish habitat by halting the on-going bank erosion. An associated goal was to increase fish populations within the project area. The project entailed treatment of eroding banks in a total of 12 locations along the project reach shown in Figure 3 (areas B & C shown in Figure 3 were not treated because of a natural trend toward stability). Primarily, the treatments instituted for this project were: 1) bank shaping; 2) channel re-alignment and floodplain shaping; 3) boulder vanes; 4) W weirs, and; 5) revegetation. Each of the 12 treatment locations incorporated one or more of these treatments in an integrated approach that maintained the hydraulic continuity of the fluvial system while eliminating the egregious bank erosion. Approximately 1,135 cubic yards of 3-foot minus boulders from the Bar One Ranch pit in Sierra Valley were used to construct 71 boulder vanes. Re-vegetation work consisted of: using heavy equipment to relocate large rooted plants from bars for use on the meander outcurve floodplain bench; planting willow slips and some wattles during construction and again in fall 2008; seeding with both commercial and locally collected native grass and sedge seed during construction and again in fall 2008 (The photo in Figure 4 shows local students spreading native seed in the project area.); transplanting 10,000 native plants from the Feather River College greenhouse including willow, cottonwood, bitter brush, monkeyflower, sedges, and meadow penstemmon. 5

9 Figure 3. Bank treatment areas on Little Last Chance Creek at the Guidici Ranch. Little Last Chance Creek Guidici Ranch Project Funding Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee $155,000 Rock and transport from Plumas NF Fisheries Program $ 20,000 Fence management and reconstruction from landowner $ 2,000 Environmental surveys (wildlife, botany, archaeology) from downstream landowner, Rockridge LTD $ 15,000 Fishery monitoring assistance from Dept. Water Resources and CA Dept. Fish & Game $ 600 Preliminary design work from Plumas Watershed Forum $ 2,500 $195,100 These funds on the Guidici Ranch portion of the project were used as match for the Proposition 40 funds, which primarily funded the valley portion of the project. Out of six bidders, the construction bid was awarded to Hat Creek Construction for $318, for both projects. Project construction on the Guidici portion began on October 8 th and was completed on November 5, Costs for the heavy equipment phase of the Guidici project were approximately $112,367. The remaining funds were used for monitoring, revegetation, weed removal, project-related equipment, fencing, and contract administration. Figure 4. Feather River College students assist with seeding and spreading straw. The California Conservation Corps and students from Jim Beckwourth High School also participated in revegetation efforts. 6

10 Figures 5. Little Last Chance Creek at Guidici Ranch, Pasture Treatment Area. Upper left: Pre-construction Oct 2007 Upper right: One year post-construction Nov 2008 Lower left: Close-up July

11 Figures 6. Treatment Area A. Upper photo: Pre-project Sept 2005; Lower left photo: One year post-project Oct 2008; Lower right photo: Post-project Sept Here, as in most cases, rooted vegetation on the treated bank came from the opposite point bar. One of the objectives of the treatment was to equalize the vegetative resistance on both banks. Little Last Chance Creek Guidici Ranch Project Monitoring & Performance Monitoring data were collected for one year pre-project and one year post-project. Water temperature, turbidity, cross-sections, fish habitat and populations, and bank stability were monitored. None of the post-project data showed a significant difference from pre-project conditions. There were several factors that may have contributed to these disappointing results: 1) Match funding did not allow for more than one year of post-project monitoring; a project like this generally requires two to three years to allow vegetation to re-establish before measurable benefits appear. 2) Post-project data were often collected by different people than pre-project data, and some of the results may be from observer bias. The project area is now a Plumas 8

12 National Forest Stream Condition Inventory site, (which included pre-project data collection) and is scheduled to be re-surveyed in ) The use of the creek as an irrigation delivery channel results in the highest flows in early May before vegetation becomes established. This seems to be retarding the vegetative response to the project. The as-built cross-sections show a bank slope change from a nearly vertical slope that could not support vegetation to an approximately 2:1 slope that can support vegetation. Summer delivery flows can range from 100 cfs to 2 cfs. The highest flow since implementation was 97 cfs in May The channel is adjusting to the project work. Flow vectors were designed to stay within the center of the channel, however, this is not happening in all cases. As mentioned below, in Treatment Areas E and I found in Figure 3, the channel is working around behind some of the vanes. Little Last Chance Creek Guidici Ranch Project Lessons Learned When cutting off a meander following an avulsed overflow channel, do not build a channel that necessarily follows the existing overflow channel alignment. Create meanders in the channel that help to mimic the existing slope. Existing avulsion channels most likely increase the slope too much. Also, by building in meanders to the new channel, boulder vanes can be employed. The cross-vanes in the two straighter sections of channel are not working as well as the vanes on meanders. In both straight areas (see Areas E and I in Figure 3), the channel is eating around some of the vanes, and appearing to develop meanders. Water rights in Little Last Chance Creek are judicially decreed. Water rights considerations played a major role in project design. Working early and often with downstream users, and addressing their concerns, was necessary to completing this project. When working in irrigation delivery channels, such as Little Last Chance Creek, it should be assumed that there will be a bankfull flow before the first growing season. Therefore, some of the installed bank vegetation work will be under the most stress even before it has had a chance to root into the bank. With that in mind, installed vegetation should have extra structural armoring to withstand early high flows. Working with downstream users may help alleviate that problem; however, we did not ask water users to alter their early season deliveries. Little Last Chance Creek Guidici Ranch Follow Up Activities As mentioned above, the project area is scheduled to be re-surveyed with the Stream Condition Inventory in 2012 by the Plumas National Forest, and every five years thereafter. The FRCRM will conduct its third and final year of hand-weeding the project area in It is not anticipated that more hand vegetation work will be required. Little Last Chance Creek Riffle Augmentation Background Little Last Chance Creek has been extremely modified; since the mid-1800 s the channel s alluvial fan and floodplain have been used for agriculture. Frenchman Dam was built in the early 1960 s. One of the primary purposes of the dam was to augment the agricultural productivity of Sierra Valley below the dam. With the construction of the dam also came the construction of irrigation channels and diversion dams to carry the newly tamed streamflow. The two Little Last Chance Creek channels in the project area are locally referred to as North 9

13 Creek and East Creek. There are seven diversion dams along these channels, including the division dam at the top of the project area that divides Little Last Chance Creek into North and East Creeks. With the passage of time, the diversion dams have weakened, and some have completely failed. It has been in the ranchers interest to maintain these dams so that they can continue to irrigate their fields. Landowners in the project area have expressed frustration with local natural resource agencies, because regulations have precluded the ranchers from getting in the channel and doing the necessary work to maintain their dams. When the lowest dam on North Creek failed, a significant headcut started to migrate upstream, threatening other dams and generating rapid gully development and expansion. The landowners requested assistance with bed stabilization and erosion control. The Sierra Valley Resource Conservation District and the FRCRM worked with other landowners in the vicinity to gage their concerns over this and potentially similar situations. The 780 acre project analysis area was delineated based on landowners that wanted to participate in a stabilization project. Landowners and the Plumas Watershed Forum contributed to the project, and it was included with other projects in the Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex. Infrastructure reduced the number of options available for restoration. Housing on the floodplain, highway culverts at the bottom of the project area, and downstream water rights holders dictated the need to maintain flows within these channels. The goal of the project was to stabilize the channel banks and bed within the existing constraints. The final acreage of potential hydrologic effect was 531 acres surrounding three miles of treated channel. Several hurdles were encountered during project development. The main hurdle was funding, because the project concept included an expensive fix that entailed importing rock to augment riffles on three miles of channel. We were fortunate that there was a rock source only five miles from the project site, and that our Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex application was funded. One of the landowners backed out of the project during the environmental clearance phase; however, we were able to continue with the project by working around the excluded parcels. Several landowners downstream of the project, through the Last Chance Irrigation District, expressed concern that they would not receive their full allotment of water if the project were completed; however, they were willing to let the project go forward. Another significant hurdle was encountered during project construction. One of the downstream landowners complained that they were not getting water during construction. Water was pumped around each work site to ensure downstream flow, and to protect water quality; however, after riffle construction each pool took longer to fill than anticipated. Fortunately, one of the participating landowners had not used his full allotment of water, so he requested a flow delivery thus enabling us to maintain streamflow during construction. Little Last Chance Creek - Riffle Augmentation Project Description (Implementation) The primary goal of this project was to restore function to the floodplain by raising riffles to encourage more frequent flow access to the floodplain. Landowners were primarily interested in halting channel bed and bank erosion that was threatening their irrigation dams, eroding grazing land, and hampering irrigation efficiency. Following is a brief description of how the project met the Calfed objectives described in the Non-point Source Pollution Control Program (NPSPC) application: 10

14 1a) Maximize use of existing water supplies: Project increased irrigation efficiency by raising the elevation of the groundwater table. 1b) Increase flexibility of water systems: By increasing irrigation efficiency, flexibility of water use is improved for the landowner. Due to the subsequent dry years after project construction, increased flexibility has not been realized for any other entity in the Last Chance Irrigation District. Allotments have been reduced for everyone due to the low lake level behind Frenchman Dam. It is not known whether or not any of the landowners in the project area would use less of their full allotment as a result of the project. Water users downstream of the project area have reported an increased lag time for their water deliveries since the project was completed. Water quantities delivered to downstream water users have not changed as a result of the project. 1c) & 5a) Develop new, local groundwater storage: The function of the floodplain to store shallow groundwater was restored by eliminating the bottom of the gully as the drainage elevation of the floodplain. 7b) Better habitat for fish at critical times: Little Last Chance Creek is locally known as an excellent (mostly brown) trout fishery. Without a more thorough fishery investigation, critical times for trout are unknown; however, two times are likely candidates: late summer when water temperatures peak; and winter, when irrigation dams are lowered and dam pools revert to shallow riffles. The project decreased maximum water temperatures on North Creek, but increased them on East Creek (by the same amount). The project created year-round pool habitat between the riffles. 8h) Rehabilitate natural processes: Floodplain function has been severely curtailed throughout much of the United States due to a number of reasons, such as poor land use, improperly constructed roads and channel crossings, heavy land use, systematic elimination of riparian vegetation, channelization, etc. By raising riffles from an average 5.4 feet below the floodplain to an average 2.5 ft below the floodplain, the channel has been re-connected to the floodplain, and processes such as groundwater storage and release are rehabilitated. 8j) Protect and restore functional habitats: Riparian habitats were protected from further erosion. 8l) Improve and maintain water and sediment quality: Water quality was improved by reducing turbidity by 71%. See fish habitat discussion ((7b) above) for temperature. Sediment quality was not a goal in this project. The project entailed constructing 98 rock riffles using 11,121 cubic yards of imported two-foot minus pit material from the Bar One Ranch pit in Vinton, mixed together with approximately 1,962 cubic yards of bed material that was excavated between the riffles. A typical cross section of the riffle design is illustrated in Figure 7. Hat Creek Construction continued work on this project after completing the Guidici Ranch work. Construction began on this project on November 6 and ended on December 11, Three excavators, six 20-yard end-dump trucks, one water truck, a track loader, and a 2 cfs-capacity pump were used to construct the project. The total construction cost of the project was $351,708 which includes all of the materials, equipment and operators, fencing contractor, the project manager, and another part-time ground assistant. Follow-up revegetation, weeding, and fencing were completed in the summers of 2008 and 2009 using Plumas Corporation personnel, a volunteer, contractors, and the California Conservation Corps. 11

15 Figure 7. Typical cross-section showing gully dimensions, fill, and completed project channel dimensions. Despite signed agreements with landowners to provide fencing for the project, none of the landowner-funded fencing was completed for several reasons: One landowner sold his herd soon after completion of the project, and has had little to no grazing in the project area since completion, making fencing irrelevant. Another landowner only has three horses grazing a large pasture, with very little impact on streambanks. The Plumas Corporation project manager and landowner determined together that fencing was not necessary. One landowner sold her property, and the new landowner agreed to fencing only if the project paid for it; with agreement from the SWRCB Project Manager, the project paid for fencing on this and one other property. The remaining landowner only grazes animals after haying, thus keeping animals off of the banks during the most productive period in the growing season. The Plumas Corporation project manager and landowner have been monitoring the progress of revegetation. Most of the channel is adequately re-vegetating; however the lower portion of that property may still need to be fenced, depending on the 2010 growing season. Little Last Chance Creek Riffle Augmentation Project Funding The following is a summary of project funding. Further details on project expenditures and matching funds are available in the submitted quarterly reports and invoices for this project. Projected Costs (not including coord.) Actual Project Costs (Grant Funds Spent) Prop 40 $467,500 $342,089 ARRA $ 28,500 $ 41,502 TOTAL $496,000 $383,590 Prop 40 Non-State Share (Funding Match) Non-State Match Spent $506,950 $372,718 (74% of match amount) 12

16 Match details: Ted Ramelli, landowner: $20,000 irrigation dam repair with additional $20,000 from existing NRCS contract Not met. Because Ted Ramelli sold his herd (he s in his mid-80 s), he did not want to pay this 50% match for NRCS to fund his dam repair. The riffle project made the dam replacement moot for channel stabilization. $25,100 permanent fencing to establish a riparian pasture (a proposed NRCS contract) Not met. See above. (Fencing costs based on $2.25/ft.) $1,000 three-year deferred grazing during project area recovery (8 acres). Match exceeded. Landowner sold his herd, and has not grazed the project area since construction. Mark Dotta, landowner: $16,000 permanent fencing to establish a riparian pasture with additional $16,000 from NRCS $990 two-year deferred grazing during project area recovery (11 acres) Not met. This landowner pulled out of the project during the environmental clearance phase. Bernard Tolotti, landowner: $1,000 permanent fencing riparian exclosure Not met. Grazing lessee determined that the light use and small size of the pasture precluded the need for fencing. Plumas Corp Project Manager agreed. $1,260 excluded grazing (1.4 acres) Not met. Light use made exclusion unnecessary. Kevin McInerney, landowner: $35,000 funding for environmental surveys Match met with cash contribution. $30,000 repair/replacement of three irrigation dams Match met with completion of the dam repair work in fall $14,400 permanent riparian exclusion fencing Not met. Because of other landowners not meeting this match, the SWRCB Project Manager, and Plumas Corp Project Manager decided to fund the fencing on this property. $ 6,600 excluded grazing (7.3 acres, 20 yr) Match currently being met. Dave Goss, landowner: $25,200 temporary or permanent riparian fencing Match partially met ($6,000): Temporary electric exclusion fencing has been used for two grazing seasons. $ 1,700 deferred grazing for three years (13 acres) Match currently being met. Additional match of $1,418 for use of irrigation pipe for pumping water during construction 13

17 Bud Bertrand, landowner: $300 temporary electric fencing $400 deferred grazing for three years (3 acres) Neither match met. Use is light in project area; fence not necessary. Don Guidici, landowner: $2,000 fence moving for construction Match met with cash contribution. Plumas Watershed Forum- $115,000 project funding Match met with cash contribution Plumas National Forest- $20,000 cash contribution for rock and delivery on Guidici Ranch Match met with cash contribution USDA Forest Service Resource Advisory Committee- $155,000 Guidici Ranch project funding Match met with cash contribution Please Note: The value of deferred grazing is calculated based on $45 per acre of irrigated pasture, with the acreage calculated by multiplying the length of channel on that landowner s property by a width of 100 feet. Little Last Chance Creek Riffle Augmentation Project Monitoring & Performance Monitoring data were collected for one year pre-project, and two years post-project for timesensitive parameters. Please see Appendix A for detailed monitoring results. In general, project monitoring showed that the project resulted in measurable improvements to two of the four goals monitored in the PAEP: groundwater recharge and fish habitat. Measuring the fish population after project construction proved to be problematic because of the increased pool size. The poor post-project fish sampling results probably do not reflect the project s effect on the fishery. Although, anecdotal observations from fisherman indicate that the fishery may be slightly worse than it was pre-project. It is expected that the fishery will improve with time. Water quality results were equivocal, with maximum water temperatures increased in one channel, and decreased in the other channel. Sediment was reduced in both. The highest flows the project has seen since construction are 29 cfs in East Creek and 35 cfs in North Creek in Because the channel is regulated from Frenchman Dam, only a flood event similar to April 2006 would cause an exceedance of flows of this magnitude. The project was designed to keep 200 cfs in each channel before spilling. The riffles are stable and the banks are vegetating. The riffles allow a more constant water level in the channel, so that vegetation can occupy the bank up to the water s edge. Before the project, vegetation could grow to the water s edge only during the irrigation season. In winter, the water was approximately three feet below the vegetation line, leaving that section of bank vulnerable to erosion from infrequent flood flows. The establishment of a year-round vegetation line is an important feature in the stabilization of these irrigation delivery channels. 14

18 Little Last Chance Creek Riffle Augmentation Project Lessons Learned It was an interesting process to gain enough trust between landowners and this governmentfunded project to allow the project to proceed. The key was mutual interest and a real need that the landowners had. Because the project did not involve ground disturbance, no additional seeding was completed. If a similar project were constructed, sedge seed would be incorporated into the banks with the final layer of rock. There were a few bull thistles in the project area before construction. There were more after construction, and consequently, more post-project weeding to be done. As a result of this observation, weeds were removed from the Long Valley project area prior to construction, as well as after construction. The large (2 cfs) pump worked very well for moving water around the work areas. The original plan was to divert water around work areas using irrigation ditches. This would not have worked as well due to loss in the ditches. Little Last Chance Creek Riffle Augmentation Follow Up Activities The long term stability of stream banks on North and East creeks will depend upon vegetation. Annual bank inspections by the landowners and/or Plumas Corporation staff should ensure that problem areas are addressed. Likely treatments would be additional vegetation or temporary fencing. Flows and photos points will be monitored during the next flood event in these channels. The third and final year of hand-weeding will occur in Boulder Creek Boulder Creek Background Boulder Creek is tributary to Sulphur Creek, which is tributary to the Middle Fork Feather River. FRCRM began work in the Sulphur Creek watershed in 1995 with an inset bank stabilization project on the main stem of Sulphur Creek. Project features were damaged the following year in a 100-year flood event 1. The damage to that project (and other attempts in the watershed to stabilize the rapidly eroding system), coupled with continuing landowner requests for erosion control assistance, led the FRCRM to seek funding for a Sulphur Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Strategy. The SWRCB funded this planning effort with Proposition 13 funds. The Assessment and Strategy identified Boulder Creek and its tributary, Haskell Creek, as two of the highest priority sub-watersheds, due to their active headcutting through an alluvial fan, and delivery of coarse sediment to the main stem of Sulphur Creek and then into the Middle Fork Feather River. 1 The FR-CRM s first pond and plug project was also built in 1995, and performed well in that same event. 15

19 Similar to the Little Last Chance Creek projects, the Boulder Creek project was actually two projects: a Prop 40-funded project on Boulder Creek, and an adjoining project on Haskell Creek, funded by the Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC). The Haskell Creek project served as match for the Prop 40 grant funding. The Haskell Creek project was constructed in 2007 and 2008, and the Boulder Creek project was constructed in 2008, with supplemental work completed in 2009, under ARRA funding. The projects are discussed together below because they treated the same issue, had the same goal, and used the same restoration technique. Four properties were involved with the project; two on each creek. Grazing is the primary land use for the upper parcel on Haskell Creek, and the rest of the project area is primarily open space aesthetic. The upper parcel on Haskell Creek changed ownership during the planning phase of the project, and a portion of Boulder Creek was sold to a new landowner. Both new landowners allowed the project to continue forward. Boulder Creek Project Description (Implementation) The primary goal of this project was to restore the natural functions of the floodplain. The landowners were primarily interested in halting bank erosion. A pond and plug design was chosen as the best technique to achieve the goals of the project. Calfed objectives met through this project are discussed more thoroughly under the project monitoring section of this report. Following is a brief description of how the project met the Calfed objectives described in the NPSPC application: 1a) Maximize use of existing water supplies: Other than improving the capacity of the watershed to store and release precipitation, this project did not address water supply issues. 1b) Increase flexibility of water systems: See 1a). 1c) & 5a) Develop new, local groundwater storage: The function of the floodplain to store shallow groundwater was restored by eliminating the bottom of the gully as the drainage elevation of the floodplain. 7b) Better habitat for fish at critical times: Without a thorough fishery investigation, critical times for trout are unknown; however, late summer is the most likely critical time for trout, when water temperatures peak. Post-project water temperatures were not comparable to pre-project water temperatures, because of misplacement of the post-project measurement. Therefore, the project s affect on water temperature is not known. Project area water temperatures were known to be cool prior to project construction, because the channel supported trout, and it is expected that the project created cool water refugia in the bottom of the ponds. Water temperatures will be measured again in the summer of h) Rehabilitate natural processes: In pre-project conditions, the channel was an average of seven feet below the elevation of the floodplain, with little to no floodplain water storage. The project restored the channel back to the elevation of the floodplain. Natural processes such as groundwater storage and release and hyporheic exchange was re-established. With this configuration, the channel can more frequently overbank, thus transforming the project area from an erosion/transport reach to a stable deposition reach. 8j) Protect and restore functional habitats: Riparian habitat within the project area was restored and expanded from the confines of the gully, to the meadow floodplain. Meadow habitat was protected from further erosion from an expanding gully. Aquatic habitat was protected and enhanced by reducing the generation of fine sediments from gully walls and by providing a 16

20 complexity of habitat types. Considering the project area as a whole, the extent of pool habitat was increased. 8l) Improve and maintain water and sediment quality: See 8j for sedimentation and temperature water quality improvements. Sediment quality was not a goal in this project. On Haskell Creek, the project entailed constructing 12 ponds and 16 plugs in a 32- acre project area (0.4 miles of channel), using 13,732 cubic yards of native material, and 1,658 cubic yards of 3-foot minus pit material to build a grade control at the bottom of the project. The landowner, Ronald Rapp, contributed heavy equipment to the project on Haskell Creek. Construction on the lower property began in late August and ended on September 28, Construction on the upper property occurred on September 16-September 26, Two excavators, a bulldozer, two 10-yard dump trucks and a wheel loader were used to construct the project. The total construction cost of the project was $174,603, including equipment and operators, the project manager, and another part-time ground assistant. Follow-up revegetation and weeding were completed in the summers of 2008 and 2009 using Plumas Corporation personnel, a contractor, and the California Conservation Corps. Figure 8. Typical cross-section of Boulder Creek showing gully, fill, and completed project channel dimensions. On Boulder Creek, the project entailed constructing 11 ponds and 13 plugs in a 17 acre project area (2,982 feet of channel), using 15,832 cubic yards of native material, and 48 cubic yards of 3-foot minus pit material to build a grade control at the bottom of the project. Figure 8 depicts a typical cross-section on Boulder Creek illustrating the pre-project gully and post-project channel design. Genesis Systems International, Inc. was the winning bidder (out of six) for the project, with a bid of $46,440. Construction began on Boulder Creek on September 30, 2008 and ended on October 24, One excavator, one wheel loader, one bulldozer, and one water truck were used to construct the project. The total construction cost was $85,302 in 2008, including 17

21 equipment and operators, the project manager, and a ground assistant. Minor follow-up construction work was completed in August 2009, using ARRA funding. Follow-up revegetation and weeding were completed in the summers of 2008 and 2009 using Plumas Corporation personnel, a contractor, and the California Conservation Corps. The total cost of the 2009 construction and follow-up work was $10,419. Boulder Creek Project Funding The following is a summary of project funding. Further details on project expenditures and matching funds are available in the submitted quarterly reports and invoices for this project. Projected Costs (not including coord.) Actual Project Costs (Grant Funds Spent) Prop 40 $ 75,000 $103,689 ARRA $ 6,200 $ 14,094 TOTAL $ 81,200 $117,783 Prop 40 Non-State Share (Funding Match) Non-State Match Spent $168,725 $173,737 (103% of match amount) Match details: Ronald Rapp, landowner use of his heavy equipment $24,000 Match partially met $ 14,972 40,000 sq ft sedge mats for reveg $ 10,800 Match met Guidici Estate, landowner deferred grazing two years $ 350 Match met land sold before project construction. No grazing for new landowner. Mike Murray, new landowner additional match - heavy equipment $ 12,780 Citizen Volunteers Citizen Monitoring Match met for monitoring $ 2,000 Additional match - Fish moving $ 1,260 USDA Forest Service RAC project funding $131,575 Match met with cash contribution Boulder Creek Monitoring & Performance Monitoring data were collected for one year pre-project, and one year post-project. Please see Appendix A for detailed monitoring results. In general, project monitoring showed that the project resulted in measurable improvements to two of the four goals monitored in the PAEP: groundwater recharge and fish habitat. As with all of the projects, measuring the fish population after project construction proved to be problematic. In all of the pond and plug projects, the ponds provided inaccessible refugia to the fish, so that they could not be captured with a 18

22 backpack electroshocker. Here again, the poor post-project fish sampling results probably do not reflect the project s effect on the fishery. Water quality parameters also did not show improvements, due most likely to temperature sampling error and slow revegetation. Even though high flows in April 2009 occurred before the first growing season after project construction on Boulder Creek in 2008, turbidity sampling taken by citizen monitors below the project area at the Highway 89 Bridge (approximately 1.5 miles downstream of the Boulder Creek confluence) on the main stem of Sulphur Creek did show some improvement in 2009, as shown in Figure 9. The Lower Loop Road Bridge, approximately one mile upstream of the Boulder Creek project; however, showed an increase in turbidity for the same time period depicted in Figure 9 below. Two soil plugs and their associated ponds were slightly modified with ARRA funds in September Figure 9. Citizen monitoring turbidity data collected on Sulphur Creek between 2005 and The Lower Loop Bridge is above the restored Boulder Creek project and the Hwy. 89 Bridge is below the project area. Boulder Creek Lessons Learned Two new landowners became involved in the project during the planning phase. While the new landowners agreed to move the project forward, there was not a good understanding of the design and principles of the restoration. After both projects were completed, the new landowners both made modifications to the design. These modifications compromised the integrity of the projects. The modifications have since been revised to ensure the continued success of the projects. Plumas Corporation now includes a clause in the landowner agreement that prohibits project modification without the Project Manager s approval. Fishery monitoring was conducted during the warm part of the summer. Fish were able to be captured in the pre-project channel, but not after construction was completed, due to the ponds. Fishery monitoring in the future will be attempted through a catch-per-unit-effort parameter, rather than an electroshocking multiple-pass depletion population estimate. 19

23 Boulder Creek Follow Up Activities These projects have some of the most active citizen monitors of any FRCRM projects. Citizen monitors continue to collect storm event turbidity data and observe the project. They have a good understanding of what to look for that may lead to instability, and continue to communicate with FRCRM staff regarding their observations of the project. FRCRM staff makes at least one annual visit to all of our projects to observe recovery, and forestall any issues that may arise. A renewed interest in monitoring and project development is being spear-headed by Alice Berg, a consulting fish biologist who lives in Mohawk Valley. The FRCRM is working with Alice and others to continue the monitoring effort, and address additional issues identified in the Sulphur Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration Strategy. Post-project hand-weeding will occur in 2010 and Smith Creek Smith Creek Background Smith Creek is a moderate to low gradient, perennial stream channel, draining a watershed area of 6.1 square miles. This project began in 2004 as a request for bank erosion control by one landowner, Herb and Wanda Longnecker. Jim Wilcox, FRCRM Program Manager, reviewed the site, and suggested a larger project that would treat other properties along the channel with similar issues. The landowners agreed to contact their neighbors to see if other people were interested in a larger project that would include the alluvial channel and its floodplain/meadow. There was consensus among the neighbors that channel erosion in the meadow needed to be treated. After preliminary investigation, it was determined that the pond and plug technique could address landowner concerns, as well as larger issues in the Middle Fork Feather River, such as excessive sedimentation and high water temperatures. In 2004, the FRCRM received funding from both the ten project landowners and the Plumas Watershed Forum to conduct project planning and design. During the initial planning phase, several properties sold and some of the new owners were reluctant to continue the project as initially designed. Thus, the initially proposed 1.5 mile project was reduced to half that length, with a separate bank stabilization treatment on the Longnecker property. The project was constructed in The primary objective of the project, bedload deposition within the upper reach, was still met. The primary land use is aesthetic open space in a rural low-density residential development. The northwest portion of the project area is also used as horse pasture. Smith Creek Project Description (Implementation) The primary goal of this project was to restore floodplain functions and capture the large amount of bedload coming from upper watershed source areas, primarily Claim Creek, a major tributary. This excessive load did not allow the degraded channel of Smith Creek to stabilize naturally, was burying two road/stream crossings (one county and one private), and contributing to the immense bedload now plaguing the Middle Fork Feather River. The primary interest of the landowners was to halt land loss and improve the stream channel. A pond and plug design was chosen as the most cost effective and environmentally conducive technique that would achieve project goals. 20

24 Calfed objectives met through this project are discussed more thoroughly under the project monitoring section of this report. Following is a brief description of how the project met the Calfed objectives described in the NPSPC application: 1a) Maximize use of existing water supplies: Other than improving the capacity of the watershed to store and release precipitation, this project did not address water supply issues. 1b) Increase flexibility of water systems: See 1a). 1c) & 5a) Develop new, local groundwater storage: The function of the floodplain to store shallow groundwater was restored by eliminating the bottom of the gully as the drainage elevation of the floodplain. 7b) Better habitat for fish at critical times: Here again, late summer is the most likely critical time for trout, when water temperatures peak. The project area supported trout before construction, and electroshock sampling showed an increase in trout biomass after construction. However, summer water temperatures have been increased as the channel flows through a single pond, where the bottom flow pattern is disrupted by a small island and depths are shallow. Beaver have since increased the depth of this pond, but temperature monitoring of this pond needs to be updated. Attributes such as water temperature are not necessarily improved the first year after construction and may take several years to mature. Monitoring has shown that the project created cool water refugia at the bottom of the ponds. 8h) Rehabilitate natural processes: In pre-project conditions, the channel was an average six feet below the elevation of the natural floodplain, causing the shallow floodplain aquifer to rapidly drain. Bedload was no longer depositing at its natural location (the head of the alluvial valley) but was transporting through the system to the MFFR. The project reconnected the channel with its naturally occurring floodplain and re-established bedload deposition at the upper reach of the valley. Natural processes such as groundwater storage and release and hyporheic exchange have been re-established. With this configuration, the now stable channel more frequently overbanks, reducing flood peaks, enhancing the local aquifer, increasing (or at least maintaining) late-season stream flows, and improving water quality. 8j) Protect and restore functional habitats: Riparian habitat within the project area was restored and expanded from 11-acres to 64-acres. Meadow habitat was protected from further erosion from an expanding gully. Aquatic habitat was protected and enhanced by reducing the generation of fine sediments, by increasing habitat diversity and quantity, and by improving the dynamic stability of an actively eroding and shifting system. 8l) Improve and maintain water and sediment quality: The project did not improve water temperature (temperatures increased after construction); however, fine sediments were reduced. Sediment quality was not a goal in this project. 21

25 Figure 10. Typical cross-section of Smith Creek showing gully dimensions, fill, and completed project channel dimensions. This project had two components: a 30-acre pond and plug project, and a 100 foot segment of bank stabilization. The pond and plug project entailed constructing nine ponds and eight plugs on 4,000 feet of Smith Creek, using 25,800 cu yards of native material, and 300 cu yards of 3- foot minus pit material to build three grade-control structures within and at the bottom of the project. The Smith Creek gully, fill, and project channel dimensions can been seen in Figure 10 above. The outcurve bank stabilization work consisted of constructing five boulder vanes and widening the floodplain. Figure 11. Aerial photo of the project ponds and plugs on Smith Creek, June

26 Figure 12. Even right after construction of the bank stabilization segment on Smith Creek, the boulder vanes roll stream flows toward the center of the channel. Also note the willow trench packs in the expanded floodplains. Bare areas shown here are now re-vegetated. The project was constructed from October to December in Figures 11 and 12 are postproject photos of both the pond and plug and bank stabilization segments of the Smith Creek project. Genesis Systems International, Inc. was the winning bidder (out of six) for the project, with a bid for $167,300. Two excavators, a water truck, a bulldozer, two wheel loaders, and two dump trucks were used to construct the project. The total construction cost of the project was $207,835, including equipment and operators, the project manager, a ground assistant, and six culverts. Follow-up revegetation and weeding were completed in the summers of 2008 and 2009 using Plumas Corporation personnel, a contractor, and the California Conservation Corps. Additional construction work was completed in September 2009 for $8,455 of ARRA funding. Smith Creek Project Funding The following is a summary of project funding. Further details on project expenditures and matching funds are available in the submitted quarterly reports and invoices for this project. Projected Costs (not including coord.) Actual Project Costs (Grant Funds Spent) Prop 40 $252,000 $218,825 ARRA $ 15,000 $ 20,363 TOTAL $267,000 $239,188 Prop 40 Non-State Share (Funding Match) Non-State Match Spent $12,000 $23,138 (193% of match amount) Match details: Ten landowners Cash for environmental clearance $10,000 Match partially met $ 9,338 Monitoring, plus seeding, and moving fish $ 1,000 23

27 Trout Unlimited Cash for planning $ 1,000 Plumas County Watershed Forum Additional Match for project planning $11,800 Smith Creek Monitoring & Performance Monitoring data were collected for one year pre-project, and two years post-project for some parameters. Please see Appendix A for detailed monitoring results. In general, project monitoring showed that the project resulted in measurable improvements to three of the four goals monitored in the PAEP: groundwater recharge, fish habitat, and the coldwater fishery. Two of the three water quality parameters (fine sediment and turbidity) showed improvement; however, temperature did not improve, and has now increased through the project area since construction (see Calfed objective discussion above). Smith Creek Lessons Learned As mentioned in the background section, landowners changed frequently during the planning phase of this project, which greatly increased planning costs. Caution should be taken when planning projects where numerous landowners are involved and properties are for sale. Project design rationale should be well documented and all stakeholders kept informed of project progress and changes. These projects will attract beaver colonization sooner or later. The first few years after construction (while the plants are still establishing) are the highest risk for erosion and project damage due to beaver activities and re-routing of water flows. Project features, especially pond outlets and gully plugs, need to consider beaver activities. Ponds can be raised and planned outlets plugged. Expanded and secondary outflow areas need to be included into the designs. Beaver activities in these types of projects will enhance water retention, flood attenuation, sediment retention, habitat enhancement, etc. They are a plus to this type of project and need to be integrated into the planning, design, construction and monitoring of future projects. Smith Creek Follow Up Activities FRCRM staff makes a minimum of one annual visit to all of our projects to observe recovery, and forestall any issues that may arise. Most of the landowners homes overlook the project area, and FRCRM staff will continue to communicate with landowners regarding their observations of the project and to promote continued revegetation efforts. FRCRM staff will continue monitoring temperature in the project area in will also be the third and final year of weeding. Long Valley Creek Long Valley Creek Background The Long Valley Creek watershed originates on the crest of Grizzly Ridge. The channel enters the Middle Fork Feather River approximately one quarter mile downstream of the project area. The 106-acre project area encompasses 9,014 feet of perennial Long Valley Creek, and 2,070 24

28 feet of its ephemeral tributary, Little Long Valley Creek. The project area landscape is characterized by numerous strong alluvial fans. The watershed area at the bottom of the project is 25 square miles. This project began in 2005 with a request by the landowner for assistance with late season instream flows and stream bank erosion control. Jim Wilcox, FRCRM Program Manager, reviewed the site, and determined that the pond and plug technique could best address the landowner s concerns. The primary land use is cattle grazing. Long Valley Creek Project Description (Implementation) The primary goal of this project was to restore function to the channel/floodplain system. A pond and plug design was chosen as the best technique to achieve the goals of the landowner, as well as the Calfed objectives listed below. Calfed objectives met through this project are discussed more thoroughly under the project monitoring section of this report. Following is a brief description of how the project met the Calfed objectives described in the NPSPC application: 1a) Maximize use of existing water supplies: One of the concerns of the landowner was irrigation efficiency. By raising the water table, the project enabled more efficient use of irrigation water. The project also improved the capacity of the watershed to store and release precipitation. 1b) Increase flexibility of water systems: See 1a). 1c) & 5a) Develop new, local groundwater storage: The function of the floodplain to store shallow groundwater was restored by eliminating the bottom of the gully as the drainage elevation of the floodplain. 7b) Better habitat for fish at critical times: As in the other projects, late summer is the most likely critical time for trout, when water temperatures peak, and base flow in Long Valley Creek is minimal and has recently become intermittent. The project decreased daily maximum water temperatures, and created cool water refugia in the bottom of the ponds. 8h) Rehabilitate natural processes: In pre-project conditions, the channel was approximately six feet below the elevation of the floodplain, with little to no floodplain water storage. The project restored the channel back to the elevation of the floodplain. Natural processes such as groundwater storage and release and hyporheic exchange were re-established. With this configuration, the channel can more frequently overbank, thus transforming this channel from an eroding transport reach to a depositional reach. 8j) Protect and restore functional habitats: Riparian habitat within the project area was restored and expanded. Meadow habitat was protected from further erosion from an expanding gully. Aquatic habitat was protected and enhanced by reducing the generation of fine sediments from gully walls, and by lowering water temperatures. 8l) Improve and maintain water and sediment quality: This objective was partially met. See 8j for sedimentation and temperature water quality improvements; however, fine substrate material increased in the sample area. Sediment quality was not a goal in this project. 25

29 Figure 13. Aerial view of Long Valley project at the beginning of the first growing season after construction (June 2009). Note newly restored remnant channel to the left of the plugged-and-ponded gully in the bottom 2/3 of the photo. Genesis Systems International, Inc. was the winning bidder (out of seven) for the project, with a bid for $198,800. Project construction entailed excavating approximately 52,849 cubic yards of native material from 30 ponds, which provided the material to build 34 plugs on 2.1 miles of gullied stream channel. 875 tons of pit run rock was delivered from Riverside Rock, under a separate contract, for a total cost of $17,553 to build a grade control structure at the bottom of the project. An aerial view of the constructed project can be seen in the photo in Figure 13 above. The project was constructed from August 18 to October 23, Two excavators, a water truck, a wheel loader, and a track loader were used to construct the project. The total construction cost of the project was $289,018 ($82,323 paid from Prop 40 funds, all other construction was funded with match), including materials, equipment and operators, the project manager, a part-time ground assistant, and two part-time interns. Follow-up revegetation and weeding were completed in the summers of 2008 and 2009 using Plumas Corporation personnel, a contractor, and the California Conservation Corps. In the wake of a storm event in spring 2009, supplemental construction work at the confluence of Long Valley Creek and Little Long Valley Creek was completed in August 2009, for $6,185 using ARRA funding. 26

30 Long Valley Creek Project Funding The following is a summary of project funding. Further details on project expenditures and matching funds are available in the submitted quarterly reports and invoices for this project. Projected Costs (not including coord.) Actual Project Costs (Grant Funds Spent) Prop 40 $176,000 $104,382 ARRA $ 6,000 $ 15,233 TOTAL $182,000 $119,615 Prop 40 Non-State Share (Funding Match) Non-State Match Spent $242,870 $268,336 (110% of match amount) Match details: Dean Panfili, landowner Cost-share with NRCS for fencing $13,885 Match met Additional match - cost-share with NRCS for re-vegetation $23,773 Deferred grazing $ 3,420 Match met Monitoring, plus seeding, and moving fish $ 1,000 Match met Additional match - Weed management $ 800 NRCS Cost-share for fencing $ 13,885 Cost-share for re-vegetation $ 23,773 Jim Beckwith High School Planting $ 480 Match not met RAC Match for implementation (added to $176,000 contract in Sept. 2007) Plumas Watershed Forum Additional match for planning $ 11,800 Long Valley Creek Monitoring & Performance Monitoring data were collected for one year pre-project, and one year post-project. Please see Appendix A for detailed monitoring results. In general, project monitoring showed that the project resulted in measurable improvements to two of the four goals monitored in the PAEP: groundwater recharge and the coldwater fishery. Two of the three water quality parameters (temperature and turbidity) showed improvement; however, fine sediments did not improve, which was not entirely unexpected, as the channel was elevated from the gravelly gully bottom to the surface of the meadow resulting in more of a grass-lined channel. Gravels are expected to 27

31 move into the channel, and already occupy some of the channel. However, they have not yet moved into the sample area. Likewise, fish habitat improved with increased bank stability, but there are less pools in the sample area now than there were pre-project. In this project, like others, if the entire project area is considered, there is sufficient pool habitat because of the new presence of ponds that the channel moves through. Long Valley Creek Lessons Learned Numerous noxious weeds in the project area posed a potential threat for noxious weed proliferation after construction. FRCRM staff and the landowner removed as many noxious weeds as possible before construction to minimize this threat. This approach to weed management seemed to work well, although there are still weeds to be removed. Two in-project access routes captured overland flow in early Neither poses a threat to the integrity of the project, but it serves as a reminder that care must always be taken to minimize the footprint of the project to avoid potential problems. Long Valley Creek Follow Up Activities FRCRM staff makes at least one annual visit to all of our projects to observe recovery, and forestall any issues that may arise. FRCRM staff will continue to observe the project and communicate with the landowner regarding their observations of the project. There was a bullfrog population in the project area prior to construction. An attempt was made to stock project ponds with large trout after construction to provide some predatory pressure on the bullfrogs; however, a moratorium on stocking has been imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game, so no additional bullfrog predators have been introduced to the project area. FRCRM staff will continue to monitor the bullfrog population. The landowner and FRCRM staff will also continue to weed the project area in 2010 and Sulphur Creek Bank Stabilization Sulphur Bank Stabilization Background This project was not included in the original Prop 40 grant application and agreement, but due to cost savings, the project was added when the project was re-authorized with ARRA funds in Prior to receiving ARRA funding for project implementation, design and environmental clearance work had been completed, funded with $5,040 from the landowners and $7,500 from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy. Sulphur Creek drains a 33 square mile watershed, and is one of the largest tributaries to the Upper Middle Fork Feather River. The watershed originates on the east-side of the Sierra Nevada crest, and the north-south trending portion of the Plumas Trench fault zone. The watershed has a history of instability, due to both natural geologic conditions, as well as anthropomorphic influences, especially since the 1940 s (logging, mining, road building, overgrazing, and channel straightening.). The Sulphur Creek Watershed Analysis and Restoration Strategy, completed by the FRCRM, with funding from the SWRCB, characterized 28

32 the main stem of Sulphur Creek as a channel in a continuing degrading trend, with a widening and deepening entrenchment. This project began in 2006 with a request by the landowners for assistance with stream bank erosion control. High streamflows during the winter of 2005/06 washed against the bank, which receded 12 feet. The Sulphur Creek Watershed Analysis and Restoration Strategy determined that bank stabilization within the entrenchment would be the best restoration approach to this type of erosion and instability. To control livestock grazing, the landowners had already fenced off their side of the channel, and the landowner across the creek was also planning a fence. Five hundred feet of bank were identified for treatment using boulder vanes and bank shaping, resulting in restoration of approximately six acres of riparian area. The primary land use is cattle grazing, surrounded by low density housing developments. Sulphur Bank Stabilization Project Description (Implementation) Unlike the other projects in the Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex, the primary goal of this project was to stabilize stream banks within an entrenchment. Because of the size of the entrenchment, channel/floodplain restoration at the elevation of the meadow was not practical. Boulder vanes were chosen as the most appropriate restoration method because they would achieve the project objective and have been successfully used in other similar project areas. Before and after photos in Figure 14 show the eroding vertical bank before construction compared to the sloped with boulder vanes in the channel after construction. Figure 14. Sulphur Creek Bank before and after treatment Following is a brief description of how the project met the Calfed objectives described in the NPSPC application: 1a) Maximize use of existing water supplies: As a bank stabilization project, this project did not address water supply issues. 1b) Increase flexibility of water systems: See 1a). 1c) & 5a) Develop new, local groundwater storage: See 1a). 7b) Better habitat for fish at critical times: Because the emphasis of the project was bank stabilization construction, habitat was not monitored in the project monitoring. However, habitat 29

33 was noted in a 2002 survey of Sulphur Creek in the project area. Fish habitat was 100% riffle, with no pools. The boulder vanes created eight pools, each in conjunction with a boulder vane. 8h) Rehabilitate natural processes: Riparian vegetation now has a chance to grow on the reshaped banks. The 2002 survey also noted high bank erosion potential. 8j) Protect and restore functional habitats: Riparian habitat and stream banks now have the proper slope for vegetation to grow. Meadow habitat was protected from further erosion from an expanding gully. Aquatic habitat was protected and enhanced by reducing the generation of fine sediments from gully walls, and creating pools. 8l) Improve and maintain water and sediment quality: Sedimentation from eroding gully walls was reduced. Temperature was not measured; however, temperature is not expected to be affected by this project. There is a possibility that there may be cool water available to fish in the pools created by the vanes, and that as riparian vegetation grows, water temperatures will at least remain the same through the project area, rather than warming in shallow riffles with high insulation. Sediment quality was not a goal in this project. Feather River Materials was the winning bidder (out of 11) for the project, with a bid for $40,728. Project construction entailed routing approximately one cfs of stream flow around the project area, laying back 500 feet of bank from a vertical configuration to a 1:1 slope, constructing a floodplain bench, installing 8 boulder vanes, lowering the opposite side gravel bar to floodplain elevation, transplanting willow and sedge to the sloped bank, constructing willow trench packs across the lowered floodplain, and then returning the water to the channel. A typical cross-section of the vertical bank pre- and post-project is illustrated in Figure 15. Material removed from the large point bar to lower it to floodplain elevation was used to construct the floodplain bench along the base of the project bank, to slope vertical bank sections along an abandoned channel section and to fill a headcut that was working its way into the meadow terrace from a gullied terrace channel. The terrace channel was re-routed into a remnant channel where it returns to the original channel by way of a sloped bank. All project work was fenced to exclude livestock. Following the project, the California Conservation Corps planted willow stakes and native seed onto the sloped bank to complete the revegetation work. The project was constructed from September 8-18, An excavator, a wheel loader, a water truck, and a dump truck were used to construct the project. The total construction cost of the project was $40,777, including materials, equipment and operators, and the project manager. 30

34 Figure 15. Typical cross-section of Sulphur Creek bank showing pre-project and postproject bank dimensions. Changes are difficult to appreciate because of the vertical exaggeration of the graph. Sulphur Bank Stabilization Project Funding The following is a summary of project funding. Further details on project expenditures and matching funds are available in the submitted quarterly reports and invoices for this project. Projected Costs (not including coord.) Actual Project Costs (Grant Funds Spent) ARRA $ 50,000 $ 45,455 Prop 40 Non-State Share (Funding Match) Total Match Spent N/A all match reported below was not $ 29,656 in the Prop 40 Grant application Match details: Tom Seeliger and Gordon DePaoli, landowners Environmental surveys & reporting $ 5,040 Additional match - cost-share with NRCS for fencing $ 7,487 Deferred grazing $ 2,322 NRCS Cost-share for fencing $ 7,487 31

35 Vegetation Landowners $ 1,000 Sierra Nevada Conservancy Design completion, CEQA, permitting, monitoring $ 6,320 Sulphur Bank Stabilization Monitoring & Performance As a supplemental construction project, using ARRA funding, no monitoring plan was developed for this project. See CalFed objectives discussion above regarding the project s performance. Sulphur Bank Stabilization Lessons Learned Water was diverted around the project area by constructing a straw-bale dam weighted down with sand bags in the main channel. Material excavated from the diversion channel was used to improve the dam and buttress the straw-bales. This created a small upstream pond that lifted the water and allowed it to flow into a diversion channel constructed along the backside of the large point bar. The diversion channel was connected to an existing channel, also located along the backside of the bar, because some water continued to seep under the dam and through the gravel bar, an additional water diversion and settling pond was constructed downstream of the project area. Water from the settling pond flowed through a short section of riparian vegetation before entering the main channel and mixing with the upstream diverted water. Turbid water from the construction activity was made clear by the settling pond and filter. Utilizing both an up and downstream diversion proved to be very successful in diminishing turbidity levels from construction activities. Sulphur Bank Stabilization Follow Up Activities This project had two objectives, one of which was to demonstrate this bank stabilization technique to other landowners in the Sulphur Creek watershed. Similar projects are planned along the eroding banks on this reach of Sulphur Creek. FRCRM staff and the landowners will continue to observe the performance of the project. There may be additional hand-planting (willow staking and/or seeding) and/or weeding in 2010 and Coordination The budget for coordination was requested in the grant, and budgeted through each project in the original Prop. 40 project agreement ($24,375 budgeted into each of the four original projects). Additional coordination money was received through ARRA funds in The following is a summary of coordination funding. Further details on expenditures are available in the submitted quarterly reports and invoices for this project. Projected Coordination Costs Actual Project Costs (Grant Funds Spent) Prop 40 $ 97,500 $160,438 ARRA $ 67,877 $ 36,904 TOTAL $165,377 $197,342 32

36 Coordination activities consisted of organizing and holding regular CRM Management and Steering Committee meetings; six Management Committee meetings were held in 2007, two in 2008, three in 2009, and three in 2010; six Steering Committee meetings were held, with biannual meetings in 2007 and 2008, one in 2009, and one in Project tours were held in conjunction with each Steering Committee meeting. The Middle Fork projects were toured in the fall of 2007, where participants were able to see Smith, Boulder, and Little Last Chance Creek projects under construction and again in the fall of 2008 to see all the completed projects. Numerous other watershed tours were held for various groups and events between 2007 and Other coordination work involved attending regional watershed conferences and giving presentations on restoration efforts, techniques, and monitoring. Several presentations were given between 2007 and 2010, the following names just a few: River Restoration Case Studies: Challenges and Successes presented at the National Park Service 2009 Interagency River Management Workshop, and Meadows as a Climate Change Adaptation Tool presented at the 2008 Sierra Nevada Alliance annual conference. Annual reports to partners, stakeholders, and newspapers were prepared every year through 2009; however, due to the state budget freeze and the stop work order in December of 2008, the 2009 report was not completed until All annual reports can be found on the Feather River CRM website ( which was maintained throughout the contract period. A new updated website was launched in December of The additions to the new website included an Education Page, watershed videos, and a Feather River Watershed calendar. Other varied coordination work consisted of responding to project requests, seeking project funding, and organizing outreach and education activities. Conclusions In summary, the project met the goals and objectives of improving water quality and restoring functional habitats in the Middle Fork Feather River watershed as a result of implementation of these five restoration projects. Each individual project did not met the goals of every parameter as outlined in the PAEP during the contracted period; however, it is expected that as each project matures over time, channel morphology and vegetation establishment will develop the expected outcomes creating better fish habitat, reducing water temperatures and sediment, and improving existing local water storage and supply. Cumulatively, the projects overall effectiveness on the watershed was measureable and will continue to improve over time as each project becomes more established. By rehabilitating the natural process of floodplain function (i.e. restoring the elevation of the shallow floodplain groundwater aquifer) and reducing bank erosion water in the floodplain aquifer will help reduce water temperatures and filter fine sediments. In addition as vegetation growth increases over time (increasing infiltration and shading), temperature, turbidity, and other water quality parameters (i.e. nutrients) will continue to improve. Decreasing fine substrates and increasing bank stability and pool habitats will also improve fish habitat. The quality and extent of riparian habitat will continue to improve as well, due to the restored channel floodplain elevation and reduced bank erosion thus allowing continued establishment of riparian vegetation. Project effectiveness and benefits are described in more detail as outlined in the PAEP for each project in Appendix A. 33

37 This report was written by FRCRM staff. For questions or inquiries regarding this project, please contact Project Manager, Leslie Mink at (530) or to Project information and monitoring data can also be found on the FRCRM website at 34

38 Appendix A Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex Monitoring Report Plumas Corporation Spring 2010 Smith Creek, June

39 Abstract The primary purpose of the Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex was to restore the function of the channel/floodplain system in each of the four project areas. Benefits anticipated to be gained by these projects were reduced erosion, more efficient irrigation, improved productivity for grazing, improved water quality, floodplain infiltration leading to flood attenuation, increased base flows, less temperature fluctuation, reduced water temperatures, and improved aquatic and riparian habitats for fish and wildlife. These benefits were assessed through pre- and post-project monitoring. Monitoring was funded for one year pre-project, and the first year after each project was completed. Long Valley Creek and Boulder Creek projects, constructed in 2008, only had one year of post-project monitoring. Projects constructed in 2007, Little Last Chance Creek and Smith Creek, had a second year of project monitoring completed due to time extension and funding from the American Recover and Reinvestment Act. True project benefits were not expected to emerge until at least two years after completion. It is the FR-CRM s intention to continue informal monitoring of each project to determine the full extent of the benefits. Methods What was each project s effect on groundwater recharge in the floodplain? The FRCRM has used groundwater wells to ascertain water level change on numerous projects since The Middle Fork Complex projects used vegetation and soil moisture as an experimental surrogate to groundwater wells. Three 100 vegetative transects were permanently established in each project meadow. The point-intercept method was used to record plant type and moisture category at 50 points along the transect. Percentage of sedge and juncus species were used (figures 1, 4, 8, and 11) to track the progression of plants from a pre-project xeric (dry) assemblage of species to the desired mesic (moist) species types. At the endpoints of each vegetative transect, monthly soil moisture data were collected using a quickdraw soil moisture probe, which measures centibars of soil suction. Figures 2, 5, 9, and 12 display and discuss the results as desiccation, because centibars indicate dryness. The number of centibars is inversely related to the soil moisture. A measurement of zero centibars indicates saturated soil. A goal of the project was to increase the late season soil moisture by 10%. These measurements were collected June through September pre- and post- project. What was each project s effect on water temperature? Instream HOBO temperature loggers were placed above and below each project area from May through October, recording every hour and a half. A main goal 36

40 of the Middle Fork Complex projects was to improve water quality, with a target to decrease daily maximum water temperature. Data were analyzed by taking a seven day running average of the daily maximum water temperature. Then, a maximum value of the averages was taken. What was each project s effect on fine sediment? Fine sediment was also measured as a gauge for water quality. Two different methods were used to determine amount of fine sediment in the project area. A Wolman pebble count was conducted on the lowest riffle in each treatment reach, except at Little Last Chance where a pebble count was conducted on the lowest three riffles in the project area (100 pebbles in zig zag pattern across riffle see SCI V protocol attached). Pool tail fines grid toss were conducted on every riffle in lowest 2,500 feet of treatment area, except at Little Last Chance where a grid toss was conducted on every riffle in the 1,000 foot sampling area (see SCI V protocol attached). The desired outcome was to decrease fine sediment (<2 mm) by 10% at pool tails postproject. What was each project s effect on event-generated turbidity? During storm events, grab samples were collected near the bottom end of the Smith Creek, Boulder Creek, and Long Valley Creek project areas, each sample was analyzed in-house for turbidity and total suspended solids. Below normal precipitation precluded storm events of a magnitude to generate suspended sediments, therefore total suspended solids were not measured. Stream flow in Little Last Chance Creek is regulated by the dam at Frenchman Lake. This flow regulation prevents any storm surges from moving downstream and creating turbidity. Turbidity measurements for the Little Last Chance Creek project were measured during irrigation water releases. Figures 3, 6, 10, and 13 display storm turbidity pre-and post-project. Turbidity is measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). What was each project s effect on fish habitat? Bank stability was measured in terms of vegetative cover. Percent vegetative cover on streambanks was assessed on a 30 cm wide plot beginning at the base of the bank and going upward to the first bank crest. A total of 50 plots were measured on each bank, moving upstream from the bottom of treatment reach, with a measurement every 50 feet. Bank Stability is important to fish habitat by limiting the amount of sediment that enters the system, and by creating a stable place for vegetation to grow, thus shading the water, and providing food and refugia for fish. A stable bank is defined as 75% or more cover components (see SCI V. 5 protocol attached). One goal of the Middle Fork Complex projects was to increase bank vegetative cover by 10% in each project area. 37

41 Fish habitat benefits were also measured by looking at the ratio of pool versus riffle habitat. The lengths of pool and riffle habitats were measured in the lowest 2,500 feet of project treatment length (see SCI V. 5 protocol attached), except for Boulder Creek, which used habitat types in the 300 foot electroshock sampling area. The goal for restoration was to increase pool habitat by 20% from pre- to post-project. What was each project s effect on fisheries? One pre-project and one post-project electroshocking survey was conducted in a 300 reach near the downstream end of each treatment reach, using multiple-pass depletion when trout are present. Only one pass was made if no trout were captured on the first pass. The project survey reaches were not chosen at random. Pre-project survey reaches were chosen based on best available habitat. The post-project survey reaches were based on habitat that was accessible by backpack shocker, which was not necessarily the best habitat. The size and depth of ponds made post-project backpack electroshocking impossible, while the riffle augmentation on Little Last Chance Creek, the size and depth of pools in the post-project channel also made backpack electroshocking an impractical sampling tool. In the future, the FRCRM expects to compare angling catch per unit effort in pre- and post-project conditions. How has each project affected channel morphometry? Pre-project cross-sections were monumented. A generic riffle cross-section from Little Last Chance is shown in Figure 4. Pre-project cross-sections and unsurveyed, typical post-project cross sections are shown in Figures 9-10, 14-15, and from the other three projects. How has each project affected the overall landscape? Photo point monitoring was used to visually show changes in the landscape. Six photo points were established in each project area, and photos were taken in July pre-project and postproject, and taken approximately at the end of September in the Little Last Chance project area. 38

42 Results Little Last Chance Creek 39

43 Groundwater Recharge Vegetative Transects Figure 1. displays percent of sedge and juncus species along the three vegetation transects pre- and post-project. There was an average 128% increase in sedge and juncus species from 4.67% pre-project to 10.67% post-project throughout the vegetative transects. Figure 1: Percent of sedge and juncus species from pre- to post-project 40

44 Soil Moisture Figure 2 displays the soil moisture, shown as soil desiccation, at points on the lower, middle, and upper vegetative transects averaged together. Figure 2 illustrates improved soil moisture in June and July, and a 26% and 15% decrease in late season (September) soil moisture in 2008 and 2009, respectively, throughout the Little Last Chance Creek project area. Soil moisture data in the Little Last Chance project is confounded by irrigation timing, which was not correlated with soil moisture readings. The decrease in September soil moisture post-project could be due to the timing of field irrigation. In 2006 (pre-project) the fields were irrigated in September, but there was no field irrigation in September 2008 and 2009 (post-project). This would lead to drier field and soil conditions in 2008 and Figure 2: Average soil desiccation from pre- to post-project Water Quality Water Temperature The difference in daily maximum water temperature from the division dam to the bottom of the project area on North Creek was an average 2.2 o Fahrenheit cooler in post-project conditions, which is a 34% decrease in post-project water temperatures. The difference in daily maximum water temperature from the division dam to the bottom of the project area on East Creek was on average 3.3 o Fahrenheit warmer in post-project conditions, which is a 33% 41

45 increase in post-project water temperatures. The increase in water temperatures post-project on East Creek could be due to the ground elevation. The ground elevation on North Creek at the bottom of the project is lower than the ground elevation on East Creek at the bottom of the project. This may be causing the cool groundwater from the project to drain away from East Creek into North Creek. Other potential factors affecting water temperatures are: the decrease in water deliveries in 2008 and 2009 due to the drought, and a several hour delay in the movement of water through the project area from pre- to post-project. Fine Sediment The Wolmann pebble count showed an 81% decrease in fine sediment, from 43% to 8% on the lowest three riffles in the project area. Pool tail fines decreased by 100% from 61% to 0%. Turbidity Figure 3 shows irrigation event turbidity from three events in 2007 and three events in Post-project turbidity decreased an average 71% from pre-project conditions. Figure 3: Irrigation event turbidity pre- and post-project Fish Habitat Bank Stability There was a 30% increase in bank stability through the Little Last Chance Creek project area from 63% pre-project to 82% post-project. 42

46 Pool Habitat The Little Last Chance Creek project area pool habitat increased by 53% from 52.6% pre-project to 80.7% post-project. Fisheries Two 300 ft reaches in the Little Last Chance Creek project area were electroshocked preproject, July 2006, and one 300 ft reach was electroshocked post-project, July The preproject electroshocking reaches were located in the middle of the project area on North Creek on Rockridge LLC property, and in the middle of the project area on East Creek at the bottom of Goss property. The post-project electroshocking reach was about 2,000 feet downstream from the pre-project reach on East Creek. From pre- to post-project there was a 98% decrease in pounds per acre of trout in the sampling reach. This decrease is most likely due to sampling accessibility. The pre-project surveys were conducted in the best habitat available, however most of the suitable pools for trout were too deep to access with the backpack electroshocker after the project. The accessible habitat that was surveyed post-project was sub-prime habitat for trout. North Creek was not sampled post-project due to lack of habitat accessible by electroshocker. Anecdotal observations from fisherman indicate a slight decline in the fishery in the two years after project construction. The FRCRM expects this condition to improve because habitat has improved. *Project constructed in 2007 Number of Fish Species Average Total Length (in) Average Fork Length (in) Average Weight (lbs) Pounds per Acre 2006 (North Cr) 1 Brown Trout Sucker Brown Trout Speckled Dace (East Cr) 2 Lahontan Redside Sucker (East Cr) 2 Brown Trout Speckled Dace Sacramento Sucker 0.02 Table 2: Little Last Chance Creek pre- and post-project electroshocking results 43

47 Channel Morphometry Figure 4: Generic riffle cross-section Overall Landscape Goss Looking Downstreamm from Bridge Early October 2007 Late September

48 Goss Looking Upstream to Bridge Early October 2007 Late September 2009 Goss Looking Upstream from Bridge Early October 2007 Late September

49 Project Goals Desired Outcomes Outcome Indicators Measurement Tools and Methods Targets Little Last Chance Creek Project Outcomes Improve groundwater recharge in floodplain Maximized floodplain water recharge 1. 10% increase in late season soil moisture. 2. Conversion from xeric plant communities to moist/mesic plant communities. 1. Tensiometer quickdraw soil moisture probe monthly (Jun-Sep) samples at ea of three 100 vegetative transects per treated meadow. 1. Moist soil conditions through June. 2. No sagebrush in floodplain meadows. 1. Invalid comparison (see explanatory report text) % increase in sedge and juncus species, a moist/mesic plant community. 2. Annual point-intercept method along vegetative transects. Improve water quality 1. Decreased water temperature 2. Decreased fine sediment At downstream end of each project: 1. 5% decrease in max daily water temperature % decrease in <2mm substrate in pool tails. 2a. 10% decrease in turbidity and TSS in event grab samples. 1. Continuous recording water temperature sensors (Jun-Sep). 2. Wolmann pebble counts and pool tail fines grid toss (USFS R5 SCI protocol). 2a. Storm event grab samples and analysis preand post-project. 1. Not to exceed 20C max daily water temperature. 2. <10% fines at pool tails. 2a. Event turbidity and sediment consistently trending downward % decrease and 33% increase in max daily water temperature on North Creek and East Creek, respectively % and 100% decrease in fine sediment sampled by the Wolmann Pebble Count and Pool Tail Fine Grid Toss, respectively. 2a. 71% decrease in turbidity through the project area. Improve coldwater fish habitat All of the above, plus: 1.Increased bank vegetative cover 2.Increased pool:riffle ratio At downstream end of each project area: 1. 10% increase in bank vegetative cover. 2. Increase in pool habitat by 20%. At downstream end of each project area: 1. SCI (USFS R5) bank stability rating (veg cover). 2. SCI habitat identification (% pools) % bank vegetative cover % pool habitat % increase in bank vegetative cover % increase in pool habitat. Improve coldwater fishery Increased trout population 10% increase in trout biomass in 300 sample reach. Multiple pass depletion electroshock survey. Trout biomass not less than 30lb/acre of surface water. 98% decrease in pounds per acre of trout due to sampling error (see methodology). Table 1: Summary of Little Last Chance Creek Monitoring Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan table with measured outcomes after two years.

50 Boulder Creek

51 Groundwater Recharge Vegetative Transects Figure 5. displays percent of sedge and juncus species along the three vegetation transects pre- and post-project. There was an average 114% increase in sedge and juncus species from 9.33% pre-project to 20% post-project throughout the vegetative transects. Figure 5: Percent of sedge and juncus species from pre- to post-project Soil Moisture Figure 6 displays soil moisture, shown as soil desiccation, at the endpoints of the lower, middle, and upper vegetative transects averaged together. Figure 6 illustrates a 92% increase in late season (August and September) soil moisture throughout the Boulder Creek project area. Figure 6: Average soil desiccation from pre- to post-project 48

52 Water Quality Water Temperature Due to personnel changes there was an error in post-project HOBOtemp placement, rendering the temperature data inaccurate as a true pre- and post-project comparison. The data show an 11.5% increase in maximum water temperature at the bottom of the project from pre- to post-project.the difference in water temperature from pre- to post-project is most likely due to placement of the HOBOtemp logger. The pre-project HOBOtemp at the bottom of the project was placed downstream of the confluence of Boulder and Haskell Creeks, while the post-project HOBOtemp was placed upstream of the grade control structure within the Boulder Creek project area. The change in HOBOtemp location is problematic because the pre-project logger captured groundwater influences from Boulder Creek, while the post-project logger did not. A large factor in decreasing surface water temperature is the influence of an increased groundwater component, which helps maintain cooler water temperatures. Fine Sediment The Wolmann pebble count showed a 38% decrease in fine sediment on the lowest riffle in the project area, from 26% to 16%. The pool tail fine sediment through the whole sampling area increased in post-project condition by 50%, from 36% pre-project to 54% post-project. The overall increase in fine sediment is due to the changes in the channel from pre- to post-project, and was not unexpected on this project. The pre-project sampling area was in the bottom of the original gully, which had eroded through gravel deposits. The post-project sampling area was in the remnant channel on top of the meadow where fines and vegetation are the predominate substrate was the first year post-project, and the remnant channel has not geomorphically developed, nor have gravels from up valley yet been carried to the sampling area at the bottom of the project area. The channel is still a shallow grass-lined meadow channel with few pools and riffles. It would be beneficial to resurvey five years post-project. 49

53 Turbidity Figure 7 shows storm event turbidity from one storm event in 2007 and the average turbidity of three storm events in The chart shows that turbidity has increased through the project area both pre- and post-project, and that post-project turbidity has increased significantly from pre-project conditions. One factor that might contribute to the low pre-project turbidity is that only one storm event sample was collected in This sample only had a turbidity of about 2 NTU, which indicates that the storm may not have been as significant of a runoff event as the post-project storms. From monitoring on other similar projects, it is expected that as the project revegetates turbidity will be near zero at the bottom of the project. Figure 7: Storm Event Turbidity Pre- and Post-project Fish Habitat Bank Stability There was a 219% increase in bank stability through the Boulder Creek project area from 21% pre-project to 67% post-project. 50

54 Pool Habitat Figure 8 shows the percentage of each habitat type at the electroshocking reaches preand post-project. Pool habitat increased 17% from pre- to post-project in the Boulder Creek project area. The target for restoration was 50% pool habitat throughout the project area. Although pools only make up 27% of stream habitat within the electroshocking reach postproject, the ponds throughout the project area create more pool habitat than was measured with this habitat assessment. Figure 8: Stream Habitat Types Pre- and Post-project 51

55 Fisheries A 300 ft reach in the Boulder Creek project area was electroshocked pre-project, July 2006, and post-project, July Pre-project the downstream point of the electroshocking reach was located at the staff gauge, which was approximately 200 ft upstream from the confluence of Boulder and Haskell Creeks. Post-project the downstream point of the electroshocking reach was located in the remnant channel about 0.4 miles upstream from the grade control sturcture. In 2006 six trout and five sculpin were caught. On average the trout were 6.44 inches long (fork length) and 0.1 pounds. The sculpin were on average 2.5 inches long and 0.02 pounds. No fish were caught in The lack of trout in the post-project effort is probably due to time of year sampled and sampling technique (see methodology). It is suspected that trout inhabit the project area in the ponds, especially in the warmer months. *Project constructed in 2008 Number of Fish Species Brown Trout Average Fork Length (in) Average Weight (lbs) Pounds per Acre Riffle Sculpin Table 4: Boulder Creek Pre- and Post-project Electroshocking results 52

56 Channel Morphometry Figure 9: Pre-project cross-section in Boulder Creek project area Figure 10: Typical post-project cross-section 53

57 Overall Landscape Photo Point 3 July 2007 July 2009 Photo Point 5 July 2007 July

58 Photo Point 10 July 2007 July

59 Project Goals Desired Outcomes Outcome Indicators Measurement Tools and Methods Targets Boulder Creek Project Outcomes Improve groundwater recharge in floodplain Maximized floodplain water recharge 1. 10% increase in late season soil moisture. 2. Conversion from xeric plant communities to moist/mesic plant communities. 1. Tensiometer quickdraw soil moisture probe monthly (Jun-Sep) samples at ea of three 100 vegetative transects per treated meadow. 1. Moist soil conditions through June. 2. No sagebrush in floodplain meadows % increase in late season soil moisture % increase in sedge and juncus species, a moist/mesic plant community. 2. Annual point-intercept method along vegetative transects. Improve water quality 1. Decreased water temperature 2. Decreased fine sediment At downstream end of each project: 1. 5% decrease in max daily water temperature % decrease in <2mm substrate in pool tails. 2a. 10% decrease in turbidity and TSS in event grab samples. 1. Continuous recording water temperature sensors (Jun-Sep). 2. Wolmann pebble counts and pool tail fines grid toss (USFS R5 SCI protocol). 2a. Storm event grab samples and analysis preand post-project. 1. Not to exceed 20C max daily water temperature. 2. <10% fines at pool tails. 2a. Event turbidity and sediment consistently trending downward. 1. Comparison is invalid (see explanatory text) % decrease in fine sediment (Wolmann Pebble Count), and 50% increase in fine sediment (Pool Tail Fine Grid Toss). See explanatory text. 2a. Increase in turbidity through the project area (see explanatory text). Improve coldwater fish habitat All of the above, plus: 1.Increased bank vegetative cover 2.Increased pool:riffle ratio At downstream end of each project area: 1. 10% increase in bank vegetative cover. 2. Increase in pool habitat by 20%. At downstream end of each project area: 1. SCI (USFS R5) bank stability rating (veg cover). 2. SCI habitat identification (% pools) % bank vegetative cover % pool habitat % increase in bank vegetative cover % increase in pool habitat. Improve coldwater fishery Increased trout population 10% increase in trout biomass in 300 sample reach. Multiple pass depletion electroshock survey. Trout biomass not less than 30lb/acre of surface water. 1. No trout caught in 2009 due to sampling error (see methodology). Table 3: Summary of Boulder Creek Monitoring Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan table with measured outcomes after one year.

60 Smith Creek

61 Groundwater Recharge Vegetative Transects Figure 11. displays percent of sedge and juncus species along the three vegetation transects pre- and post-project. There was a significant increase in sedge and juncus species in Smith Creek project on the lower transect from zero to 42 percent pre- to post-project, and a slight decrease of sedge and juncus species on the middle transect. This decrease was due to the amount of forb species that were present post-project. There was no change in the amount of sedge and juncus species on the upper transect. This is probably due to the particularly dry location of the transect. Figure 11: Percent of sedge and juncus species from pre- to post-project Soil Moisture Figure 12 displays soil moisture, as soil desiccation, at the endpoints of the lower, middle, and upper vegetative transects averaged together. Figure 12 illustrates a 74% increase in late season (August and September) soil moisture throughout the Smith Creek project area. Figure 12: Average soil desiccation from pre- to post-project 58

62 Water Quality Water Temperature The difference in daily maximum water temperature from the top to the bottom of the project area was on average 4.2 o Fahrenheit warmer in post-project conditions. This is a 50% increase in daily maximum water temperature from pre- to post-project. Fine Sediment The Wolmann pebble count showed a 71% decrease in fine sediment on the lowest riffle in the project area from 14% to 4%. Pool tail fine sediment through the whole sampling area decreased in post-project condition by 59% from 34% to 14%. Turbidity Figure 13 shows average storm event turbidity from two storm events in 2007 and four storm events in The pre-project sampling period did not include samples from below the project. The chart shows that post-project turbidity increased significantly from pre-project conditions. Even though turbidity has increased from pre-project condition, turbidity decreases by 46% from the top to the bottom of the project. One factor that might be contributing to the low pre-project turbidity is that only two storm event samples were collected in This sample only had a turbidity of about 4 NTU, which indicates that the pre-project storms may not have been as significant of a runoff event as the post-project storms. Figure 13: Storm event turbidity pre- and post-project Fish Habitat Bank Stability There was a 72% increase in bank stability through the Smith Creek project area from 54% pre- to 94% post-project. 59

63 Pool Habitat The Smith Creek project area pool habitat decreased by 38% from pre- to post-project. The difference in pool habitat was due to the post-project sampling area being in the remnant channel on the top of the meadow. The remnant channel is a shallow grass-lined meadow channel with few pools and riffles. It will take several years for the remnant channel to geomorphically develop. Here, as mentioned on Boulder Creek, it is likely that the channel winding through five ponds has created more pool habitat than pre-project conditions if the whole project area is taken into account. Fisheries A 300 ft reach in the Smith Creek project area was electroshocked pre-project, June 2007, and post-project, September 2008 and July The electroshocking reach was located approximately 200 ft upstream from the grade control structure. From pre- to post-project there was an average 55% increase in total number of fish and an average 25% increase in total number of trout in the sampling reach. There was an average 24% increase in pounds per acre of trout post-project. *Project constructed in (June) 2008 (Sept) 2009 (July) Number of Fish Species Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Riffle Sculpin Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Riffle Sculpin Rainbow Trout Brown Trout Riffle Sculpin Average Fork Length (in) Average Weight (lbs) Table 6: Smith Creek Pre- and Post-project Electroshocking results Pounds per Acre

64 Channel Morphometry Figure 14: Pre-project cross-section in Smith Creek project area Figure 15: Typical post-project cross-section 61

65 Overall Landscape Photo Point 1 July 2007 July 2009 Photo Point 2 July 2007 July

66 Photo Point 3 July 2007 July 2009 Photo Point 4 July 2007 July

67 Project Goals Desired Outcomes Outcome Indicators Measurement Tools and Methods Targets Smith Creek Project Outcomes Improve groundwater recharge in floodplain Improve water quality Maximized floodplain water recharge 1. Decreased water temperature 2. Decreased fine sediment 1. 10% increase in late season soil moisture. 2. Conversion from xeric plant communities to moist/mesic plant communities. At downstream end of each project: 1. 5% decrease in max daily water temperature % decrease in <2mm substrate in pool tails. 2a. 10% decrease in turbidity and TSS in event grab samples. 1. Tensiometer quickdraw soil moisture probe monthly (Jun-Sep) samples at ea of three 100 vegetative transects per treated meadow. 2. Annual point-intercept method along vegetative transects. 1. Continuous recording water temperature sensors (Jun-Sep). 2. Wolmann pebble counts and pool tail fines grid toss (USFS R5 SCI protocol). 2a. Storm event grab samples and analysis preand post-project. 1. Moist soil conditions through June. 2. No sagebrush in floodplain meadows. 1. Not to exceed 20C max daily water temperature. 2. <10% fines at pool tails. 2a. Event turbidity and sediment consistently trending downward % increase in late season soil moisture % increase in sedge and juncus species, a moist/mesic plant community % increase in the difference in daily maximum water temperature from the top to the bottom of the project area % and 59% decrease in fine sediment sampled by the Wolmann Pebble Count and Pool Tail Fine Grid Toss, respectively. 2a. 46% decrease in turbidity through the project area. Improve coldwater fish habitat All of the above, plus: 1.Increased bank vegetative cover 2.Increased pool:riffle ratio At downstream end of each project area: 1. 10% increase in bank vegetative cover. 2. Increase in pool habitat by 20%. At downstream end of each project area: 1. SCI (USFS R5) bank stability rating (veg cover). 2. SCI habitat identification (% pools) % bank vegetative cover % pool habitat. Improve coldwater fishery Increased trout population 10% increase in trout biomass in 300 sample reach. Multiple pass depletion electroshock survey. Trout biomass not less than 30lb/acre of surface water. Table 5: Summary of Smith Creek Monitoring Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan table with measured outcomes after two years % increase in bank vegetative cover % decrease in pool habitat (see explanatory text) % increase in trout biomass (sampling error).

68 Long Valley Creek

69 Groundwater Recharge Vegetative Transects Figure 16. displays percent of sedge and juncus species along the three vegetation transects pre- and post-project. There was a significant increase in sedge and juncus species in Long Valley Creek project on the lower and upper transects, but there was no change in the amount of sedge and juncus species on the middle transect. This is probably due to the particularly dry location of the transect. Figure 16: Percent of sedge and juncus species from pre- to post-project Soil Moisture Figure 17 displays soil moisture, shown as desiccation, at the endpoints of the lower, middle, and upper vegetative transects averaged together. Figure 17 illustrates a 45% increase in late season (August) soil moisture throughout the Long Valley Creek project area. Figure 17: Average soil desiccation from pre- to post-project

70 Water Quality Water Temperature The difference in daily maximum water temperature from the top to the bottom of the project area was on average 10.5 o Fahrenheit cooler in post-project conditions. There was a 12.5% decrease in maximum water temperature at the bottom of the project from pre- to postproject. Fine Sediment The Wolmann pebble count showed a 71% increase in fine sediment on the lowest riffle in the project area from 7% pre-project to 12% post-project. The pool tail fine sediment through the whole sampling area increased in post-project condition by 400% from 17% pre-project to 86% post-project. As in the other two pond and plug projects, the overall increase in fine sediment is due to the changes in the channel from pre- to post-project and was not unexpected on this project. The pre-project sampling area was in the bottom of the original gully, which had eroded through gravel deposits. The post-project sampling area was in the remnant channel on the top of the meadow, where fines and vegetation area the predominant substrate was the first year post-project, and the remnant channel has not geomorphically developed, nor have gravel from up valley yet been carried to the sampling area at the bottom of the project area. The channel is still a shallow grass-lined meadow channel with few pools and riffles. It would be beneficial to redo this survey five years post-project. 67

71 Turbidity Figure 18 shows storm event turbidity from one storm event in 2007 and two storm events in Even though turbidity appears to have increased from pre-project condition, turbidity decreases by 74% from the top to the bottom of the project, where it increased through the project area in the pre-project condition. One factor that might contribute to the low preproject turbidity is that only one storm event sample was collected in This sample only had a turbidity of about 6 NTU, which indicates that the pre-project storm may not have been as significant of a runoff event as the post-project storms. Figure 18: Storm Event Turbidity Pre- and Post-project Fish Habitat Bank Stability There was a 120% increase in bank stability through the Long Valley Creek project area from 44% pre-project to 97% post-project. Pool Habitat The Long Valley Creek project area pool habitat decreased by 74% from pre- to postproject. The difference in pool habitat was due to the post-project sampling area being in the remnant channel on the top of the meadow. The remnant channel is a shallow grass-lined meadow channel with few pools and riffles. It will take several years for the remnant channel to geomorpically develop. As in the other pond and plug projects, with the channel moving through eight ponds, it is likely that pool habitat is greater or equal to pre-project conditions. 68

72 Fisheries A 300 ft reach in the Long Valley Creek project area was electroshocked pre-project, June 2007, and post-project, July The pre-project electroshocking reach was located approximately 700 ft upstream from the fenceline at the bottom of the project, while the postproject reach was located approximatley 100 ft upstream from the fenceline. From pre- to postproject there was an increase in pounds per acre of trout in the sampling reach. However, the sampling is probably not representative of the project s effect on the fishery due to the difficulty in sampling areas where the trout are most likely to be found. *Project constructed in Number of Fish 6 Species Rainbow Trout Average Total Length (in) Average Fork Length (in) Average Weight (lbs) Pounds per Acre Riffle Sculpin Rainbow Trout Sacramento Pike Minnow Table 8: Long Valley Creek Pre- and Post-project Electroshocking results 69

73 Channel Morphometry Figure 19: Pre-project cross-section in Long Valley Creek project area Figure 20: Typical post-project cross-section 70

74 Overall Landscape Photo Point 5 July 2007 July 2009 Photo Point 17 July 2007 July

75 Photo Point 28 July 2007 July

76 Project Goals Desired Outcomes Outcome Indicators Measurement Tools and Methods Targets Long Valley Creek Project Outcomes Improve groundwater recharge in floodplain Improve water quality Improve coldwater fish habitat Improve coldwater fishery Maximized floodplain water recharge 1. Decreased water temperature 2. Decreased fine sediment All of the above, plus: 1.Increased bank vegetative cover 2.Increased pool:riffle ratio Increased trout population 1. 10% increase in late season soil moisture. 2. Conversion from xeric plant communities to moist/mesic plant communities. At downstream end of each project: 1. 5% decrease in max daily water temperature % decrease in <2mm substrate in pool tails. 2a. 10% decrease in turbidity and TSS in event grab samples. At downstream end of each project area: 1. 10% increase in bank vegetative cover. 2. Increase in pool habitat by 20%. 10% increase in trout biomass in 300 sample reach. 1. Tensiometer quickdraw soil moisture probe monthly (Jun-Sep) samples at ea of three 100 vegetative transects per treated meadow. 2. Annual point-intercept method along vegetative transects. 1. Continuous recording water temperature sensors (Jun-Sep). 2. Wolmann pebble counts and pool tail fines grid toss (USFS R5 SCI protocol). 2a. Storm event grab samples and analysis preand post-project. At downstream end of each project area: 1. SCI (USFS R5) bank stability rating (veg cover). 2. SCI habitat identification (% pools). Multiple pass depletion electroshock survey. 1. Moist soil conditions through June. 2. No sagebrush in floodplain meadows. 1. Not to exceed 20C max daily water temperature. 2. <10% fines at pool tails. 2a. Event turbidity and sediment consistently trending downward % bank vegetative cover % pool habitat. Trout biomass not less than 30lb/acre of surface water. Table 7: Long Valley Creek Monitoring Project Assessment and Evaluation Plan table with measured outcomes after one year % increase in late season soil moisture. 2. Increase in sedge and juncus species, a moist/mesic plant community % decrease in max daily water temperature % and 400% increase in fine sediment sampled by the Wolmann Pebble Count and Pool Tail Fine Grid Toss, respectively (see explanatory text). 2a. 74% decrease in turbidity through the project area % increase in bank vegetative cover % decrease in pool habitat (see explanatory text). 1. Increase in trout biomass (sampling error).

77 Discussion The primary purpose of the Upper Middle Fork Feather River Complex projects was to restore the function of the channel/floodplain system in each of the four project areas. This was successfully accomplished. Additional results for project goals are summarized below. What was the overall effect on groundwater recharge in the floodplain? The vegetative transects in all four projects showed an overwhelming conversion from xeric plant communities to mesic plant communities. The percent juncus and sedge species, a mesic plant community, increased over 100% in every project. The target, no sagebrush in floodplain meadows, was met on all of the projects. Three out of the four projects met and exceeded the outcome indicator of 10% increase in last season soil moisture, and all projects met the target of moist soil conditions through June. What was the overall effect on water temperature? Two of three (Little Last Chance, Smith Creek, and Long Valley Creek) projects met the outcome indicator of 5% decrease in maximum daily water temperature. Boulder Creek project temperature comparison is not included in the pre- and post-project analysis, since there was an error in post-project HOBOtemp placement.the target, not to exceed 20 o C (68 o F) maximum daily water temperature, was not met on any of the projects, however, as vegetation becomes established, it is likely that the projects all provide some cold-water refugia for trout, especially in the pond bottoms. What was the overall effect on fine sediment? The results from the Wolmann Pebble Count show that three out of the four projects decreased fine sediment. Pool Tail Fines show that two out of the four projects decreased fine sediment. Only one of the four projects reached the outcome indicator of less than 10% fine sediment in the project area. The increase in fine sediment was not entirely unexpected, since the postproject sampling areas were in the shallow grass-lined remnant channel on top of the meadow. The challenge with post-project monitoring so soon after project construction is that the remnant channel has not geomorphically developed, and gravels have not yet been transported into the new channel sampling areas, which are located at the bottom of the project area. It would be prudent to redo these surveys again at least five years post-project. What was the overall effect on event-generated turbidity? The results from turbidity sampling show that three out of the four projects decreased turbidity throughout the project area.

78 What was the overall effect on fish habitat? All four of the projects increased bank stability by over 10% and three out of the four projects exceeded the target of 80% vegetative cover on the stream banks. Only one of the four projects met the outcome of 20% increase in pool habitat. This same project was the only one of the four to meet the target of 50% pool habitat. The challenge with monitoring pool habitat so soon after project construction is that the remnant channel has not geomorphically developed. Pools in the remnant channel may not develop for many years post-project. When assessing the amount of pool habitat in the project area pond habitat should be included. In other project areas trout utilize the pond habitat. A monitoring lesson learned from the project: to assess habitat types in the whole project area, not just a sampling reach. What was the overall effect on fisheries? Two out of the four projects met the 10% increase in trout biomass outcome indicator, but none of the projects met the target of 30lbs of trout per acre. The difficulty with post-project fish surveys is due to accessible sampling area. The pre-project surveys were conducted in the best habitat available, however most of the suitable pools for trout and all ponds were too deep to access with the backpack electroshocker after the project. The accessible habitat that was surveyed post-project was sub-prime habitat for trout. Another monitoring lesson learned: in the future, the FRCRM expects to compare angling catch per unit effor in pre- and post-project conditions. While electroshocking is a preferred sampling technique, it cannnot be effectively employed post-project. What was the overall effect on channel morphometry? The cross-sectional area of the stream channel has been reduced in all of the four projects, allowing more frequent flooding, and increasing floodplain function. What was the overall landscape change within the project areas? All four projects have restored function to the channel/floodplain and the meadows are wet earlier and later in the season. This restored functionality has increase vegetation growth and bank stability. 75

79 SCI Protocols: Version

80 77

81 Version