Project Details

The lower Beaver River falls primarily on Walk-In-Access and BLM property and is a very popular recreation area for fishing, camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, and picnicking, especially for local residents. The BLM has been developing the area as a destination recreation area with vaulted toilets, parking areas, picnic tables, dispersed camping, and hiking trails. Overgrazing has caused the stream banks to be characterized by vertical, eroding, bare dirt, and poor habitat is currently thought to be the limiting factor for trout in the stream. Invasive tamarisk and Russian olive dominated the river corridor before removal work was completed over the past several years. However, follow-up treatment of the tamarisk and Russian olive removal work is needed to ensure the invasive vegetation does not reestablish. Improving the aquatic and riparian habitats would help trout survive and provide improved recreation opportunities for the public.

This project is within the Bald Hills SGMA and characterized as "opportunity" habitat within the state sage grouse plan. Opportunity habitats are areas that can benefit sage grouse with targeted habitat improvements such as removal of encroaching woodland or creation of mesic areas. This project aims to reconnect the river to its floodplain by shaping and sloping the vertical bare cut banks, stabilizing banks with large woody debris, and establishing native riparian vegetation.  The establishment of riparian vegetation will provide a new and ongoing source of herbaceous vegetation in the SGMA providing brood rearing forage, which is a critical component to healthy populations of sage grouse. The lack of brood-rearing habitat is currently a limiting factor in the Bald Hills SGMA. Continued improvement to brood rearing habitat in this area may also facilitate connectivity to historic sage grouse habitats east of the mineral mountains and north of Highway 21.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

If the project does not go forward, the state of the stream in the project area will remain in relatively poor condition. Fish and wildlife populations will not reach desirable and/or historic levels because the absence of suitable habitat will persist. Additionally, there is a risk that past work could revert back to a degraded, undesirable state. Since 2013, the BLM and UDWR have removed invasive Russian olive and tamarisk from about 175 acres and completed stream improvement work on about 2.5 miles of the lower Beaver River. The proposed FY19 project would retreat areas where Russian olive and tamarisk have been removed, provide additional planting and seeding of native vegetation, add about .33 miles of stream improvement work immediately downstream of past work, and allow for maintenance of previous stream improvement work.

If the project is delayed, there is a risk of losing the good financial, political, and social support that currently exists with multiple partners to implement the project, as well as some of the threats/risks described in the above paragraph (e.g., reestablishment of invasive Russian olive and tamarisk).

If the project does go forward, there are few notable threats/risks. Similar stream improvement work has been completed along other portions of the lower Beaver River without negative impacts and many positive impacts (e.g., increases in game and non-game fish abundance and biomass).

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

The project would help to address "Threats" listed in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan:
1. "Improper Grazing (current)" - the project would utilize riparian fencing and an agreement with landowners for a rest period followed by short duration, high intensity grazing during spring time only (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Code 2.1.2).
2."Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional)" - the project would use structures, grazing management, and planting/seeding to increase the heterogeneity in stream channel characteristics and promote a more diverse riparian plant community (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Code 2.3.6).
3. "Invasive Plant Species -- Non-native" - the project would treat regrowth of invasive Russian olive and tamarisk that once posed a significant fire risk and has been removed during previous phases of the project. (Potential Conservation Action Code 2.2.3).
4. "Increasing Stream Temperatures" - the project would use structures, grazing management, and planting/seeding to establish a more robust and diverse community of riparian vegetation that can reduce solar inputs (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Codes 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.15).

Although southern leatherside chub are not currently found in the lower Beaver River, this section of stream is within a southern leatherside chub geographic management unit (Sevier River Basin GMU) and the project would implement conservation elements called for in the Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Southern Leatherside (Lepidomeda aliciae) in the State of Utah:
1. "Habitat Enhancement" - the project would help to restore habitat conditions within the historical range of southern leatherside.
2. "Restore Hydrologic Conditions" - the project would help to restore natural hydrologic characteristics and water quality (e.g., riparian buffer of nonpoint source pollutants).

Clean Water Act: It is the national goal that an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved.

Beaver River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 303(d) Report, UDEQ (1984). Minersville Reservoir and the Beaver River above the reservoir are on the state of Utah 303(d) list of impaired waters and this TMDL is available. However, the lower Beaver River (below the dam) is not listed, nor is there any known water quality available for the lower Beaver River. The information and analysis contained in the Beaver River Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment made logical assumptions and applies them to the project area based on
what is contained in the TMDL report.

The project is in conformance with the Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony Resource Management Plan (1986).

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.):  FLPMA specifies that the BLM consider the land's inherent natural resources, as well as its mineral resources, when making land management decisions.

Beaver River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 303(d) Report, UDEQ (1984).  Minersville Reservoir and the Beaver River above the reservoir are on the state of Utah 303(d) list of impaired waters and this TMDL is available.  However, the lower Beaver River (below the dam) is not listed, nor is there any known water quality available for the lower Beaver River.  The information and analysis contained in the Beaver River Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment made logical assumptions and applies them to the project area based on what is contained in the TMDL report.

2010 Draft Utah Integrated Report - Water Quality Assessment 305(b).   This report lists waters from the USFS boundary to Minersville Reservoir as impaired, but lists the waters below the Minersville Reservoir as "Not Assessed."

1968 Carlson-Foley Act:  Directs federal agencies to enter upon lands under their jurisdiction having noxious plants (weeds) and destroy noxious plants growing on such land and provides for the authorization for reimbursement of expenses to State or local agencies for weed control work.

Federal Noxious Weeds Act of 1974, as amended by Sec.15 -- Management of Undesirable Plants on Federal Lands, 1990:  This bill requires each Federal Agency: (1) Designate a lead office and person trained in the management of undesirable plants; (2) Establish and fund an undesirable plant management program; (3) Complete and implement cooperative agreements with State agencies; and (4) Establish integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species

Executive Order 13112 (1999):  This EO directs that BLM use relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them.  Further, Federal agencies are to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm from invasive species.

Southwest Desert (SWARM) Adaptive Resource Management Plan
1.  The SWARM plan list wet habitat as being critical to brood rearing hens in the summer.  This projects goal is to improve habitat conditions in brood rearing habitat.

Sage Grouse Initiative 2.0 Investment Strategy, FY 2015-2018
1.  Restore and enhance degraded mesic areas to help increase populations.

Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0
1. Create, enhance and protect small ephemeral "wet areas" within nesting and brood-rearing habitats for sage grouse.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

The vegetation makeup in the project area prior to earlier phases of this project was one of a closed canopy, significant ladder fuels, and numerous fine ground fuels. The fire behavior in the previous situation makes it unsafe for ground resources to initial attack an unwanted wildfire. It would have been a fast moving high intensity crown fire that would require aerial resources to fight the fire. Following implementation and removal of the vegetation, there was a reduction in live fuel loading, removal of ladder fuels, reduced canopy density and closure. The fire behavior result is that of a slower moving ground fire that could safely be initial attacked by ground resources, and would significantly reduce the negative impacts of an unwanted wildfire. The current project would greatly reduce the risk of invasive vegetation reestablishing and returning to the high risk fire/fuels condition. Examples of the values that could be at risk from a fire in the area include recreational sites (i.e., picnic areas), fences, Minersville town, fairgrounds, and aquatic/wildlife habitat.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

The project has the potential to improve water quality. The project would likely help reduce phosphorous and sediment loads in the lower Beaver River, as well as address habitat alteration issues. The project would reestablish a dense and diverse corridor of riparian vegetation, helping to reduce phosphorous and sediment inputs from streambank erosion and creating an important buffer zone for filtration of nonpoint source pollutants from overland flow. Furthermore, the livestock grazing strategy (rest for at least 5 years, followed by limited spring grazing) proposed by the project would help to increase litter cover and water infiltration. The project would also improve habitat for a multiple species by increasing habitat heterogeneity at multiple scales.

The project promotes reconnecting the stream with the floodplain and increasing the presence and diversity of native riparian vegetation. As a result, water infiltration should increase during periods of overland flow and high discharge, which would lead to elevated soil moisture, ground water recharge, and generally more consistent flows later into the season.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

The strategies for achieving project goals are centered on improving function and health of the stream channel and stream corridor. The major restoration techniques that would be used on the project include:

(1) Large woody debris and rock structures - Private contractors would haul any rock material needed to the project area. The UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew would operate the necessary heavy equipment (e.g., excavator and front-end loader) to install large woody debris and rock structures in the stream and along banks. The structures would be intended to add cover for fish, help address problems associated with elevated rates of streambank erosion (e.g., recruitment of fine sediment or high total phosphorous loads), and protect cattle crossing structures to manage livestock grazing.

(2) Streambank shaping and sloping - All bare, vertical, eroding banks would be shaped and sloped back to at least a 2:1 slope in a manner intended to promote reconnection of the river with the floodplain and help address streambank erosion problems. The stream channel slope, pattern, and location would not be changed. Work would only occur on existing stream banks. The stream will be narrowed and deepened in some locations, but cross-sectional area of the channel will be maintained.

(3) Riparian seeding and planting - All disturbed ground and areas lacking adequate riparian vegetation would be seeded with a native grass mixture and a conservation corps work crew would be hired to plant willow cuttings and bare root riparian trees and shrubs (e.g., water birch, cottonwood, red-osier dogwood, chokecherry, elderberry and golden current) to add cover and address streambank erosion problems.

(4) Livestock management - The stream corridor encompassing the project area on private land was fenced in the summer of 2016 to manage livestock grazing, which should also help to protect large woody debris structures, riparian vegetation, and streambanks over the long-term. Livestock grazing on the private land will not occur within riparian areas for five years. Thereafter, livestock grazing within riparian areas would occur at an intensity, duration, timing, and season such that woody riparian vegetation is not degraded or lost due to grazing by livestock (e.g., short duration, high intensity during spring). A small section of new fence would be constructed and a longer section of old fence would be rebuilt to exclude livestock from the downstream portion of BLM property.

(5) Retreating Russian olive and tamarisk - The entire area where Russian olive and tamarisk has been removed over the past several years will be retreated by hand application of herbicide to any newly sprouting Russian olive and tamarisk.

The bulk of project implementation would likely occur in the spring of 2019.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

The UDWR is primarily monitoring the overall project through electrofishing surveys and photopoints. There are three electrofishing stations that act as "before", "after", "control", and "impact" sites at different points in time (before refers to monitoring sites prior to completion of any stream improvement work, after refers to a monitoring sites following completion of any stream improvement work, control refers to monitoring sites in which no stream improvement work has been or will be completed, and impact refers to monitoring sites in which stream improvement work has already been completed). Electrofishing surveys are conducted annually for five years initially, then every five years thereafter. Photo points were established along the river and in several upland areas prior to any work being done and will be revisited annually for the foreseeable future. The electrofishing surveys should help to quantitatively capture the impact of the project on the fishery and the photopoints should qualitatively assess the impact on the vegetation and geomorphology.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.