Project Details

The Middle Bear River and Cutler Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), February 2010, mentions the need for streambank rehabilitation on 10 miles of streambank in the Little Bear to reduce total phosphorus (page 14) and in the discussion in 4.1.2 NONPOINT SOURCES, says: "Fertilizer applications from urban and agricultural areas, erosion from cultivated fields and disturbed soils, and streambank erosion all contribute phosphorus to the surface waters" (page 132). The TMDL notes "Streambank vegetation serves to stabilize bank sediments and reduces the erosional force of flowing water. It also serves as a depositional area for sediment already in the stream. Related impacts include increased water temperatures in the tributaries due to removal of stream-side vegetation." (Page 139). Second stream stabilization is one of the steps outlined in the Lower Bear River Conservation Action Plan (CAP), a process developed by local, state and federal agencies, nonprofits, research scientists, and others, to identify goals for specific "targets," and implementation steps to achieve those goals on the lower Bear River downstream of the Idaho state line in Cache and Box Elder counties. This CAP began in 2009 and targeted aquatic, riparian and wetland systems. It assessed current conditions and causes of degradation, and specified activities to improve degraded conditions. Sedimentation from riverbank sloughing was identified in the CAP as affecting all three targets and as a source of nutrient loading, which in turn was identified as a major contributor to algal growth that results in low dissolved oxygen in Cutler Reservoir. The streambanks selected in this project are representative of large portions of the lower Bear River. It is the intent of this project to demonstrate the feasibility of restoration using mechanical and vegetative means on 600 feet of streambank on the Bear River bottoms. If successful not only will this project help to mitigate some of the issues relayed above, but the means by which this project is constructed can readily be transferred to additional sites within the lower Bear. Second, Russian Olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) and Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima) are highly invasive nonnative woody plant species that consume large amounts of water, displace native plant species, reduce the habitat available to native bird and animal species, and increase the salinity of soils through the depositing of salts along the Bear River. Both Tamarisk and Russian Olive have been identified as state noxious weeds. Tamarisk has been classified as a Class 3 weed and the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food has recommended that weed control efforts may be directed at reducing or eliminating new or expanding weed populations and that these weeds pose a threat to the agricultural industry and agricultural products. Russian Olive has been classified as a Class 4 Weed and that is is known to be detrimental to human or animal health, the environment, public roads, crops, or other property.These species are also extremely difficult to remove and require a combination of mechanical removal and timely herbicide application to be successful. Like many sites on the lower Bear, the Bear River Bottoms has been largely overrun by these invasive species. In order to restore this and similar sites along the Bear to their original ecological condition these nonnative trees and shrubs must be removed.

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.

The main channel of the Bear River and the surrounding riparian corridor have been extensively modified both directly and indirectly by human activity since the period of settlement as the development of agricultural activities, towns, industry, and hydropower have facilitated growth throughout the watershed. Because the river system and natural flow regime have been extensively modified, the river has not been able to meander naturally within the flood plain and significant channelization and bank degradation have occurred in many areas.
Resulting bank conditions can create a hazard for people and livestock, contribute to the deterioration of water quality through the release of sediments, and have become nonsupportive of healthy riparian plant communities and associated habitats. On the site identified for restoration, since 2008 nearly 20 feet of river bank has been washed away into the river system, contributing to nutrient loading and decreased water quality. This is consistent with many areas along the Bear. Until an efficient and cost effective means of restoring these types of sites can be identified, it is unlikely this system can be improved. Pilot projects such as the one proposed can assist in that regard.

Second large swaths of the lower Bear River have been overtaken by nonnative tamarisk and Russian olive. These invasive species have all but choked out native vegetation and have replaced the historic riparian systems that formerly existed on the lower Bear River system. If left unchecked, they will completely change the composition and function of these sites.
This project will remove those species and begin to restore native and historic species to the  system.

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.

This project will assist in accomplishing the goals and objectives outlined in the following plans.

1)	Bear River Comprehensive Management Plan
This plan, developed by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands, October 2017, lists the beneficial use in Segment A (which includes the project site) as "3B Warm Water Aquatic Life" and the principal impairment as "sedimentation, phosphorous," with one of the historical DWQ water quality monitoring sites immediately upstream of the project site (Figure 2.29). "Restoration focus areas along the Bear River are native vegetation enhancement, streambank stability, and water quality improvement." (Figure 2.20) The accompanying illustrative photo (reproduced below) could have been taken with the project area. The accompanying text reads: "Streambank Stability. Some areas of the Bear River experience significant bank erosion from flowing water, wave action, or adjacent land uses. In many locations, vertical cut banks are present that cannot support vegetation, making them more likely to erode. The lowering of the channel bottom can also cause major undercutting in places and significantly decreased bank stability. Physically restoring banks and channels while maintaining connections to floodplains and riparian areas is crucial to restoring variety of habitats along the river." The CMP cites the Lower Bear River Watershed Restoration Action Strategy (DWQ 2002) and Middle Bear River and Cutler Reservoir Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), February 2010, and notes, "The main sources of pollutants to the Bear River are erosion, wastewater, and agriculture." (Page 82). It includes as a BMP for water quality management: "Stabilize streambanks through revegetation, snag removal and clearing, flow regulation structures, revetments, or deflectors." (Page 137.)

2)	2010 Bear River and Cutler Reservoir TMDL
This report mentions the need for streambank rehabilitation on 10 miles of streambank in the Little Bear to reduce total phosphorus (page 14) and in the discussion in 4.1.2 NONPOINT SOURCES, says: "Fertilizer applications from urban and agricultural areas, erosion from cultivated fields and disturbed soils, and streambank erosion all contribute phosphorus to the surface waters" (page 132). The TMDL notes "Streambank vegetation serves to stabilize bank sediments and reduces the erosional force of flowing water. It also serves as a depositional area for sediment already in the stream." And in discussions about livestock grazing, says: "Reduction or removal of riparian vegetation decreases bank stability through the loss of root mass within the soil profile and decreases settling and sedimentation at the edges of the stream channel. As a result, streambanks have become unstable in many stream reaches in the watershed. Related impacts include increased water temperatures in the tributaries due to removal of stream-side vegetation." (Page 139.) It notes extensive shoreline erosion around Cutler Reservoir due to livestock grazing that leads to phosphorus loading (page 140), but makes no detailed assessment of conditions along the riverbanks upstream of the reservoir.

3)	The Lower Bear River Conservation Action Plan:
Stream stabilization is one of the steps outlined in the Lower Bear River Conservation Action Plan (CAP), a process developed by The Nature Conservancy, that involved local, state and federal agencies, nonprofits, research scientists, and others, to identify goals for specific "targets," and implementation steps to achieve those goals. (The "lower Bear River" is downstream of the Idaho state line in Cache and Box Elder counties.) This CAP began in 2009 and targeted aquatic, riparian and wetland systems. It assessed current conditions and causes of degradation, and specified activities to improve degraded conditions. Sedimentation from riverbank sloughing was identified in the CAP as affecting all three targets and as a source of nutrient loading, which in turn was identified as a major contributor to algal growth that results in low dissolved oxygen in Cutler Reservoir. From the 2017 annual update to the Lower Bear River CAP:

OBJECTIVE 1: Enhance wetland, riparian and aquatic targets by achieving water quality goals.
Strategy A: Actively participate with communities in developing and implementing water quality plans, with a view to protecting targets.
Action Steps: Address agricultural impacts to water quality through streambank/riparian restoration and manure management in Cache and Box Elder County.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.