Project Description and History of the Alliance

Introduction

The Existing Conditions Report and Stakeholders Inventory have been prepared for the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance is comprised of private and public landowners, state and federal resource managers, city and county government representatives, conservation groups, educational institutions, and other interested parties. This chapter explains the purpose of the Existing Conditions Report and Stakeholders Inventory, provides background information regarding the grant that funded these documents, presents a brief history of the Alliance, and discusses results.

PURPOSE OF EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT AND STAKEHOLDERS INVENTORY

The preparation of the Existing Conditions Report and Stakeholders Inventory is Phase I of the development of a Watershed Management Strategy, also called an Adaptive Management Plan, for the Big Chico Creek watershed. The purpose of the Watershed Management Strategy is to enhance and maintain the watershed ecosystem so that economic and ecological productivity in the watershed can be sustained indefinitely.

The Stakeholders Inventory included a series of public workshops in Chico, Forest Ranch, and Cohasset/Richardson Springs. The first set of workshops was held in July 1998. These workshops provide a forum for stakeholders to express their views regarding the overall condition of watershed resources.

Stakeholders are people and organizations who have a "stake" in the management of the watershed. Some stakeholders have a financial stake, such as farmers who depend upon access to water, timber companies concerned about the costs of regulation, and local governments attempting to deal with flooding and water quality issues. Others with a financial stake are businesses serving people who fish, hunt or ride bicycles in the watershed, and landowners who want to protect their property values. Stakeholders can also be people who care about the watershed for any reason, whether they like to participate in recreational activities, study the natural environment, live in or visit the watershed, have friends who live here, or just like to know this place exists.

The results from the Stakeholders Inventory and this Existing Conditions Report will be used in Phase II to create the Watershed Management Strategy. The specific projects and programs of the Management Strategy will be developed based on thorough consultations with those living in the watershed, and the technicians and engineers serving as their advisors.

Phase III will be the implementation and monitoring of the Watershed Management Strategy. This phase will be ongoing as projects and stakeholders identify programs and funding becomes available. Outreach to stakeholders will also be an ongoing process, and stakeholders may change or become more or less active as their personal or agency needs are met during the process.

This entire project is intended to give more opportunity for local participation in watershed management. In the past, local, state and federal agencies have mandated planning for water quality, forestry, flood management, agriculture, and fishing but left out valuable concerns of landowners and the public.

The Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance is committed to organizing a long-term Watershed Management Strategy that avoids government-mandated planning and that utilizes adaptive watershed management. In adaptive watershed management, voluntary restoration actions such as the removal of dams, fish ladder improvements, streamside fencing, forest management practices, flood plain improvements, habitat easements, water quality testing, and other options are planned, funded and monitored by trained volunteers or technical experts. Based on how successful the action is in achieving identified goals, the restoration effort is repeated elsewhere and tested again.

Individuals joining together to improve and protect creeks, forests, fish and wildlife through a consensus process takes some getting used to. But once agreement is reached that a self-determined plan can help protect the watershed resources and other local interests, people find the consensus process does work.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING THE CALFED/EPA GRANT

The grant proposal for this project was initiated and written by the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance. Phases I and II were approved for funding through the CALFED grant process in 1997. The CALFED Bay-Delta Program is a cooperative, interagency effort involving fifteen state and federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilities in the San Francisco Bay-Sacramento/San Joaquin River Bay-Delta. The mission of the CALFED 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 system. The objective of the collaborative CALFED planning process is to identify comprehensive solutions to the problems of ecosystem quality, water supply reliability, water quality, and Delta levee and channel integrity.

One of the elements of the CALFED program is the encouragement of locally led watershed management activities that benefit Bay-Delta resources. The Big Chico Creek Watershed is recognized as a priority watershed for restoration by CALFED in its Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan . The Watershed is also considered a restoration priority in management plans of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game. (See the Existing Management Plans chapter for more information.) Big Chico Creek is one of only four streams in the Sacramento Valley that still provide habitat for both spring-run salmon and steelhead trout. The creek and its tributaries also serve as habitat for fall- and late-fall-run Chinook salmon, the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon, and other native species.

Funding of Phase I of this project began in April 1998 and is being provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. To carry out the project, the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance has formed a partnership with California State University, Chico in order to utilize the broad-based knowledge and experience of the faculty, staff and graduate students. The California State University, Chico Research Foundation provides fiscal management of the grant through the Office of Sponsored Programs.

HISTORY OF THE BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED ALLIANCE

The creation of the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, as well as other watershed groups in the Sacramento River Valley, has been one of the responses to severe declines in anadromous fish populations and riparian habitat throughout the valley. In 1989, the California Department of Fish and Game estimated that the wild strain of spring-run salmon numbered only a few hundred and existed in only a few tributary streams. Populations of winter-run salmon had declined nearly 98 percent from historic numbers, and the fall run and late fall run had declined about 50 percent. Steelhead populations had declined from about 18,000 in 1966 to less than 2,000 in 1988. Less than 5 percent of the Sacramento River's original riparian acreage remained (California Resources Agency, 1989, p1). In Big Chico Creek at that time, the most recent estimates indicated only a remnant spring-run population, a depressed steelhead population, and a highly variable spawning population of fall-run salmon (California Resources Agency, 1989, p115).

The specific impetus for the creation of the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance can be traced back to 1990 and the dispute over pumps owned by the M&T Chico Ranch that removed water from Big Chico Creek near its confluence with the Sacramento River. The water was being diverted to irrigate the M&T and Parrot Ranches. A 1989 report prepared for the Resources Agency of the State of California, the Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan , had identified the pumps as a major obstacle to restoring fisheries in Big Chico Creek. The report stated that the unscreened pumps actually caused streamflow reversals during the critical downstream out-migration period in approximately one out of four years. A 100 percent loss of downstream migrants occurred during these periods of flow reversal. In addition adult spring-run Chinook salmon migrating up the Sacramento River had difficulty locating the mouth of Big Chico Creek when flows were reversed (California Resources Agency, 1989, p115-116). The management plan called for the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Water Resources to seek a cooperative solution with the M&T Ranch to alleviate the problem. (California Resources Agency, 1989, p119).

In a letter dated May 12, 1990, Chicoan Les Gerton asked the Chico City Council to consider legal action to shut down the M&T Ranch pumps to help restore the salmon. On June 19, 1990 the Chico City Council discussed Gerton's request and asked the City Attorney to submit a report regarding the Council's legal options (City of Chico, June 19, 1990). In his report dated Sept. 19, 1990, City Attorney Robert Boehm stated that of "all the man-made and natural conditions adversely affecting the salmon fishery in Big Chico Creek, the M&T diversion appears to be the most significant adverse effect." The city attorney also stated that given trends in water rights law, "it is quite likely that M&T could be compelled to relocate or modify their diversion in a manner which would diminish or eliminate its adverse effect on the salmon fishery in Big Chico Creek." The city attorney concluded that the most appropriate remedy would be to file a petition with the State Water Resources Control Board to adjudicate the water rights in Big Chico Creek (Boehm, 1990, p1-5).

The City Attorney's report was discussed by the Council at its meeting of Oct. 2, 1990 and at a work session on Nov. 14,1990. While some speakers and letters supported the Council taking legal action, others were opposed. The attorney for M&T Ranch acknowledged the pumps contributed to the fisheries problem but stated that many other factors were involved, including increased urban population, increased water runoff, and commercial fishing (Farrell, 1990). Others told the Council that legal action was contrary to the cooperative approach urged by the 1989 Upper Sacramento River Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan and could undermine legislative efforts to secure funds for these types of projects. A motion to move forward with legal action failed on a 2-3 vote. Instead, the Council voted unanimously to conduct a cooperative study to more specifically identify the reasons for the loss of fisheries (City of Chico, Nov. 14, 1990). More than a year later, in December 1991, the City of Chico, M&T Ranch and Parrot Ranch entered into an agreement to jointly fund the study, later named the Assessment of Big Chico Creek Salmon and Steelhead Production . The consulting firm CH2M HILL was hired to conduct the study, and M&T Ranch agreed to administer the contract.

ASSESSMENT OF BIG CHICO CREEK SALMON AND STEELHEAD PRODUCTION

On June 22, 1992, M&T Ranch and Parrot/Phelan Ranch held a press conference to present the completed study. Conclusions promoted at the press conference were that a review of the data indicated the M&T pumps probably had a low impact on spring-run Chinook salmon in most years and that a new water delivery system and new management of the Parrot Ranch were likely to reduce or eliminate impacts from pumping (M&T Ranch, 1992).

The report and its conclusions, however, came under criticism. In an August 10, 1992 letter, the Department of Fish and Game called the report a "literature review" and stated that "the conclusions and recommendations of the report are not supported by the available information" (California Dept. of Fish and Game, 1992, pl). The Department of Fish and Game letter, CH2M HILL's responses, and some revisions were incorporated into a revised final report dated April 1993.

Although the report failed to resolve the controversy regarding the M&T pumps, it prompted the formation of a new structure to address the problems of Big Chico Creek. The final recommendation of the report called for the development of a Coordinated Resource Management Plan for Big Chico Creek to allow for a comprehensive resolution of resource issues "based on resource boundaries in Big Chico Creek rather than individual, agency, or political boundaries" (CH2M HILL, 1993, p7-3).

At its June 23, 1992 meeting, the City Council referred the study to the Bidwell Park and Playground Commission. The Council asked the Commission to review the study and report back to the Council with recommendations. The recommendations were initially developed by the Park Commission Stream Committee and subsequently approved by the full Park Commission at its Sept. 28,1992 meeting. The Park Commission's recommendations were then discussed by the City Council during a joint meeting with the Park Commission on Feb. 10, 1993. The first of the four recommendations state the following:

On Feb. 23, 1993, on a motion by Mary Andrews, the Council unanimously approved the formation of a subcommittee of the Park Commission that would meet with representatives of the various entities plus a water user. The new subcommittee would prepare guidelines and timelines for a stream management plan (City of Chico, Feb. 23,1993). The Big Chico Creek Task Force was born and held its first meeting on April 21, 1993.

BIG CHICO CREEK STREAM TASK FORCE

The Big Chico Creek Task Force adopted five goals as its mission-

1. Evaluate problems and implement actions to eliminate the obstructions to fish migration.
2. Re-establish the recruitment of gravel downstream to restore spawning areas there.
3. Evaluate existing water quality and take action to restore and preserve stream water quality of the Chico urban area and upper watershed. Determine and set quality standards. Determine what contaminants will be tested.
4. Resolve issues related to flow management in Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel; and
5. Riparian habitat is essential to fish migration. Preserve riparian habitat in the Chico urban area. Restore riparian corridors where possible.

Numerous objectives to help achieve these goals were also adopted by the Task Force, and several studies and projects were undertaken. These included water quality studies of the creek within Bidwell Park, a hydrological study of the One-Mile and Five-Mile areas, studies of flood management and revegetation opportunities for Undo Channel, and the development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) for the upper Big Chico Creek watershed.

Among the concrete results achieved wholly or partially as a result of the work of the Task For and its members were the eventual relocation of the M&T pumps to the Sacramento River, the construction of a bypass to prevent release of siltatiori from the One-Mile pool during cleaning and the installation of a new stream gauge on Big Chico Creek at the golf course.

The Big Chico Creek Task Force's last meeting as an official City task force was March 20, 1996. The City of Chico continues to participate as one of the stakeholders on the Alliance. A staff member continues to attend meetings on behalf of the City, and two members of the Park Commission also attend as liaisons.

BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED ALLIANCE

After becoming independent from the City of Chico, the Task Force adopted a new name, the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance, and extended its area of concern to include the entire Watershed, from the headwaters to the Sacramento River. The Watershed includes Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel as well as Sycamore, Mud and Rock creeks, their various tributaries, and all the land they drain.

The Alliance's main areas of focus since independence have been creating a stable organization, finding funding sources to determine the health of the watershed, and identifying restoration needs (Gibbs, 1998). In 1997, the Alliance received a grant from For the Sake of the Salmon, a group that had received federal dollars to fund 33 watershed coordinators in the states of Oregon, Washington, and California. For the Sake of the Salmon was looking for grassroots organizations, such as the Alliance, that were attempting to represent all stakeholders and interests in a watershed. Suzanne Gibbs, who had been the volunteer chair of the Alliance since its beginnings as a City subcommittee, wrote the grant and became the watershed coordinator. This grant lasted from April 1997 through March 1998. The CALFED/EPA grant discussed above began the following month.

Recently, the Alliance has also been awarded a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for a cooperative project with the Boy Scouts of America at Camp Lassen in Chico Meadows, near the headwaters of Big Chico Creek. This two-year project involves excluding cattle from the creek by building fences and providing off-stream watering for the cattle. There will be pre- and post-fencing evaluations of the creek to evaluate the success of the project.

The Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance has also been involved in several other projects and programs, including joint efforts with the City of Chico to remove the invasive species Arundo donax (giant reed) from sites along Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel without the use of herbicides. Other activities include the training of 1 1 people in aquatic bioassessment, a restoration project with Streamminders in Bidwell Park, the co-sponsoring of the annual Creeks of Chico Conference, and the sponsorship of local presentations by world-renowned experts in watershed management and restoration.

RESULTS

As discussed above, a letter from Les Gerton to the Chico City Council initiated a series of events that eventually led to the creation of the Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance. When asked recently what had prompted him to write the letter back in 1990, Les explained, "I kept having dreams that the fish were coming back to our local streams and that I was helping - so I did" (Gerton, 1998).

Les' dreams may become a reality. Although much work and study remains to be done, the efforts of the Alliance seem to be paying off. ne creek's spring-run salmon, which had been reduced to only a remnant population, now appear to be making a comeback, with more than 350 counted in a September 1998 survey (Hill, 1998).

The Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance invites you to join this cooperative effort to maintain

REFERENCES

Boehm, Robert. (1990, September 19). City of Chico City Council Memorandum.

Boza, Chris. (1998, September 3). Urban Forester. City of Chico. Personal Communication. California Department of Fish and Game. (1992, August 10). Letter to CH2M HILL. California Resources Agency. (1 989). Upper Sacramento River: Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Management Plan.

CH2M HILL. (1993). Assessment of Big Chico Creek Salmon and Steelhead Production. Prepared for City of Chico, M&T Ranch, and Parrot Ranch.

City of Chico. (1 990, June 19). City Council Minutes.

City of Chico. (1990, November 14). City Council Minutes.

City of Chico. (1 993, Feb. 1 0). Inter-Office Memorandum. To City Council and Bidwell Park Playground Comniission from Park Director.

City of Chico. (1993, Feb. 23). City Council Minutes.

Farrell, Ed. (1990, November 15). Where Did ne Salmon Go? Chico Enterprise Record. Gerton, Les. (1998, September 4). Personal Communication.

Gibbs, Suzanne. (1998, September 9). Watershed Coordinator. Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance. Personal Communication.

Hill, Kathy. (1998, September 9). Associate Fisheries Biologist. California Department of Fish and Game. E-mail Communication with Big Chico Creek Watershed Alliance.

M&T Chico Ranch. (1992, June 18). Big Chico Creek Fish Study. Press Release. Not date( Received by City of Chico June 18, 1992.

---- Maps ----

Location Map