Purpose and Objective

To achieve the MOA objectives of a regionwide erosion control plan, the FRCRM needed public and resource management agency support and funding. In view of the varied interests of government agencies and private participants, the success of the demonstration project depended on funding and a consensus among the parties. Therefore, documenting the institutional process that led to and guided this project was essential for success of the overall program and application to future projects.

Methods

Basic steps in the development and implementation of the demonstration project included the following (see Figure 4-1):

1. Based on a reconnaissance study, PG&E geotechnical specialists identified the major factors contributing to accelerated erosion as a basis to begin discussions.
1. The FRCRM held a series of meetings with local government and resource management agencies in 1984 and 1985 to discuss erosion problems and to solicit their advice and support. Mutual interest in erosion control and watershed management was apparent, and the need to move forward as a partnership was identified.
1. An MOA to jointly pursue an erosion control plan for the EBNFFR watershed was drafted as a charter for further action. MOA participants agreed to provide funds and/or services to the effort.
1. MOA participants selected Plumas Corporation to coordinate the erosion control plan. With a local, nonagency entity leading the effort, the project benefited from enhanced credibility; interest among local government, residents, and landowners; and strong community support.
1. SCS conducted a series of studies to supplement existing data and provide baseline information for project prioritization throughout the watershed; the study included an inventory of baseline stream conditions, an SCS River Basin study, and a watershed plan for the Indian Creek watershed.
1. As the program grew, the CRM process was adopted to formalize the organizational structure of the program and "legitimize" the effort.
1. FRCRM identified Red Clover Creek as the first erosion control project.

Coordinated Resource Management (CRM)

The CRM process has been used successfully in many states to provide a framework for resource enhancement efforts. Since adoption of CRM by the federal and state governments in the early 1980s, approximately 200 CRM groups have been formed in California alone to cooperatively address resource management problems (Wills 1993). The CRM process is extremely useful—if not essential—in solving complex resource management issues involving multiple landowners and special interest groups over large geographic areas and across multiple jurisdictions (Anderson and Baum 1987, Lindquist and Wills 1993).

The CRM approach integrates the various needs of participants into action plans; conflict is minimized and results are emphasized. These action plans take into consideration the capabilities of the land and associated resources. All parties with a stake in the land and resource issues must be involved in the process. Because decisions are made by consensus, the needs of each participant are addressed when developing the final plans. Participant contributions are leveraged through combined resources to provide benefits at an affordable cost. Since participation is voluntary, participants must recognize that the value of the benefits they receive will outweigh the value of their contributions. A key element in the success of the process is that it be locally driven and that all major stakeholders be included to promote acceptance and trust (Lindquist, Kusel, and Wills 1996). These basic principles were adopted by the Feather River CRM when it organized the Feather River program.

Since the CRM approach is widely used and accepted by land management agencies, it enhances credibility, visibility, and funding opportunities. In addition, the CRM process promotes an integrated approach to watershed restoration. This approach embodies the principles of ecosystem management, which is emerging as a new framework for achieving mutually dependent sustainability of society’s use of natural resources and the environment. It focuses on human and natural systems at regional scales over time. Current trends suggest that government agencies, regulators, and academics recognize the need for resource management on a holistic level, which can be facilitated by the CRM process.

Feather River CRM

The Feather River CRM was formed to (1) maximize local initiative and control over watershed management issues and solutions; (2) coordinate requests for federal and state technical and financial assistance; and (3) promote the development of interdisciplinary technical teams to plan and manage projects. The FRCRM consists of three primary committees, four subcommittees, and a number of Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) comprising representatives from the twenty-one MOA/CRM signatory organizations (Figure 4-2). The structure and function of the CRM committees and subcommittees are shown in Figure 4-3 and are described below (Clifton 1994).

CRM Structure and Function

The Executive Committee has four members, including representatives from the Feather River Resource Conservation District (RCD), Plumas County Board of Supervisors, Plumas National Forest, and a public member appointed by the other three. The Executive Committee is responsible for policy guidance, dispute resolution, and governmental liaison.

The Management Committee is chaired by the Feather River RCD representative, who also sits on the Executive Committee. The other members of the Management Committee are the chairpersons of the subcommittees on design, finance, projects, and monitoring. The Management Committee administers the program, including making policy and budget decisions; approves new projects; identifies financial support opportunities; tracks required monitoring; and approves project designs.

The Steering Committee consists of at least one voting representative from each participating organization, as well as individual landowners, community proponents, and other interested parties. It reviews program status, critiques new projects, troubleshoots issues, and interacts with landowners. In addition, Management Committee decisions are ratified by a vote of the Steering Committee.

The Technical Advisory Committees are interdisciplinary technical teams consisting of terrestrial and aquatic biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, botanists, range scientists, economists, engineers, and, to a lesser extent, experts in geology, geomorphology, and cultural resources. TACs plan and execute each project. Watershed restoration work frequently requires redesign and construction of degraded stream channels to provide the benefits of a healthy natural stream—fish and wildlife habitat, sediment transport, a healthy riparian zone, as well as channel flow capacity and resistance to erosion. Designing a stream to achieve these objectives is a complex process. Because there are no engineering codes governing the design of streams and few academic curricula exist on this subject, TACs provide a valuable forum for creative thinking and integration of technical knowledge.

The Project Subcommittee is chaired by the Feather River RCD representative and is responsible for nominating prospective projects for consideration by the Steering Committee. It is intended that all proposed projects be submitted to the FRCRM through the Feather River RCD.

The Finance Subcommittee is co-chaired by a representative of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. It is responsible for identifying project funding sources and aiding in the preparation of applications for funds and grants.

The Design Subcommittee is chaired by a representative of Plumas National Forest. It identifies overall project design objectives and principles and develops design procedures that are acceptable to the Steering Committee and are workable for TACs and participating landowners/managers. The Design Subcommittee networks with TACs at the project level to provide expertise in the various natural resource fields needed for each project.

The Monitoring Subcommittee is co-chaired by CDFG and DWR representatives. The committee is responsible for creating monitoring programs to meet regulatory requirements and FRCRM objectives. It also collects or oversees the collection of monitoring data and prepares or reviews documentation of study results.

The committees and overall program are managed and coordinated by Plumas Corporation, which maintains full-time staff to design and implement projects and prepare applications and reports, hires and supervises workers, bids and administers contracts, administers funds, and provides technical expertise to the project TACs. It has played an essential role in the success of the program and served successfully as a liaison between FRCRM activities and the local community.

Key Findings

• The CRM process successfully provided a framework for agencies and landowners to address complex watershed issues that cross multiple jurisdictional and ownership boundaries. The process was instrumental in incorporating the interests and concerns of various parties.
• A key element in the success of the process was local management and coordination by Plumas Corporation, whose nonprofit status and lack of agency affiliation created strong local support and credibility.
• Early implementation of the demonstration project was a key factor in generating public interest in erosion control as it provided an on-the-ground example of what could be done. Ongoing projects and studies, with their successes and failures, provided a source of information for subsequent projects. New techniques were evaluated and, if successful, recommended for future projects in the watershed. It was found that collection of baseline information was essential for conducting meaningful project evaluations.
• The SCS River Basin study and other baseline work concluded that significant benefits could be gained by reducing streambank erosion, thus providing the technical and economic justification to embark on a watershed-wide ECP.
• Public education and community involvement were essential for successful implementation of the project. This was accomplished through public meetings, recruitment of landowners, community action groups, an "Adopt a Stream" program, sponsorship of a watershed technician curriculum at the local community college, newspaper and magazine articles, slide shows, videos, technical papers, presentations, project tours, and workshops.
• The EBNFFR erosion control strategy report provided a vision for the program and met the need for a general and flexible plan for the future (Clifton 1994). Such a plan was critical for establishing long-term direction and setting program goals.
• TACs were necessary to address the complex design issues of stream and watershed restoration projects. Close interdisciplinary cooperation, technical knowledge, hands-on experience, and lessons from nature were key ingredients for success. Teams also allowed individuals from different institutions to work together and share new ideas and concepts in the design process.
• Ecosystem management and large-scale watershed restoration can be effectively facilitated by the CRM process.
Table of Contents