Meadow Creek Stream and Riparian Restoration FY2017
Project ID: 3617
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2017
Submitted By: 608
Project Manager: Bryan Engelbert
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Northeastern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Northeastern
Description:
Continue rehabilitation on Meadow Creek for enhancement of water quality, Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (CRCT) fishery, address riparian vegetation/stream bank erosion, channel downcutting. Original funding for project was submitted for FY 2015. Majority of account has been used to secure permitting. Remainder of FY15 account will be used spring 2016 to complete habitat restoration activities in key spots.
Location:
Meadow Creek is an approximate 5 mile long, east side, perennial tributary to Willow Creek in the Bookcliffs, straddling the Uinta/Grand County line.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Meadow Creek has been severely impacted by flash flooding and trespass cattle issues, with much/most of the habitat damage and degradation occurring before UDWR purchased the property. Over the past several years, most trespass cattle issues have been dealt with. But in response of these stressors, the stream has cut below its surrounding floodplain, begun to erode on cut banks, decreased in sinuosity, headcuts created (impeding fish passage), decreased water table/riparian water transfer, and habitat types have simplified (fewer deep pools/runs) as sediment accumulated. Original project proposal was to begin stream rehabilitation at the upstream end, accomplishing what could be completed with FY2015 funds. Majority of 2015 funds have been spent securing stream alteration permits. This proposal will be for a downsized portion of stream to a more manageable length (1 mile of corridor) with minimal instream effect (dredge/discharge) while promoting natural stream healing. Within the 1 mile of corridor, we plan to mitigate 4 cut banks with heavy equipment, install rock riffles in order more water is held back while keeping grade, install fish hotels (as they have been successful at Lake Canyon Ck and Crouse Creek), install beaver dam analogues, installing spawning riffles for CRCT, and plant riparian herbaceous and woody vegetation. Vegetation will likely need to be planted after stream restoration and enhancement activities are completed (some into separate project proposal in FY2018). Gravel will have to be transported to site; boulders and larger rocks for riffles will mostly be utilized from onsite materials. Logs for fish hotels will mostly come from the greater area around project; some may be purchased. Heavy equipment will have to be rented and transported to site. This proposal will include seasonal technician personnel services time to assist biologist with implementation. Some trees (willows) will come from on site dispesral (FY 2018); other herbaceous and woody vegetation will be purchased (FY2018). Honeycomb material will be brought onsite to mitigate/enhance minor stream crossing used by DWR crews to access remote parts of Willow Creek WMA. Long term outlook for project will be to establish enough vegetation that beaver utilize this area, which should allow the stream channel to build itself back to the floodplain. With increased water residency and reconnection with floodplain habitats from beaver dams, not only will resident fish (mountain suckers, speckled dace, and CRCT) have more habitat, but the improved riparian condition will enhance grazing for big game species, including mule deer, elk, and bison. If successful, this project will reap permanent benefits for fish and wildlife on this property, reversing decades of cattle damage.
Objectives:
1. mitigate cattle damaged areas; address cattle trespass issues should they arise and mitigate 2. restore/enhance Meadow Creek stream channel 3. restore/enhance Meadow Creek riparian/stream banks; curtail erosion issues 4. establish thick, native vegetation through riparian corridor 5. long term: establish more natural habitat rehabilitation through use of woody vegetation and beaver impact 6. reconnect stream to floodplain to benefit fishery and terrestrial wildlife
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
1. stream/riparian habitat modifications fail due to increased cattle trespass or flash flood events 2. vegetation that we plant fails to take 3. erosive banks continue to be a problem 4. beaver do not take to habitat 5. fail to reconnect floodplain 6. project becomes too expensive/large to be tenable
Relation To Management Plan:
Colorado River Cutthroat trout: CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT. This proposal greatly enhances habitat quantity and quality. Beaver: UTAH BEAVER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2010-2020. This proposal increases habitat quantity. WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN (WAP): proposal increases habitat suitability (quality and quantity) for listed terrestrial and aquatic species.
Fire / Fuels:
This proposal does not address fire/fuel concerns
Water Quality/Quantity:
Short-term goals of this project are 1. to enhance water quality by promoting sediment deposition in key areas in order to slowly rebuild channel height with reference to surrounding floodplain and 2. enhance water and riparian quality by mitigating, vegetating, and otherwise working to eliminate detrimental streambank erosion in this stream. Water quantity will not be impacted until long-term visions of this project are fulfilled, which include beaver colonization and impacts of beaver dams. Research has indicated that beaver dams can increase the quantity of desirable water by allowing greater percolation into water tables, where it remains available to maintain the stream during dry periods; without this, the stream is more susceptible to running dry. In some cases, beaver dams have been a likely surrogate in absence of significant snowpack, holding water at higher elevations longer. In the case of Meadow Creek, the Tavaputs plateau receives significant flash flood events. Beaver dams would allow the system to retain this water in a healthy manner.
Compliance:
Area has already been cleared by State Archeologist. Attached is a copy of the state-only Stream Alteration 404 permit from Utah Division of Water Rights, already issued for this project. I will modify the permit and refile with Division of Water Rights to extend the permit expiration date, and downscale in-stream impacts to reflect what we see as better suited for this system in long term than original plans documented in FY2015 request. This will appease US Army Corps of Engineers concerns to where a Joint State-Federal 404 permit will be issued. If this still does not suffice for USACE, we have already completed Wetland Delineation work (which is great data for monitoring wetland capacity of this system to compare long-term), and Archeological clearance. All that would remain to submit a Federal USACE Nationwide Permit 27 (NWP27) for stream and wetland restoration/enhancement activities is documentation on how this may affect endangered species, aquatic and terrestrial. No NEPA is required since all work will be conducted on UDWR lands.
Methods:
1. Monitor cattle in case of ability to further exclude cattle from this WMA during habitat treatment. 2. Restore Meadow Creek stream channel by adding gravel where deemed appropriate for spawning bars, large boulders where deemed appropriate to create riffles, beaver dam analogues where appropriate to build water table further up and create pool habitat 3. Repair cutbanks along Meadow Creek using heavy equipment to scale angle of bank back to where it can be vegetated and no longer erode into the stream 4. plant herbaceous vegetation where deemed appropriate, especially in erosion problem areas. 5. kill all tamarisk within corridor (Tordon), which has slowly begun to invade up Meadow Creek 6. install honeycomb structure at stream crossing to prevent further channel erosion 6. Create another proposal (FY2018) in the near future to begin establishing woody vegetation; some will include willow cuttings from close to the Willow Creek confluence; other desirable vegetation, such as buffaloberry, currant, and box elder, may be purchased, brought on site, and planted. 7. Long term: once we deem the area can handle losing occasional trees, we intend to restore a beaver population on this stream.
Monitoring:
1. Monitor trespass cattle situation. Mitigate if forced. Eliminate cattle issues through increased vigilance/DWR presence at WMA, and fencing/exclusion possibilities if there are areas where cattle continue to get in. DWR personnel will check on this site for cattle intrusion weekly from May-September. 2. monitor fish use of gravel bars, enhanced riffles. This will be completed by walking affected sections of stream in late-May for minimum of three years to observe spawning redds within gravel (spawning redd walks commonly used for noting salmonid reproduction activities); since this will be a relatively small section of stream, this will be a complete sample. Number of redds per year will be recorded and compared. Enhanced pools created by riffles/gravel additions will be monitored for fish use through standard electrofishing surveys/population estimates of affected reach; compared to data we already have collected and will continue to collect to compare pre-vs post- enhancement. Per our NER aquatics stream sampling plan, habitat enhanced streams should be monitored once per year for 3-4 years before project beginning, during project, and at least 4 years after project completion to ensure success, or at least that no damage was done. 3. observe cutbank areas annually; if erosion continues, explore other options to mitigate or eliminate issue. 4. monitor herbaceous vegetation survival/germination. This monitoring will consist of a single walk through of all affected areas in October of the following 4 years (occurring jointly with fish survey), noting areas where vegetation has failed to establish or survive. If germination is poor for multiple years (2+), we plan to set up a plot subsampling system where we may investigate reasons for poor survival or growth; further actions would depend on nature of failures. If certain species are doing well while others are doing poor, we may investigate potential of other plant species not previously considered, or optimizing conditions such that better survival is encouraged. We will continue planting areas that do not take root in order forage base and ground stabilization is established. 5. monitor tree survival, growth. If desirable plants do not succeed, continue plantings. Observe if certain species are more successful than others (besides tamarisk), and promote healthy growth. This monitoring will consist of a single walk-through of all planted trees in July for 3 years following treatment to ensure survival, growth. Site will be visited at least once every 5 years to determine if tree growth and eventual reproduction successful. 6. sometimes a beaver introduction is not successful. Observe if introduced population is surviving and acting on stream. If survival is not detectable, try multiple reintroductions 7. bi-annually observe if stream is eroding through, under, or around honeycomb stream crossing structure. If so, address erosion issue. 8. Habitat use by terrestrial wildlife may be studied by Wildlife Biologist staff members, but we will not directly investigate pre- vs post- restoration use. The primary purpose of this project is to create an optimal aquatic environment for fish species, namely Colorado River cutthroat trout. However, we expect many benefits from this project to an entire suite of species, including big game, especially in terms of forage. From our project standpoint, we consider successful vegetative plantings and enhancement, as well as raising water tables and channel water storage capacity to be the surrogate for positive terrestrial wildlife value. 9. let the water do the rest of your work for you
Partners:
BLM may desire to eventually be a minor partner in this project if the upper area is successful. They own approximately 1/4-1/3 of mile near where the V-Canyon road enters the Meadow Creek Canyon, about midway between Kelly Canyon springs (where perennial channel starts) and confluence with Willow Creek. Suggested work on BLM land would likely be limited to vegetation planting potential
Future Management:
Continue to enhance stream for wildlife suitability and quality
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Eliminating, downgrading, or mitigating trespass cattle issues on DWR land; less conflict between our Big Game species, and domestic cattle.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$29,500.00 $0.00 $29,500.00 $10,500.00 $40,000.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Equipment Rental/Use Dump truck rental (2 weeks) Bobcat sized skid steer rental (4 weeks) $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2017
Materials and Supplies Herbicide, plants, seeds, misc small tools, gravel, rock, equipment gas, fencing/wire, and honeycomb stream crossing material In-kind is expected aquatics section contribution of small tools, equipment, supplies $10,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2017
Motor Pool Travel Vernal to Meadow site for: -seasonal employees and interns -gear and camper Additional cost expected for employees/interns monitoring for trespass cattle. In-kind is expected aquatic's contribution in vehicle mileage (monitor + cattle) $5,500.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2017
Personal Services (permanent employee) Lead aquatics biologist salary (in-kind contribution to project) $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2017
Personal Services (seasonal employee) Additional money allocated for seasonal employee (X1.5) assistance through project. Most of project relies on manual labor. In kind contribution is from aquatics funded seasonal labor and interns (value). $5,500.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 2017
Seed (GBRC) Herbaceous vegetation seed expense $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2017
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$30,868.29 $0.00 $30,868.29 $10,500.00 $41,368.29
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Habitat Council Account HCRF $30,868.29 $0.00 $0.00 2017
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) UDWR aquatic's section contribution $0.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 2017
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
American Beaver
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
American Bison N4 R2
Threat Impact
Livestock Farming and Ranching High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Small Isolated Populations Medium
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Medium
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes High
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) Low
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Low
Wading Birds
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Waterfowl
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures Unknown
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Low
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Stormwater Runoff Low
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Unknown
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Relationship Between Groundwater and Surface Water NA
Project Comments
Comment 01/14/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
It looks like you have some great monitoring planned for this project, but I am a little unclear about the methods you plan to use. For example, you say you will monitor fish and wildlife use of gravel bars, but don't describe how that monitoring will be done. Likewise for the vegetative components. Could you please briefly describe your methods?
Comment 01/19/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks Tory, good point. I added substantial wording to the "Monitoring" section to include what we would like to see, and how this Monitoring will guide future actions we do or propose. Mostly, I added visual observation by walking the entire restoration section for determining vegetative establishment/survival. I also added a part that stated the primary purpose of the project was for aquatics species, with terrestrial wildlife having opportunistic benefits. Thus, I stated terrestrial wildlife value would be established by using vegetative survival as a surrogate. Gravel bar value/monitoring will be completed by monitoring the area for fish redds (complete redd count walk will be recorded and compared). Fish use of riffles/larger pools created by riffles would be studied by pre- and post- enhancement fish population surveys, annually, until at least 4 years after project completion.
Comment 01/19/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Miles Hanberg
This project will help bolster a existing CRCT population. I would like to make one comment. The PM does not need to reply. The majority of the channel modification and other impacts from livestock occurred prior to UDWR purchasing the property. Historically, cattle stayed along Meadow Creek year long. More recent cattle use has impacted the stream as well but to a lesser degree. This much needed project will help address decades of impacts.
Comment 01/19/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks for the clarification Miles. I will add some of this fact to this proposal.
Comment 01/20/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Pat Rainbolt
Bryan,,,I suggest adding wild turkeys to the species benefit list. There is a healthy population of birds that use the riparian corridor and will benefit from reduced livestock trespass, bank stabilization, and native vegetation enhancement.
Comment 01/20/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Great, thanks! RG turkeys added to species benefited list
Comment 01/21/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Matt Lewis
The native plant community would benefit from the use of more native shrubs/forbs in the seed mix. The seed mix is grass heavy. Also, the use of alfalfa seems unnecessary and should be phased out of restoration/reclamation seed mixes.
Comment 02/02/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks for the comment Matt. The species we chose in the mix were for function, meaning optimal forage species for big and small game (e.g., alfalfa) and species that would best help us accomplish stream bank stabilization. Unfortunately I'm not well versed in native seed mixes and their potential. The guides I have simply list places where species will successfully grow, and what basic functions they can be used for. If you have some ideas about native species that would perform equally or better to achieve the above objectives, I'd be happy to phase out the species you see as less desirable in this environment.
Comment 02/11/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Just a question about the claimed threat to bison - Livestock Ranching. Is this project going to actually address that? Don't get me wrong, I'm as supportive of this project as humanly possible - I'm just looking down the road to programmatic data analysis, and imagining - for example - Big Game - or some sportsman's group - querying all the "bison-benefitting projects". Will this really be one of those projects? Can we say yes with a clear conscience? Just an honest question, and *thank you* for the proposal. Major fan here.
Comment 02/15/2016 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Good point and comment Jimi. I lean toward saying yes, this project will enhance bison habitat potential. However, for my purposes, this is not a direct target organism benefiting from the work, as I note that the targeted organisms are aquatic. Let me know if you agree with the below information regarding how this project may benefit bison. There is currently a right for cattle to trail through the WMA (*note- trail through, not graze). The neighboring rancher has grazing rights on properties adjacent to our WMA, hence why he has a trailing right. Unfortunately the Meadow Creek property is very remote, making it difficult for us to 'police' trespass cattle. We, especially Pat Rainbolt, have been doing a much better job over the past few years of keeping presence here, and then calling the local rancher when his cattle have trespassed on our properties. This project will have the temporary benefit of us checking up on this property with a much higher frequency. The hope is that by us either calling on trespass cattle enough, and documenting a trespass problem if law enforcement needs to become involved, that we can partially mitigate this issue into the future. When we've been successful at keeping trespass cattle off of this property, forb/herbaceous vegetation growth has been tremendous, and functions as great winter range habitat for deer, elk, and bison. Last spring I noted a bison mortality within the treatment area. I would like to dedicate some time (including seasonals) to observing if any fencing improvements can be made to keep trespass cattle out. I'm not sure if this will go anywhere - our habitat section has already done an excellent job with the fencing arrangements of the property. Bison should benefit from several facets of the stream improvement. The goals of the project are to elevate the stream channel to better facilitate use of the valley's flood plain. Granted, it may take 20-30 years for improvements to take hold and stabilize. By better utilizing the stream floodplain, a healthier mix of palatable plants should take root, some on its own since the stream will be naturally irrigating the riparian areas, as it should be. Shallower water table should mean higher densities of this vegetation as well. Also, over recent years there has been a 'push' to incorporate beaver restoration into stream/riparian restoration. I plan on submitting another proposal in FY 2018 that will complement this one where I'll be focusing on enhancing woody vegetation in the area. If I have time between now and through FY17, I'll do some woody vegetation plantings, but I think I'll get more into it in 2018. The idea will be once we have a healthy enough riparian woody vegetation community, we will transplant beaver into the area. We may have to make the area more 'suitable' beforehand with beaver dam analogs or structure for them to construct dams on. This should lead to moderate sized beaver dams within the channel, further elevating it while preventing channel downcutting. I'm not an expert about bison diets, but prior experience with elk and deer suggest they will also consume the riparian woody vegetative plantings as winter forage. This year's focus will be on some in-stream work to elevate the channel, and eliminating cut banks. Simply removing these and planting with palatable wildlife forage seed mix will yield benefits for both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. A targeted benefit to this project is to protect the water source. Benefits of several actions (particularly if beaver dams are successful) will be to hold more water for longer periods of time. Ensuring the existence of perennial water within this canyon will greatly benefit all organisms involved.
Comment 01/04/2016 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
Project map shows some of the work taking place on SITLA, is that correct? If not, you'll need to draw the map so it doesn't include SITLA.
Comment 01/04/2016 Type: 2 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks. Project will be most exclusively on DWR land other than the potential to sprinkle a few seeds if there is exposed ground; small piece on western work area has been modified to cut out affected SITLA lands.
Comment 09/19/2017 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This comment has been deleted by author or admin.
Completion
Start Date:
07/01/2016
End Date:
06/30/2017
FY Implemented:
2017
Final Methods:
Funding used for personnel services for seasonal employees and heavy equipment crew , as well as current expense for tools, supplies, and materials to complete project
Project Narrative:
-25 fish hotels were constructed within upper reach of project area. Fish hotels served to transition riparian area, prevent bank erosion, and provide fish cover that otherwise does not exist within the stream. -3 large woody debris (Rosgen-style log crosswood bank stabilization root wads) constructed with local juniper root wads constructed to anchor and stabilize problematic erosive banks as well as provide downcutting (pool) fish habitat along with overhanging cover. -Stabilized 10 banks that were cut back by heavy equipment crew -Seeded all de-vegetated and un-vegetated bank areas -Stabilized and anchored headcut area -Stabilized road/stream crossing to prevent further erosion and stream migration -Planted various banks with woody vegetation to begin vegetation establishment (future beaver restoration planned) -Removed problematic tamarisk in core restoration areas -Installed 15 rock structures to provide a stepping gradient that added water capacity behind each structure (not enough water residency in this area pre-project to support a fishery), while providing in-stream anchor points
Future Management:
Continue to advance this project. We received additional funding in FY18 to continue work. Work includes repairing or enhancing specific areas that may become damaged by weather events (flooding); repair/enhance rock riffle structures that may submerge within the streambed over time and need additional material to function. Add large woody debris where appropriate. Re-seed banks where seed did not take (drought in May-July 2017 led to relatively poor seed survival in project area). Main part of FY18 project: continue to establish woody vegetation through much of the upper canyon area in support of beaver colonization. Beaver colonization has the potential to agrade the stream channel to allow it to have better connectivity to riparian areas, which will in turn lead to better riparian vegetation establishment. The stream has historically downcut from overgrazing in a flashy watershed. Beaver colonization and dams should also lead to a moderation of flashy weather events.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Bank slope adjustment/terracing
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Check dam(s) (medium stage)
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Geotextile cover
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Gravel placement
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Instream flow enhancement
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Large woody debris/cover
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Root wad(s)
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Slope adjustment/terracing
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Vanes (J-hook)
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Manual removal / hand crew
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Mechanical removal
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Seeding
4859 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Seedlings
Project Map
Project Map