Project Number: 5. Date:

Transcription

1 Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 Public Law Title II Project Submission Form USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee Cycle 9 Project Number: 2. Project Name: Greenhorn Creek Restoration 3. County(s): Plumas 4. Project Submitted By: Plumas Corporation, Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (FRCRM) 5. Date: Contact Phone Number & Mailing Address: (530) , P.O. Box 3880, Quincy, Ca Contact & Mailing Address: Leslie Mink, leslie@plumascounty.org; P.O. Box 3880, Quincy, Ca Project Location (color maps must be submitted hardcopy to the RAC) a. National Forest(s): Plumas National Forest b. Forest Service District: Mt Hough Ranger District c. State / Private / Other lands involved? Yes No If yes, then specify: The project areas encompass private lands along Greenhorn Creek in American Valley of Farnworth, Scoppwer, Reid, Shea, and Hansen, as well as a portion of Plumas National Forest. d. Location: Township T.24N. Range R.10E. Section(s) 21, 16, 17, 8, 7 9. Briefly State Project Goals and Objectives: The overarching goal of this project is restore trout populations and bank stability to Greenhorn Creek in American Valley. Trout were chosen as one of the primary project goals because they are an excellent indicator of overall stream health. The project would be implemented in several phases, depending on availability of funding. Implementation objectives of fish passage and bank stability would be achieved at six treatment locations throughout the valley. Objectives for this funding request include CEQA/NEPA clearance for all proposed treatment locations, and implementation of a 390-foot bank stabilization project on National Forest land. 10. Briefly Describe the Project: This proposal requests funding for a portion of an integrated restoration project on Greenhorn Creek through American Valley. The integrated project consists of four bank stabilization and two fish passage treatments. These treatments were determined and prioritized through a survey and planning effort funded by the Plumas County Board of Supervisors using Title III funds. The Project Map displays the location and proposed treatment of each site. This proposal requests funding for environmental clearance, continued coordination, and monitoring for all of the proposed treatment sites, and implementation at one site that encompasses both National Forest and private land. Additional implementation funding would be sought from the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC) for the remaining treatment sites on private land. CEQA/NEPA completion is a requirement for SNC, and other agencies, prior to applying for implementation funds. Environmental clearance would consist of: 1) field surveys and reporting for cultural resources, wildlife and botany on a total of 35 acres in six locations; 2) CEQA and NEPA documentation; and 3) permit applications from the California Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality 1

2 Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers. For the purposes of environmental clearances, all of the treatments are considered to be one single project. Continued coordination is necessary in order to work with Caltrans and their contractor on the possibility of transporting rock from the Spanish Creek Bridge Replacement Project to Greenhorn Creek. Procurement of material from that project could make the fish passage projects feasible. Together, the projects would require 8,000 cubic yards of material. Without a partner in material transport, these projects would be too expensive. Preliminary discussions with the Project Engineer from Caltrans indicate that the contractor s partnership with the project is a strong possibility if it is economically advantageous to the contractor. The landowners have agreed to store the rock. Coordination would also be used to fund preparation of the implementation grant application. Monitoring would build on the on-going water quality monitoring conducted by irrigating landowners, and the FR-CRM s Stream Condition Inventory site at the mouth of Greenhorn Creek, as well as an additional sample site near the upper end of American Valley. See the attached monitoring plan for more detail. The implementation would occur at the upper end of Russell Reid s property, and the downstream end of the National Forest property on Greenhorn Creek (see map). The project would entail the installation of nine boulder vanes and bank revegetation along a 390-foot eroding bank. The boulder vanes would create pool and riffle habitat in this location that is currently wide and shallow. 11. Are there other related project(s) on adjacent lands? Yes No If yes, then describe the coordination you will do. Development of the Greenhorn Integrated Restoration Project has required coordination with all of the 22 landowners along Greenhorn Creek. Most of the landowners with erosion issues have undertaken some bank stabilization and grazing management work of their own over the years. The proposed treatments build upon the on-going efforts of the landowners. Water quality monitoring is also planned to complement on-going water quality monitoring conducted by irrigating landowners. 12. How does the proposed project meet purposes of the Legislation? (Check at least 1) Improves maintenance of existing infrastructure. Implements stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems. Restores and improves land health. Restores water quality 13. Project Type (check at least 1) Road Maintenance Road Decommission/Obliteration Trail Maintenance Trail Obliteration Other Infrastructure Maintenance (specify): Soil Productivity Improvement Watershed Restoration & Maintenance Fish Habitat Restoration Reestablish Native Species Forest Health Improvement Wildlife Habitat Restoration Control of Noxious Weeds Hazardous Fuels Reduction Other Project Type (specify): Water Quality and Fish Monitoring

3 14. Identify What the Project Will Accomplish Miles of road maintained: N/A Miles of road decommissioned/obliterated: N/A Number of structures maintained/improved: N/A Acres of soil productivity improved: N/A Miles of stream/river restored/improved: 0.07 miles direct improvement, 6.5 miles indirect (mouth of Greenhorn up to impassable Highway 70 culvert) Miles of fish habitat restored/improved: same as stream miles restored Acres of native species reestablished: native species will be used to revegetate 0.07 acres of stabilized bank Miles of trail maintained: N/A Miles of trial obliterated: N/A Acres of forest health improved (including fuels reduction): N/A Acres of rangeland improved: N/A Acres of wildlife habitat restored/improved: N/A Acres of noxious weeds controlled: Noxious weeds will be monitored and eradicated by hand for three years in disturbed areas Timber volume generated: N/A Number of jobs generated: 23 full-time employment-weeks People reached (for environmental education projects): N/A Direct economic activity benefit: unknown Other: 15. Estimated Project Start Date: February 1, Estimated Project Completion Date: December 31, How will cooperative relationships among people that use federal lands be improved? List known partnerships or collaborative opportunities. The project involves both public and private lands. The agreement and support of private landowners along Greenhorn Creek of the project demonstrates cooperation and collaboration. Completion of a local project that meets landowner needs and improves public trust assets of trout fisheries and water quality will further the notion that the two can be mutually beneficial. Additionally, the FR-CRM is a partnership entity that regularly brings resource agencies and private landowners together to work on common goals. This particular project involves four new landowners with an FR-CRM project. 18. How is this project in the best interest of the community? Identify benefits to communities. (max. 12 lines) One of the primary benefits of the coordinated resource management approach is that it brings

4 landowners and resource agencies together to solve problems on stream systems that are typically managed on a property boundary basis. Allowing people to participate in a broader landscape goal helps everyone to see the big picture and our individual roles in the stewardship of a common landscape. Improved water quality benefits everyone, whether that water is used for irrigation, swimming, fishing or drinking, and whether it is used here in American Valley or farther downstream. Similarly, trout fisheries are an indicator of good quality water and a healthy watershed, and add a recreational value to our waterways. 19. How does the project benefit federal lands/resources? (max. 12 lines) Two thirds of the bank to be treated with this funding is directly on National Forest land, and would halt active erosion at that location and improve fish habitat with the creation of pools. Environmental clearance for fish passage at the two irrigation dams would restore fish passage onto National Forest lands. Environmental clearance for bank stabilization at the other locations would improve water quality on National Forest lands downstream of those treatments. 20. What is the Proposed Method(s) of Accomplishment? (check at least 1) Contract County Workforce Other (specify): FR-CRM staff and landowners Federal Workforce Volunteers 21. Will the Project Generate Merchantable Materials? Yes No 22. Anticipated Project Costs $99,050 a. Total Title II Funds Requested: $70,360 b Request: $ c Request: $70,360 See work schedule. 23. Identify Source(s) of Other Funding: $3,200 of in-kind services is being provided by members of the Technical Advisory Committee for project design review. Members of the TAC include representatives from Dept. of Water Resources Regional Water Quality Control Board, CA Dept. of Fish & Game, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Plumas County, Plumas National Forest, Caltrans, Feather River resource Conservation District, UC Cooperative Extension, and the five landowners. Victoria Shea has contributed $3,240 in preliminary survey and design work on her property. The Plumas County Board of Supervisors has contributed $19,550 in survey, design and coordination. 24. Monitoring Plan (see attachment) 25. Identify remedies for failure to comply with the terms of the agreement: If any tasks have not been completed, money budgeted for that task will be returned.

5 Project Recommended By: Project Approved By: Bill Powers, Chair Plumas County Resource Advisory Committee Alice Carlton, Forest Supervisor Plumas National Forest Date: Date:

6 Project Cost Analysis Worksheet Worksheet 1 Please submit this worksheet with your proposal Item Column A Fed. Agency Appropriated Contribution [Sec. 203(b)(4)] Column B Requested Title II Contribution [Sec. 203(b)(4)] Column C Other Contributions [Sec. 203(b)(4)] Column D Total Available Funds a. Field Work & Site Surveys $ 0 $ 19,790 1 $ 19,790 b. NEPA/CEQA $ 23,000 $ 23,000 c. ESA Consultation d. Permit Acquisition $ 1,600 $ 1,600 e. Project Design & Engineering $ 1,000 $ 3,200 2 $ 4,200 f. Contract Preparation $ 960 $ 960 g. Contract Administration (on-site supervision) $ 2,500 $ 2,500 h. Contract Cost $ 27,500 $ 27,500 i. Salaries (coordination) $ 3,000 $ 3,000 3 $ 6,000 j. Materials & Supplies $2,700 4 k. Monitoring $ 8,500 $ 8,500 l. Other: Public Notices $ 300 $ 300 m. Project Sub-Total $ 68,360 $ 25,990 $ 94,350 n. Indirect Costs $ 2,000 $ 2,000 o. Total Cost Estimate $2,700 $ 70,360 $ 25,990 $ 99,050 1 Plumas County Title III Planning funds, and Shea Ranch design funds. 2 in-kind contributions for TAC 3 Plumas County Title III Planning funds yards rock donated by Plumas National $15/yd NOTES: a. Pre-NEPA Costs g. Includes Contracting Officer Representative (COR) costs. Excludes Contracting Officer costs. i. Cost of implementing project l. Examples include vehicles, equipment rentals, travel, etc. n. USFS Contracting Officer costs, if needed, are included as part of Indirect Costs.

7 Status of Project Planning Worksheet Worksheet 2 a. NEPA* Complete: Yes No If no, give est. date of completion: Jan 1, 2011 (permit acquisition will be completed at the same time as NEPA and CEQA; ESA and SHPO consultation/concurrence will be determined by environmental surveys and analysis and completed if needed) b. NMFS* Sec. 7 ESA Consultation Complete: Yes No Not Applicable c. USFWS* Sec. 7 ESA Consultation Complete: Yes No Not Applicable d. Survey & Manage Complete: Jan 1, 2011 Yes No Not Applicable e. RWRCB/CDFG* Permits for In-stream Work Obtained: Yes No Not Applicable f. RWRCB/COE* 401/404 Fill/Removal Permit Obtained: Yes No Not Applicable g. SHPO* Concurrence Received: Yes No Not Applicable h. Project Design(s) Completed: Jan 1, 2011 Yes No * NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act, NMFS = National Marine Fisheries Service, USFWS = United States Fish & Wildlife Service, RWRCB = Regional Water Resources Control Board, CDFG = CA Dept. of Fish & Game, COE = Army Corps of Engineers, SHPO = State Historic Preservation Officer Forest Supervisor s Check List for Authorization Worksheet Worksheet 3 Must satisfy each of the following conditions: (1) The project complies with all applicable Federal laws and regulations. (2) The project is consistent with the applicable resource management plan and with any watershed or subsequent plan developed pursuant to the resource management plan and approved by the Secretary concerned. (3) The project has been approved by the resource advisory committee in accordance with section 205, including the procedures issued under subsection (e) of such section. (4) A project description has been submitted by the resource advisory committee to the Secretary concerned in accordance with section 203. (5) The project will improve the maintenance of existing infrastructure, implement stewardship objectives that enhance forest ecosystems, and restore and improve land health and water quality.

8 Monitoring Plan Greenhorn Creek Restoration Project Ecosystem Management Goals and Objectives Goal: Improve fish habitat within the implementation project area. Question: Is there more depth and cover in the project area after the project (vs. before)? Responsible Party: FR-CRM staff Method: Habitat and bank stability protocols from USFS Region 5 Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Monitoring. Frequency: one pre-project survey and one post-project survey Cost: $ 500 Goal: Track fish populations and habitat quality in Greenhorn Creek Question: What is the trend in the condition of Greenhorn Creek? Responsible Party: FR-CRM staff and subcontractor Methods: USFS Region 5 Stream Condition Inventory Protocol (SCI), including water quality and fish population sampling at the existing FR-CRM Monitoring Reach at the mouth of Greenhorn Creek. Compare to data. Add a fish and water quality sampling site on the Farnworth property above Highway70. Collect event-driven water quality samples in winters of 2010 and Analyze water samples for heavy metals. Frequency: Once in 2010 for SCI. At least three events in 2010 and Cost: $8,000

9 Project Work Plan for Greenhorn Creek Restoration Project Task Milestone Timeframe* Responsible Party Begin Public Involvement Enter Project into District Schedule of Proposed Actions, District Ranger signs Project Initiation Oct 2009 Mt Hough RD Project Contact Coordinate with Caltrans bridge contractor Collect and analyze run-off samples Project scoping Advertise and award subcontracts for environmental surveys and reports Fish & SCI monitoring Review and finalize specialist reports Signed Negative Declaration by Plumas County and Decision Notice by USFS Necessary permits acquired and landowner (LO) Letter Identify usable material after blasting, and obtain agreement on its disposal Samples analyzed and data recorded District IDT meets, Proposed Action formulated, Public scoping letters & notice to paper out. Issues identified. Solicit bids for wildlife, botany, and archaeology surveys & reports; Flag area of potential effects and administer awarded contracts Completion of monitoring field work Environmental surveys completed and final specialist reports submitted CEQA and NEPA documents, public notices, and public comment period completed; documents approved Permit applications submitted to RWQCB, CDFG, & ACOE; LO agreements finalized Jan-May 2010 Feb-May 2010; Feb-May 2011 Feb Mar-Apr 2010 Sept 2010 Sept Feb 2011 Mar 2011 FR-CRM staff FR-CRM staff FR-CRM staff and Mt Hough RD staff FRCRM staff FR-CRM staff FRCRM staff & subcontractors FRCRM staff & Mt Hough RD staff FRCRM staff agreements signed Construct Project Construction completed July 2011 FR-CRM staff and construction contractor Apply for additional implementation funding Obtain additional implementation funding Nov 2011 FRCRM staff Final Report Final report submitted Dec 2011 FRCRM staff * Assuming start date of February 1, 2010

10