Existing Management Plans

Introduction

Big Chico Creek just before it enters the Sacramento River.
From: Dave Ross

Purpose

The purpose of this chapter is to identify existing management plans that affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed and to summarize the key components of those plans. Watershed stakeholders will use this information as they develop an Adaptive Management Plan addressing their priorities.

Incorporation of Deer Creek Study

Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies Pertaining to the Protection and Enhancement of Natural Resources in the Deer Creek Watershed, compiled by the Habitat Restoration Group for the Deer Creek Watershed Action Committee, is a comprehensive inventory and summary of measures that may also affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed. Because these laws, regulations and policies are important components of watershed management, the Deer Creek study is incorporated into this report (Appendix C of Laws and Regulations chapter).

Scope

Identification and summary of all existing management plans that could potentially affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed would exceed the resources of this project and create an unwieldy document. This chapter identifies the most important management plans addressing the following topics: fisheries, the upper watershed, flood control, storm water, and ground water. In addition, city and county general plans, and several other plans addressing large geographic areas of the Watershed are identified and summarized. The last section of this chapter identifies plans from the draft CALFED program. In addition to official "management plans," some key ordinances and legislation are also included in this chapter.

Fisheries Management Plans

The old diversion dam on Big Chico Creek.
From: The City of Chico

Some of the most important management plans affecting the Big Chico Creek Watershed are those that have a goal of restoring anadromous (fish that are born in fresh water, migrate to the sea and return to fresh water to spawn) fisheries, especially salmon and steelhead trout. These plans are especially important because of the substantial historical decline in the numbers of these species, strong federal and state laws requiring their restoration, and the fact that significant funding is being provided to carry out parts of these plans. In this section, four important State plans and one Federal plan are presented. Specific provisions are presented only for the most recent plan.

The Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act of 1988, Senate Bill 2261, established a goal of doubling the 1988 natural production of salmon and steelhead trout in the State of California by the end of the century. The following California management plans are part of the State's efforts to achieve this and related goals.

Upper Sacramento River: Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan (1989)

This management plan was prepared for the Resources Agency of California as a result of Senate Bill 1086, passed in 1986. It contains nine recommended solutions intended to preserve remaining riparian habitat and restore high-quality riparian ecological systems on tributary streams throughout the Sacramento Valley. It also contains nine recommended solutions specifically intended to restore the Big Chico Creek salmonid fishery.

Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Restoration and Enhancement Plan (1990)

The California Department of Fish & Game prepared this plan. Many of the management criteria, positions, and policies in this plan apply generally to all Central Valley streams. The plan does not include actions specific to the Big Chico Creek Watershed.

Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan for Action (1993)

Also prepared by the Department of Fish and Game, this management plan builds upon the previous plans by identifying and prioritizing specific actions. It presents a multi-species approach to the restoration of anadromous fish populations. The specific goals of this plan, as presented in Governor Pete Wilson's April 1992 water policy statement, are to restore and protect California's aquatic ecosystems that support fish and wildlife, and to protect threatened and endangered species. The goals of this plan also incorporate the mandate to double populations of anadromous fish in California. The plan recommends actions for riparian preservation and restoration that apply to streams throughout the Central Valley. It also makes 12 recommendations specific to Big Chico Creek to improve fish passage and flow management, and restore spawning habitat.

Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California (1996)

This plan was prepared by the Department of Fish and Game to identify restoration requirements specific to steelhead and is intended to augment other anadromous fish restoration plans. It provides guidelines for steelhead restoration and management that can be integrated into current and future planning for specific river and stream systems. It includes recommendations regarding timber harvest, grazing, instream flows, instream habitat, mining, estuaries and land acquisition. The plan does not include management objectives specific to the Big Chico Creek Watershed.

Revised Draft Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (1997)

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, passed by Congress and signed by President George Bush in 1992, requires the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop and implement a program that makes all reasonable efforts to double natural production of anadromous fish in Central Valley streams. This program is known as the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. In June 1997, the Department of the Interior released the Revised Draft Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Although referred to as a draft, the plan has already undergone extensive and formal review and is considered by the Department to be an advance copy of what will be the final plan. A final plan will be formally adopted following the completion and approval of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The plan established a production target of 800 fall run Chinook salmon in Big Chico Creek and includes eight specific actions and two evaluations for the Big Chico Creek watershed.

Action:

1. Relocate and screen the M&T Ranch diversion. This project was completed in 1997 at a cost of approximately $4.8 million. Funding was provided by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, CALFED Bay Delta Program, California Wildlife Conservation Board, Ducks Unlimited, local landowners, California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2. Repair the Iron Canyon Fish Ladder.
3. Replenish spawning gravel in reaches modified for flood control.
4. Repair the Lindo Channel weir and fishway at the Lindo Channel box culvert at the Five-Mile Diversion.
5. Improve cleaning procedures at One-Mile Pool. (See FY '96 and '97 funded projects described below.)
6. Protect spring-run Chinook salmon summer holding pools by obtaining from willing sellers titles or conservation easements on lands adjacent to the pools.

Evaluation:

1. Evaluate the water management operations between Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel.
2. Evaluate the replenishment of gravel in the flood-diversion reach of Mud Creek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Revised Draft Restoration Plan, 1997, p58-60).

While awaiting preparation and adoption of the final plan, funding has been made available for projects consistent with the plan. In the Big Chico Creek watershed, the following projects have already been funded (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Draft Annual Work Plan (FY98), 1997):

Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 1996

Peterson Property Acquisition and Restoration

This property with riparian habitat bounded by the Sacramento River, Big Chico and Mud Creeks has been added to the Bidwell-Sacramento River State Park and will be managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

Big Chico Creek One Mile Pool Bypass water quality enhancement project

This project is intended to eliminate downstream siltation in Big Chico Creek that adversely affects fall-run salmon spawning habitat. It was completed in 1997.

Real-time flow monitoring and feed-back systems for Deer, Mill, Big Chico, and Butte Creeks

This project provides real-time monitoring of physical parameters necessary to predict spring-run salmon migration patterns and assure adequate fish passage conditions.

Projects Funded in Fiscal Year 1997

Big Chico Creek One Mile Pool Bypass water quality enhancement project

This is the remaining funding for the project described above and was completed within budget and on schedule.

Funded in Fiscal Year 1998 contingent upon additional funding

Develop a comprehensive watershed management strategy.

This project involves development of a comprehensive plan to restore naturally spawning populations of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. The Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance anticipates that this will be part of the watershed management strategy developed by the Alliance and local stakeholders using data gathered for this Existing Conditions Report.

Upper Watershed Management Plans

Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1992)

Chico Meadows near the headwaters of Big Chico Creek.
By Suzanne Gibbs

The purpose of this plan is to 1) define the resources to be emphasized in different management areas of the Forest, 2) establish goals and objectives for commodities and services to be provided, and 3) prescribe standards, guidelines, and practices to achieve the goals and objectives (Habitat Restoration Group, Draft Land Use, 1997, p3-2). Several small sections of the Big Chico Creek Watershed are within the boundaries of Lassen National Forest. They include the upper reaches of the Watershed on Colby Mountain in the Jonesville Management Area, several scattered parcels along Web Hollow, Big Chico, Cascade and Smoky creeks in the Lomo Management Area, and a few very small sections in the Lower Deer Creek Management Area (U.S. Forest Service, 1992, p4-250 to 4-260). All are located in the Almanor Ranger District. Most of the scattered parcels are proposed for exchange with Sierra Pacific Industries. Except for a fire lookout on the top of Colby Mountain, there are no developed National Forest sites in the watershed. A former campground at Soda Springs has been discontinued (Charlton, 1998).

BLM Redding Resource Management Plan (1993)

The Big Chico Creek watershed is located in the Ishi Management Area within the Redding Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). There are more than a dozen scattered parcels of BLM land in the Big Chico Creek watershed. The Redding Resource Management plan has a goal of transforming the scattered land base of the Redding Resource Area into consolidated management units. This is to be pursued primarily by two methods. One method is by transferring scattered parcels to governmental or nonprofit groups under the authority of the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. This act allows BLM to lease or patent public land for public parks, building sites, correctional centers or for other public purposes. The second method is by exchanging isolated BLM parcels for more strategically located lands currently owned by other parties, public or private. Specific plans for BLM property in the Big Chico Creek watershed are presented next.

Minnehaha Mine Parcel

The Minnehaha Mine parcel is currently classified by BLM as Recreational. Because of the problems caused by past mining activities (see History chapter), the Minnehaha Mine has site-specific management objectives:

1. Stabilize the ongoing erosion due to past mining practices.
2. Enhance water quality of Big Chico Creek.
3. Enhance the safety of human users of this area. (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1993, p51)

The BLM and other public agencies paid for a cleanup of trash and mining waste on this site, costing more than $35,000. Vehicle access has been prohibited, erosion has been stabilized, and the property is being revegetated through natural processes (Rogers, 1998).

The plan calls for withdrawing the Minnehaha parcel from mineral entry (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, p52). However, there is a current mining claim on the property (Rogers 1998), and until the withdrawal process is completed, additional mining claims can be made. Official withdrawal will prevent subsequent claims, but existing claims will remain valid (Truden, 1998).

Parcels Along Big Chico Creek from Campbell CREEK to Ponderosa Way

Big Chico Creek between the road crossing near Campbell Creek and the Ponderosa Way Bridge has been preliminarily classified as eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. This stretch of the creek has been classified by the BLM as wild except for the Minnehaha Mine parcel, which has been classified as recreational. All public land within ¼ mile of normal high water is to be managed to protect the outstanding remarkable values and free flowing character which led to the determination of eligibility (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1993, p26-27). Five BLM parcels totaling 520 acres on this stretch of the creek have been set aside pending the final determination of National Wild and Scenic River status by Congress. If Congress designates a section of the stream as a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System, the BLM will consider acquisition of available, unimproved private land within the designated corridor (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1993, p 27). If this portion of Big Chico Creek does not receive the designation, the City of Chico, County of Butte or other qualified organizations will be given two years to submit Recreation and Public Purpose applications prior to the land being offered for exchange to any party (Truden, 1998).

Remainder of BLM Parcels in Watershed

The remaining BLM parcels within the Watershed are available for Recreation and Public Purposes Act transfer or exchange. At least two land trusts have become involved in assisting BLM with this process.

One is the nonprofit American Land Conservancy (ALC), which uses money from the sale of BLM properties to acquire other lands along the Sacramento River and its tributaries for environmental benefits (Reid, 1998). ALC will sell to buyers wishing to preserve the properties if such buyer are available but will sell to others on the private market as well (Reid, 1998). In 1996, eight BLM parcels totaling about 576 acres were transferred to the ALC and then purchased by a local landowner and are now part of the Musty Buck Preserve (Owens, 1998). Another exchange proposal from the ALC for three BLM parcels off of Highway 32 has already been approved pending the finding of ultimate buyers for the properties.

The other land trust active in the Watershed is the Trust for Public Land, which has submitted a proposal for exchange involving three BLM parcels along Rock Creek near and above Cohasset. If approved by BLM, these parcels could be sold by the Trust for Public Land on the private market. Money obtained from exchanges in this proposal, which also involves other BLM parcels in Tehama County, will be used to fund land acquisition in the Sacramento River/Bend Area of Critical Environmental Concern north and east of Red Bluff (Reeves, 1998).

PACFISH (1995)

In 1995, the Lassen Land and Resource Plan and Redding Resource Management Plan were amended by the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and portions of California (commonly referred to as PACFISH). PACFISH is an ecosystem-based strategy to stop habitat degradation from land-use activities and begin restoration of aquatic habitat and riparian areas in fish-producing watersheds. It is intended to improve aquatic habitat conditions on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and BLM administered lands outside the range of the northern spotted owl (Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, 1996, p67).

PACFISH focuses on the maintenance and restoration of entire watersheds, specifically, those features required for healthy aquatic ecosystems: cool water temperatures, adequate amounts of woody debris, reduced sedimentation, increased streambank stability, and appropriate pool habitat attributes. Components of the strategy include: identifying and analyzing Key Watersheds; determining goals, site-specific riparian management objectives and associated standards and guidelines; creating riparian habitat conservation areas and restoring watersheds (Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, 1996, p68).

USFS and BLM are developing geographic-specific environmental impact statements and analyzing long-term management strategies. The environmental impact statements may result in amendments to BLM land-use plans and USFS forest plans to provide greater protection and restoration of anadromous fish habitats in fish-producing watersheds. While the environmental impact statements are being developed, USFS and BLM are implementing an interim policy so that restoration can begin immediately (Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, 1996, p68).

Management of Private Forestry Lands

The California State Board of Forestry regulates the harvesting of timber from private and state lands. Under the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act, the Board is responsible for developing Forest Practice Rules to guide the preparation of timber harvesting plans, which must be approved by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection before logging can occur. These rules are meant to ensure the continued productivity of forest land in the state and to protect values impacted by timber harvesting, such as watershed, recreation, wildlife, range, fisheries, and aesthetics.

The Board of Forestry may also classify watersheds as "sensitive" to additional operations, if there is substantial evidence that specified resources are not being protected by the Forest Practice Rules. The Board may then apply additional mitigation measures to protect the affected resource (California Dept. of Forestry, 1998, p74).

Flood Control Management Plans

Alliance members remove the dreaded Arundo donax along Lindo Channel.
From Suzanne Gibbs

Operation and Maintenance Manual for Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch Sacramento River and Major and Minor Tributaries Flood Control Project (1965)

This management plan prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, guides current operation and maintenance activities on a project designed to provide flood protection from flows in Big Chico Creek, Lindo Channel, Sycamore and Mud Creeks. This project includes the following:

1. The cleared channel and levees of Big Chico Creek upstream to Mud Creek; the enlarged channel and levees of Mud Creek upstream to near Hicks Lane; the channel and levees of Sycamore Creek upstream to the Diversion Channel; and the Diversion Channel from Sycamore Creek to Big Chico Creek. The project also includes channel improvements and levees on the lower reaches of Sycamore Creek, Sheep Hollow, Dry Creek, North Sycamore Creek and on the lower end of Channel Slough.
2. The Five-Mile Dam (Big Chico Creek Culvert), the Lindo Channel Dam (Lindo Channel Culvert), and the Sycamore Weir.
3. The unimproved channels of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel that lie between the diversion structures at the upper end of the project and the Sacramento River.
4. Intermittent irrigation and drainage structures and intermittent bank protection along the above described reaches of streambed. (U.S. Army, 1965, p2)

How It Was Designed to Work

The two dams, at Five-Mile and Lindo Channel, are designed to limit flows down Big Chico Creek below Five-Mile Dam to no more than 1,500 cubic feet per second (cfs) and down Lindo Channel to a maximum of 6,000 cfs. The Sycamore Diversion Channel is designed to carry up to 8,500 cfs. Thus, the system is constructed to handle a design flow of 16,000 cfs of water coming down Big Chico Creek to Five Mile. The channel alterations and levees increase the capacity of the other involved sections of creeks.

FEMA Study

A 1993 flood insurance study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) found that the system was not operating during wet years at the diversion structures as predicted by the Corps. It appeared that large flows caused substantial backwater in Lindo Channel and forced more flow toward the Diversion Channel (Schaaf & Wheeler, 1993, p6).

The most recent flood insurance study for Butte County identifies the 100-year peak discharge upstream of Five Mile as 11,000 cfs. One-hundred-year peak discharges are 1,400 cfs below the Five-Mile Dam, 4,000 cfs below the Lindo Channel Dam, and 5,600 cfs below the Sycamore Weir (FEMA, 1998, Table 1). The FEMA-identified 100-year floodplain for Big Chico Creek, from the dam to just downstream of Rose Avenue, shows water staying within riparian areas (Thompson, Matt, 1998).

The same study found the 100-year discharge for Lindo Channel is contained within the creek channel for the entire study reach, from the dam to approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the Highway 32 bridge. The report also states that:

. . . downstream of the Esplanade, however, Lindo Channel is near bank capacity for the 100-year discharge. Within this reach the channel is perched, so flows that overtopped the banks would tend to run away from the channel as shallow overland flooding. It should be noted that, while the estimated 100-year discharge is significantly less than the channel's design capacity, that capacity was based on a clean channel. Vegetation growth has since reduced that capacity. (FEMA, 1998, p39-40)

Department of Water Resources models, however, indicate that even without the vegetation, Lindo Channel downstream of the Esplanade would not take 6,000 cfs. Downstream of the Esplanade is an unimproved waterway, and there is no indication that it was ever capable of handling flows in excess of its current capacity. (Cepello, 1998)

FEMA also studied the Diversion Channel, Sycamore Creek and Mud Creek stretch of the project down to the Highway 32 bridge. The study concluded that the estimated 100-year discharge is contained within the leveed channel.

Peak Flows of December 31, 1996 and January 1, 1997

For this peak-flow event, the highest on record, the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated a flow of 13,100 cfs 1.6 miles upstream of the Bidwell Park Golf Course Clubhouse. This estimate was based on measurement of the outside high water mark (Hunrichs, 1998). Other peak flow measurements were 1,370 cfs in Big Chico Creek at the Rose Avenue gauge at 8:45 a.m. on Dec. 31, an estimated 4,570 cfs in Lindo Channel at the Cussick Avenue gauge at 1:30 a.m. on Dec. 31, and an estimated 10,100 cfs at the Sycamore Weir at 6:30 a.m. on Jan. 1 (Calif. Dept. of Water Resources, 1997). Water stayed in the channel or within riparian areas of Big Chico Creek, in the channel of Lindo Channel, and only over-flowed the leveed sections of the system at the Cohasset Bridge, where debris obstructed the water flow.

Operation and Maintenance

Operation and maintenance responsibility is shared primarily by Butte County and the State Department of Water Resources (DWR). The County is responsible for ensuring that flashboards are removed and gates on the dams are fully open during the flood season from October 15 to April 15, or as directed by DWR. The County is also responsible for maintenance of the dams, the weir and the levees consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Manual. This responsibility includes removal of any debris that accumulates at these structures. This has primarily been an issue at the Lindo Channel Dam, where substantial debris can accumulate. During high flows, the County uses a crane or hires a private crane operator to keep the dam clear (McCollum, 1998). Levee maintenance includes removal of vegetation and dragging the slopes of the levees to maintain a clean surface to check for rodents or other degradation (McCollum, 1998).

DWR is responsible for maintaining channel capacity throughout the project consistent with the Operations and Maintenance Manual. This includes removal of debris and vegetation that reduce channel capacities below the Manual's requirements. For example, the Manual requires that the capacity of unimproved channels of Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel be maintained at 1,500 and 6,000 cfs respectively. Except for the capacity difference, maintenance requirements for Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel are equivalent.

Eliminating debris accumulation at bridges is the responsibility of Butte County or the City of Chico, whichever has legal responsibility for the bridge (McCollum, 1998).

Magement of Rock Creek and Keefer Slough Flooding

There are no existing management plans for flooding in this area. Private property owners maintain natural flood channels and private levees and in 1985 formed the Rock Creek Reclamation District, covering 4,604 acres. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is conducting a preliminary investigation to determine if a more extensive flood control project feasibility study is warranted (Ellena, 1998).

Management after a Flood

Although there are no local management plans for dealing with damage caused by floodwaters, the Federal Emergency Watershed Protection Program has from time to time fulfilled this role. The Butte County Office of Emergency Services has acted as a local sponsor under this program, which operates in presidential declared disaster areas. Butte County has been under this designation four times since January 1995 (Madden, 1998).

The Emergency Watershed Protection Program provides funds to help restore watersheds to the condition they were in prior to a natural disaster. It is not intended for regular maintenance activities or problems occurring gradually over time (Thompson, Lyle, 1998). The primary efforts are aimed at preventing erosion and retarding runoff. Sediment removal, levee repair, and bank protection are the three categories of projects most common in this area (Thompson, Lyle, 1998). Permanent or long-term measures, such as dams, channel modification, and grade-stabilization structures, may be installed only if they are the most expeditious way to safely obtain emergency protection. In addition, the value of the property saved must be greater than the cost of the project.U.S. Forest Service administers funds for emergency work on national forest lands and in holdings within national forest boundaries. The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (formerly SCS) administers funds on all lands outside of national forest boundaries, in cooperation with local sponsors (Habitat Restoration Group, Draft Environmental Laws, 1997, pI-15).

Storm Water Management Plans

City of Chico

Although two of the following plans, the Preliminary Storm Drainage Master Plan and its Addendum, must still undergo environmental review and then go before the Chico City Council, their provisions are being implemented during the interim period (Hayes, 1998).

Preliminary Storm Drainage Master Plan (1987)

The purpose of this Master Plan was to establish and determine, at a conceptual level, the ultimate storm drainage collection system needs under ultimate buildout of a major portion of the urban area. This Storm Drainage Master Plan focused on the major pipes and improved channels of the urban area storm drain system and their ability to adequately convey storm runoff. It did not address improvement needs associated with the major waterways that pass through the City, collecting runoff from the urban area storm drain system (City of Chico, Draft Report, 1997, p1).

City of Chico General Plan (1994)

The City of Chico General Plan established guiding policies and implementing policies associated with storm drainage, water quality, and resource based thresholds. More specifically, the following types of implementing policies were established:

• Explore storm water runoff volume reduction and undertake efforts to minimize runoff.
• Require no net increase in peak flow in all creeks.
• Establish a storm drain fee structure compatible with General Plan policies.
• Use natural drainage techniques where feasible.
• Enhance surface water quality.
• Establish a means to fund ongoing facility maintenance. (City of Chico, Draft Report, 1997, p2).

Storm Drainage Master Plan Addendum (1997)

The purpose of the Addendum is to address omissions in the Storm Drainage Master Plan and to implement, as appropriate, General Plan Policies. Among the projects addressed in the Addendum that may affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed are 1) channel stabilization in all waterways passing through the urban area, 2) best management practices throughout the urban area, and 3) design and data collection projects that are a necessary precursor to the aforementioned projects, the future Storm Water Management Program, and water quality monitoring (City of Chico, Draft Report, 1997, p3).

Butte County

Although Butte County does not have a formal storm water management plan, the County implements best management practices through environmental review of individual projects (Edell, 1998).

Agricultural Element, Butte County General Plan (1994)

The Agricultural Element includes a provision for management of storm drainage.

Program 4.3 To protect adjacent downstream properties and the public from flooding, require all development to provide the following information:

• Historic peak flow
• Drainage designs which do not increase the historic peak flow
• Suggested offsite improvements as mitigation for increases in historic peak flow
• Drainage plans prepared by a registered civil engineer
• Mechanisms for maintenance (Butte County Farm Bureau, 1994, pAE-16)

Tehama County

Tehama County does not have a storm water management plan. Storm water is dealt with through the environmental review process for individual projects (Stoufer, 1998).

Groundwater Management  Plans

Draft Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan (1998)

This County plan was prepared in response to nitrate contamination of groundwater in the Chico Urban Area from the use of septic systems and a 1990 Prohibition Order from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This Prohibition order, requiring cessation of the use of the septic systems, affects approximately 30,000 residents on 9,800 parcels, representing nearly 12,000 dwelling units.

The Nitrate Compliance Plan study found that only developments with a housing density equivalent to four or more dwelling units per acre are contributing to violation of nitrate standards. The Plan states that approximately 60 percent of the 12,000 dwelling units affected are within high-density areas and recommends that these areas be connected to the City of Chico's sewer system. The Board of Supervisors and the Regional Water Quality Control Board must still approve this Plan.

Measure G (1996)

Approved by Butte County voters in 1996, this measure requires permits for the extraction of groundwater for use outside the County or to substitute for surface water normally used within the County but transferred or proposed to be transferred for use outside the County. It also required the establishment of a County Water Commission, establishment of a countywide groundwater-monitoring program, and annual reports analyzing the amount of groundwater pumping that can occur without exceeding the "safe yield" for sub-basins in Butte County.

Tehama County Groundwater Ordinance (1992)

This ordinance prohibits the "mining" of groundwater within the County or extraction of groundwater for export without a permit granted by the Board of Supervisors. It further prohibits the operation of a well in a manner that would result in the radius of influence of the well transgressing the property lines of the parcel on which the well was located, excluding all wells in operation prior to 1991 (Habitat Restoration Group, Draft Environmental Laws, 1997, pI-33).

General Plans

State law requires each California city and county to prepare a general plan. General plans are intended to guide the long-range physical development of cities and counties. A county general plan, for example, will identify existing uses of land, such as urban, agricultural, grazing, forestry, and others, and then identify which areas of the county should be used for these purposes in the future. A city general plan will do the same for residential, commercial, industrial, parks, open space, and other uses. Although land use is often the heart of a general plan, other related issues must also be addressed. State law requires that all general plans address at least the seven following elements: land use, circulation (traffic), conservation, housing, open space, safety, and noise. Cities and counties vary in the relative emphasis they give to these required elements and may also choose to add additional elements to their general plans.

In the Big Chico Creek Watershed, three general plans are applicable: City of Chico General Plan, County of Butte General Plan, and County of Tehama General Plan.

City of Chico General Plan (1994)

The Planning Area for the Chico General Plan consists of approximately 155 square miles of land located in western Butte County, including the Chico urban area and surrounding lands. The Planning Area includes a substantial portion of the Big Chico Creek Watershed, including Big Chico Creek from Bidwell Park to the Sacramento River, all of Lindo Channel, and most of Mud and Rock creeks, from the 500 kV power lines to their juncture with Big Chico Creek.

The City of Chico General Plan projects a buildout population of approximately 134,000 people, an increase of 66 percent over the 1992 population of 80,580. The time at which full development or "buildout" will occur is not specified in or anticipated by the Plan, but it is expected to take place over a 15 to 25-year period (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p3-1).

The Chico General Plan contains numerous policies that may affect the Big Chico Creek watershed. The most significant of these policies are found in five elements.

1. Land Use
2. Community Design
3. Parks and Public Facilities Services
4. Open Space
5. Environmental Conservation

Each element contains guiding and implementing policies. Guiding policies are the City's statements of its goals and philosophy. Implementing policies represent commitments to specific actions. Some of the most important General Plan objectives and supporting policies for the Big Chico Creek watershed are summarized here.

Setting Urban Growth Limits

The Chico General Plan calls for a compact urban form, with new development contiguous to existing urban areas. On the westside, the plan calls for maintaining the Greenline, a joint city-county policy to limit urban development in order to protect agriculture. On the eastside, the General Plan responds to concerns expressed about the need to limit development in the foothills and establishes an urban limit line, based in part on elevation, to protect vernal pools and oak woodlands and preserve views of hillsides and open space (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p1-2 to1-3). Expansion north and south will also be limited to maintain a compact urban form. In the future, portions of Mud Creek, Little Chico Creek diversion, Butte Creek, and the transmission line corridor, as well as the foothills on the east and agricultural lands on the west, although not contiguous, will generally define the physical extent of the city (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p2-9). Multiple approaches to restrict urbanization outside the City's sphere of influence will be used, including large-lot-zoning and possibly acquisition of land for a greenbelt (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p3-12).

Protection of Agricultural and Natural Resources

The General Plan states that the City is committed to protecting viable agricultural and natural resources. Fieldwork undertaken as part of the General Plan helped identify and prioritize significant biotic resources in the Planning Area. The Plan outlines strategies for land acquisition and preservation of sensitive habitats and creekside greenways and stipulates criteria for development in resource-sensitive areas (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p3-4). The General Plan classifies certain habitats in the Planning Area into either Resource Conservation Areas (RCAs) or Resource Management Areas (RMAs). RCAs are supposed to contain the most sensitive and valuable habitats that require protection and that would be conserved in perpetuity. RMAs generally contain some resources that are determined to merit long-term preservation, but for which further study is necessary before a precise delineation of acreage to be preserved can take place. RMAs, unlike RCAs, would allow some level of development if proposed projects can demonstrate that sensitive resources would be protected. Both the RCAs and RMAs are intended to be of sufficient size to ensure the long-term viability of the habitats and species included (Blayney Dyett et al., p7-10 to 7-13).

Using Performance-based Standards for Services to Ensure Sustainability

The General Plan establishes policies linking growth to standards for capital facilities and public services, such as streets, parks, storm drainage and fire safety. Development is not to be permitted if performance standards cannot be adequately met. The standard for creekside greenways, for example, is 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents. Development is to be approved only if dedications of land and/or in lieu fees meet the standards. The General Plan calls for the adoption of an "adequate public facilities" ordinance to implement these standards (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p5-27 to5-28). To date, such an ordinance has not been adopted, but according to city staff the standards are being implemented on a project-by-project basis as part of the environmental review process (Hayes, 1998).

Protecting the Creeks

The General Plan contains numerous policies acknowledging the importance of Chico's creeks and calling for their protection and integration into the community. Following are a few examples:

Community Design Element, Implementing Policy 6

Adopt design guidelines for development adjacent to creeks. These may include consideration for the following:

• Single-loaded streets along at least one bank
• Discouraging backup development along creeks
• Public access and visual easements to creeks
• Linkages to open space and open space systems
• Trails for multi-use purposes such as pedestrians and bicyclists
• Planting for erosion control and riparian enhancement with native shrubs, groundcover, and tall riparian trees
• Benches, trash receptacles, lighting and pedestrian amenities, where appropriate (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p2-19)

Open Space and Environmental Conservation (OS&EC) Element, Implementing Policy 22

Ensure that open space corridors along creeks include protective buffers (non-development setbacks), preserve existing riparian vegetation through the environmental review process, and continue to require a minimum of 25-foot dedication of land and acquisition of 75 feet of land for a total of 100-foot setback from top-of-bank along creeks. (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p7-16).

OS&EC Implementing Policy 35

Work with the California Department of Fish and Game to ensure the preservation and enhancement of species of resident and anadromous fish in creeks in the Planning Area (Blayney Dyett et al., p7-22).

OS&EC Implementing Policy 40

Periodically monitor and prepare reports on surface water quality in Big Chico, Butte, Little Chico, Mud, Sycamore, and Comanche Creeks (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p7-24).

OS&EC Guiding Policy 15

Preserve and enhance Chico's creeks and the riparian corridors adjacent to them as open space corridors for the visual amenity, drainage, fisheries, wildlife habitats, flood control, and water quality value (Blayney Dyett et al., 1994, p7-26).

Butte County General Plan

The Butte County General Plan is comprised of various documents dating from 1977 to 1994. Following are some of the Plan's more important provisions that may affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed.

Agricultural Element (1994)

The purposes of the Agricultural Element include the following:

• To preserve agricultural lands for continued agriculture uses
• To strengthen and support the agricultural sector of the economy
• To protect the natural resources that sustain agriculture in Butte County
• To consolidate agricultural policies required in mandated general plan elements into one document (Butte County Farm Bureau, 1997, pAE-1)

Some of the provisions of the Agricultural Element of particular interest to the Big Chico Creek Watershed Project include the following:

3.3  Utilize mitigation banks, environmental mitigation sites, wildlife refuges, and other natural resource preserves, within or adjacent to land designated or used for agricultural lands, to allow the continuation of standard farming or ranching practices.

6.1  Recognize state and federal legislation designed to preserve soil and protect agricultural land.

6.2  Encourage protection measures from catastrophic and uncontrolled flooding of permanent crops, such as orchards, nurseries, and other major agricultural investments.

4.5  Ensure an abundant supply of high quality water.

5.2    Actively encourage the use of voluntary and open space easements with the County or appropriate private land trusts as a means of preserving land in agricultural and open space use. (Butte County Farm Bureau, 1997, pAE-15 to AE-17)

Chico Area Greenline

The Greenline defines the limits of future urban development that may occur on agricultural lands in the Chico Area of Butte County. Except in limited areas designated for Agricultural Residential land use, all land on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline is to consist solely of Agricultural land uses (Butte County, 1982, p70-75).

Other General Plan Provisions/Related Policies

Policies of the 1977 Open Space Element and 1979 Land Use Element call for the regulation of development in migratory deer winter range. Existing County policies acknowledge the importance of riparian habitat and state that development in significant riparian habitats should be regulated. Existing County policies also state that development should be regulated to facilitate the survival of rare, threatened, or endangered plants and animals. In addition, the 1979 Land Use Element encourages the creation and expansion of natural, wildlife, conservation, and wilderness areas (Mintier & Associates et al., 1993).

Tehama County General Plan (1983)

Provisions of the Tehama County General Plan pertaining to the neighboring Deer Creek Watershed were identified in a recent study (Habitat Restoration Group, Draft Land Use, 1997). Most of the same provisions affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed and are presented here.

AG-1

Preservation of lands of viable agricultural capabilities according to soil characteristics, with consideration given to access, water, location, and other relevant factors.

AG-2

Protection of lands currently being used for agriculture, but which have marginal agricultural capability characteristics unless their need for non-agricultural use is demonstrated.

AG-3

Protection of agricultural lands, whenever possible, from non-agricultural development through separation by natural buffers and land use transition areas that mitigate or prevent land use conflicts.

AG-4

Protection of agricultural lands from development pressures or uses which will adversely impact or hinder existing or foreseeable agricultural operations.

AG-5

Recognition that preservation of agricultural lands emphasizes community understanding of the agricultural practices utilized by agriculturalists and ranchers.

T-1

Preservation of prime timber lands.

T-2

Protection of prime timber lands from adjacent development which has the potential to adversely impact timber growing and harvesting operations.

T-3

County recognition of the various timber management improvement and education programs as a means to improve timber yields and protect wildlife habitat and watershed lands.

W-1

Protection and conservation of water resources and supply streams.

W-2

Protect surface water quality and stream flows for water supply, recreation, and aquatic ecosystem maintenance.

W-7

Insure the high quality of groundwater by emphasizing programs that minimize erosion and prevent the intrusion of municipal and agricultural wastes into water supplies.

WR-1

Preserve environmentally sensitive and significant lands and water valuable for their plant and wildlife habitat, natural appearance and character.

WR-2

Afford, to the extent feasible, adequate protection to areas identified by the California Department of Fish and Game and the California Natural Diversity Data Base as critical riparian zones.

WR-3

Support and coordinate County plans with interjurisdictional programs for the proper management of riparian resources in the County.

NRR-1

Protection of resource lands for the continued benefit of agriculture, timber, grazing, recreation, wildlife habitat, and quality of life.

NRR-2

Provide access to resource land areas when neither the integrity of the natural resource nor private property rights will be adversely affected.

HA-1

Preserve the historic and archaeological resources of the County for their scientific, educational, aesthetic, and recreational values.

CO-1

Plan development within the County in a manner which will provide opportunities for current and future residents to enjoy small-scale, community oriented living environments that are similar to those currently found in the County. Encourage higher densities, where appropriate, to reduce agricultural land conversion demands.

CO-2

Protect private property rights and insure that an individual(s) action(s) do not adversely impact the health, safety, and welfare of the County's citizens.

CO-3

Promote a development pattern which, whenever possible, maximizes the use of existing public roads prior to constructing new roads.

CO-4

Encourage compact development and discourage linear development patterns.

CO-8

Accommodate growth in a manner that preserves the predominate rural lifestyle and unique qualities that make the County an attractive place to live and that recognizes that a rural lifestyle does not always necessitate the provision of the full complement of services normally found in urban communities.

CO-12

Accommodate urban growth and other non-agricultural development by utilizing, whenever possible lands which do not have agricultural viability.

Other Management Plans

Bidwell Park Master Management Plan (1990)

This Plan addresses 1) General Management Issues, 2) Management Zones, 3) Management Units, and 4) Design Standards for Bidwell Park. It states that developed recreation opportunities should be shifted to other outside park resources, while improvements in Bidwell Park would emphasize passive uses and maintenance of existing facilities where appropriate. The Plan also recommends that the Chico Area Recreation and Parks District manage Bidwell Park under a joint powers or lease agreement with the City of Chico. The tax burden for operation and maintenance would be extended to the CARD boundaries.

Bidwell River Park Management Requirements

Annie Bidwell's deed of July 1, 1908 (Appendix A of this chapter) and Chapter 73 of the Statutes of California of 1950 (Appendix B of this chapter) contain management requirements for this park located on Lindo Channel and Big Chico Creek. Those sections of the park within the City of Chico are also subject to the creekside greenway requirements of the Chico Municipal Code and the Chico General Plan. (See the corresponding sections of Appendix B of Laws and Regulations chapter.) Those sections of the park outside of the City of Chico are subject to Chapter 16, Article II, of the Butte County Code (Appendix C of this chapter).

Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan: CARD (1988)

The Chico Area Recreation and Park District Master Plan identifies existing park resources, proposes locations for future parks, and describes improvements for existing facilities. Recommended lineal parks include the length of Lindo Channel and Sycamore, Mud and Big Chico creeks to the Sacramento River.

North Chico Specific Plan (1995)

The 3,590-acre North Chico Specific Plan area is located north of the City of Chico, adjacent to and easterly of State Route 99. The area is generally bounded by Sycamore Creek on the south, State Route 99 on the west, and Rock Creek on the north. The Chico Municipal Airport generally abuts the eastern perimeter of the Plan area with a portion of the Plan area extending northeasterly along Keefer Road. Two small portions of the Plan area, consisting of approximately 180 acres, are located south of Sycamore Creek, within the Chico Sphere of Influence. Land uses proposed are primarily residential with a mix of commercial, office, heavy industrial, light industrial, public (elementary school, park and fire station), and open space. Intensive development is concentrated south and east of Mud Creek. Approximately 480 acres are designated for open space and parks, some of which are located along area creeks and drainages. Open space corridors are located throughout the Plan area and serve as recreational corridors, protect drainages and resources, and establish buffers between land uses.

Calfed Bay-Delta Program

Although not completed at the time this report was prepared, management plans that are expected to be adopted as a result of the CALFED program will significantly affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed. The CALFED Program is a cooperative, interagency effort involving 15 state and federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the Bay-Delta Estuary. The mission of the program is to develop a long-term comprehensive plan that will restore ecological health and improve water management for beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta. The alternatives being considered by CALFED include two variable program elements and six common program elements.

Variable Program Elements

Conveyance: This program element deals with various alternatives for moving water through the Delta and to the major export facilities in the southern Delta. Although this element does not directly impact the Big Chico Creek Watershed, the choice of conveyance is one of the key decisions of the overall program and will indirectly affect everyone in the problem and solution areas. (CALFED, Phase II Interim Report, 1998, p70-72)

Storage: The Storage program element addresses possible new or expanded water storage in surface reservoirs or groundwater basins. None of the surface storage facilities currently being evaluated by CALFED are within the Big Chico Creek Watershed. CALFED has not yet determined which areas are going to be used for groundwater storage operations. (CALFED, Phase II Interim Report, 1998, p62-70; CALFED, Phase II Storage and Conveyance, 1998)

Common Program Elements

These common program elements remain relatively unchanged from one alternative to another.

Long-Term Levee Protection Plan: This plan provides improvements in the reliability of Delta levees and will not directly impact the Big Chico Creek Watershed (CALFED, Long-Term Levee Protection, 1998).

Water Quality Program: This program makes reductions in point and non-point pollution. This program's actions to reduce urban and industrial runoff, agricultural drainage and runoff, and toxicity of unknown origin will probably affect the Big Chico Creek Watershed (CALFED, Water Quality Program, 1998).

Water Use Efficiency Program: This program provides policies for efficient use of water in agricultural, urban and environmental settings (CALFED, Water Use Efficiency, 1998). These policies will probably affect the Big Chico Creek watershed but are unknown at this time.

Water Transfer Framework Policy: This program element provides a policy framework to facilitate and encourage a regulated water market to move water between users, including for environmental use, on a voluntary and compensated basis (CALFED, Water Use Efficiency, 1998). This element is of great concern to many stakeholders in the Big Chico Creek watershed.

Watershed Management Coordination: This program element encourages locally led watershed management activities that benefit all Delta system resources (CALFED, Watershed Management Strategy, 1998). The activities of the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, including the preparation of this report, are examples of what this element encourages.

Ecosystem Restoration Program: This program provides improvements in habitat for the environment, restoration of some critical flows, and attempts to reduce conflict with other Delta system resources. This program includes measures generally applicable to streams throughout the affected areas as well as specific recommendations for Big Chico Creek. (CALFED, Ecosystem Restoration, 1998).

References

Bidwell, Annie E.K. (1908). Indenture of July 1, 1908. Filed August 20, 1909. Book 111, Page 320. Deeds of Butte County.

Blayney Dyett, et al. (1994). City of Chico General Plan. City of Chico.

Brown and Caldwell. (1987). Preliminary Storm Drainage Master Plan - City of Chico/Butte County.

Burdick and Company, and Heritage Partners. (1993). Draft Environmental Impact Report on the Amendment of the Butte County General Plan and Adoption of the North Chico Specific Plan. County of Butte.

Butte County Farm Bureau Agricultural Committee and Butte County Planning Division. (1994). Agricultural Element. Butte County Comprehensive Plan.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Ecosystem Restoration.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Long-Term Levee Protection.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Phase II Interim Report.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Phase II Storage and Conveyance.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Water Quality Program.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Water Use Efficiency.

CALFED Bay-Delta Program. (1998). Watershed Management Strategy.

California Department of Fish & Game. (1990). Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Restoration and Enhancement Plan.

California Department of Fish and Game. (1993). Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan for Action.

California Department of Fish and Game. (1996). Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California.

California Department. of Forestry and Fire Protection. (1998). Sensitive Watersheds. 916.8, 936.8, 956.8. California Forest Practice Rules.

California Department of Water Resources. (1997). Average Daily Flow Tables. Water Year October 1996 to September 1997.

California Resources Agency. (1989). Upper Sacramento River: Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan.

Cepello, Stacy. (1998, August 4). Environmental Specialist IV. Department of Water Resources. Personal Communication.

Charlton, Lois. (1998, May 28). Lands Officer. Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

City of Chico. (1997). Addendum to Preliminary Storm Drainage Master Plan.

City of Chico. (1997). Best Practices Manual and Best Practices Technical Manual.

City of Chico. (1997). Draft Report on Preliminary Storm Drainage Master Plan - City of Chico/Butte County and Addendum.

County of Butte. (1952). Bidwell River Park. Chapter 16, Article 2. Code of Butte County.

County of Butte. (1982). Amendments and Elements of the Butte County General Plan.

County of Butte. (1996). Measure G. Groundwater Conservation. Chapter 33. Code of Butte County.

County of Butte. (1998). Draft Chico Urban Area Nitrate Compliance Plan.

County of Tehama. (1983). Tehama County General Plan.

County of Tehama. (1992). Tehama County Groundwater Ordinance. Section 9.40. Code of Tehama County.

Draggoo, JC & Associates. (1988). Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Chico Area Recreation and Park District.

Edell, Stuart. (1998, August 6). Manager. Land Development Services. Butte County. Personal Communication.

Ellena, Nick. (1998, September 14). Reclamation District Backs Flood Control Project. Chico Enterprise-Record.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (1998). Flood Insurance Study: Butte County, California and Incorporated Areas.

Habitat Restoration Group, The. (1997). Draft Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies Pertaining to the Protection and Enhancement of Natural Resources in the Deer Creek Watershed. Deer Creek Watershed Action Committee.

Habitat Restoration Group, The. (1997, November 3). Draft Land Use and Land Management. Deer Creek Watershed Conservancy.

Hardesty Associates. (1990). Bidwell Park Master Management Plan. City of Chico.

Hayes, Tom. (1998, February 17, August 5). Senior Planner. Planning Department. City of Chico. Personal Communication.

Hunrichs, Richard. (1998, August 5). Hydrologist, Personal Communication.

Jones & Stokes Associates. (1997). Handbook of Regulatory Compliance for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program and Appendix B: Examples of Regulatory Compliance Documents and Permit Applications. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Madden, Mike. (1998, August 5). Emergency Services Officer. Butte County. Personal Communication.

McCollum, Robin. (1998, August 3). Superintendent of Flood Control and Drainage Districts, and Tree Foreman. County of Butte. Personal Communication.

Miller, Eric. (1998, August 7). Manager. Program Resource and Development. Administrative Office. Butte County. Personal Communication.

Mintier, J. Laurence & Associates et al, (1993). Butte County General Plan: Issues and Options Report. County of Butte.

Owens, Noel. (1998, July 14). Landowner and Manager. Musty Buck Preserve. Personal Communication.

Reeves, Mike. Field Representative. (1998, July 8). Trust for Public Lands. Personal Communication.

Reid, Ted. (1998, July 8). Project Manager, American Land Conservancy. Personal Communication.

Rogers, Ron. (1998, May 22). Geologist. Bureau of Land Management. Redding Resource Area. Personal Communication.

Schaaf & Wheeler. (1993). City of Chico Flood Insurance Study: Hydrologic Calculations. Federal Emergency Management Agency.

State of California. (1950). Chapter 73. Statutes of 1950.

State of California. (1988). Senate Bill 2261: The Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act of 1988. Chapter 1545, California Statutes of 1988.

Stoufer, John. (1998, August 6). Planner II. Planning Department. Tehama County. Personal Communication.

Thompson, Lyle. (1998, August 6). Agricultural Engineer. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Personal Communication.

Thompson, Matt. (1998, August 7). Associate Civil Engineer. Dept. of Public Works. City of Chico. Personal Communication.

Truden, Mike. Realty Specialist. (1998, May 1998). Bureau of Land Management. Redding Field Office. Personal Communication.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1965). Operation and Maintenance Manual for Chico and Mud Creeks and Sandy Gulch Sacramento River and Major and Minor Tributaries Flood Control Project.

U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (1993). Redding Resource Management Plan and Record of Decision.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1997, September 24). Draft Annual Work Plan (FY98). Anadromous Fish Restoration Program.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1997). Revised Draft Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program.

U.S. Forest Service. (1992). Land and Resource Management Plan. Lassen National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management. (1995). Decision Notice/Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Environmental Assessment for the Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California.

Related Documents

Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix B