The project is needed because of the degraded state of much of the upper Sevier River, which can be characterized by elevated sediment loads, negative changes in water chemistry, near extirpation of woody riparian vegetation, and an overall lack of cover and suitable habitat for coldwater fishes and other species throughout the system. The upper Sevier River is on Utah's 303(d) list of impaired waters for the cold water aquatic life use due to excess total phosphorus. Additionally, the project builds upon the substantial amount of similar past stream improvement work that has already been completed on the upper Sevier River and Asay Creek by improving new, additional sections of stream that connect with the past work.

Primary Goals: 1. Improve water quality. 2. Increase abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife. Water Quality Objectives: 1. Decrease fine sediment loads from streambank erosion. 2. Decrease total phosphorous loads from streambank erosion and overland flow. 3. Narrow fluctuations in stream temperature (e.g., dampen high in summer and low in winter). Habitat Objectives: 1. Decrease channel width to depth ratio. 2. Decrease fine sediment input from streambank erosion. 3. Increase reach-scale habitat heterogeneity (i.e., riffle/run/pool/glide composition). 4. Increase percentage and maximum depth of pools. 5. Increase availability of cover. 6. Increase availability of winter refugia (physical and chemical). Biological Objectives: 1. Increase trout abundance, size structure, and biomass. 2. Increase non-game fish (e.g., southern leatherside chub) abundance and biomass. 3. Increase abundance and diversity of desirable and/or native riparian vegetation.

If the project does not go forward, the state of the stream and river corridor will remain in poor condition. Water quality will not improve because elevated loads of total phosphorous and fine sediment will continue. Fish and wildlife populations will not reach desirable and/or historic levels because the absence of suitable habitat will persist. Additionally, habitat conditions downstream of the proposed project where stream improvement work has already been completed could be negatively impacted if the project does not go forward (e.g., not addressing high width to depth ratios and continued lack of riparian vegetation are two important factors driving elevated stream temperatures downstream and bank erosion contributes to an elevated level of fine sediment downstream). 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. If the project does go forward, there are few notable threats/risks. Similar stream improvement work has been completed along much of the upper Sevier River near this project area without negative impacts and many positive impacts (e.g., increases in game and non-game fish abundance and biomass).

The project would address General Conservation Actions listed in the Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 1. "Restore Degraded Habitats" - the project would promote natural, healthy stream sinuosity and channel profiles, plant desirable vegetation, improve aquatic habitat for a variety of fish species, etc. 2."Control and Monitor Contaminants" - establishing a healthy riparian community would help to buffer nonpoint source contaminants from overland flow and reduce contaminant inputs from bank erosion (e.g., phosphorous). 3. "Increase/Secure In-stream Flow & Conservation Pools" - riparian plantings and bank sloping/shaping that reconnects the stream with the floodplain would have a positive impact on instream flow by promoting less variable, more natural stream flows and ground water recharge. 4. "Habitat Monitoring and Research" - the project would occur in an area that is being monitored and add to the knowledge base about the effects of habitat restoration on different species. The project would help to meet goals and objectives listed in the Upper Sevier Watershed Management Plan: 1. "Maintain or improve water quality and quantity for local needs while providing for the needs of recreation, fish and wildlife" - the project would help to establish woody riparian vegetation where needed, decrease sediment flow into the river, etc. 2. "Provide suitable habitat for a diversity of wildlife species" - the project would provide and protect quality fish habitat and recreational angling opportunities. 3. "Maintain and restore desired vegetation that is resilient and sustainable" - the project would move vegetation communities closer to desired conditions. 4. "Maintain ranching and agricultural as sustainable economic, cultural and lifestyle components of the Upper Sevier Watershed" - the project would be done on private land in a manner that helps to "address potential and real conflicts between wildlife management goals and private land use". 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). The project would help to meet habitat-related objectives in the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah: 1. The project would promote a healthy, functioning riparian habitat along the upper Sevier River and benefit late brood-rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse.

This project encourages a healthy riparian zone, which can provide a vegetation community and microclimate that may reduce the risk of fire to a limited degree and increase the potential use of these areas as control points and fuel/fire breaks.

The project has the potential to significantly improve water quality. The project would likely help reduce phosphorous and sediment loads in the upper Sevier River, as well as address habitat alteration issues, all of which were listed concerns in the upper Sevier River TMDL. 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. There are limited pathways by which a project like this can impact water quantity. However, the project does promote reconnecting the stream with the floodplain and increasing water infiltration, both leading to ground water recharge and more consistent flows later into the season.

Archaeological clearance is required and would be completed by UDWR. A UDWR archaeologist would complete an archaeological inventory before the project began, likely in spring of 2016. NEPA is not required. However, Section 7 Consultation with USFWS is likely required because of Utah prairie dog and autumn buttercup near the project area. A USFWS biologist is being consulted to ensure compliance with ESA in time for project implementation. Utah Division of Water Rights Steam Channel Alteration Permit and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits are required and would be secured by the UDWR.

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 structure installation - Private contractors would haul large tree and rock material to the project area and 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 would be narrowed and deepened in some locations, but cross-sectional area of the channel would 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 the Utah Conservation Corps (UCC) 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 would be fenced as necessary to manage livestock grazing, which should also help to protect large woody debris structures, riparian vegetation, and streambanks over the long-term. Livestock grazing would 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). Project implementation would likely occur in the fall of 2016.

The study design for assessing effectiveness of the project to improve water quality and increase the abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife would be through before-after (BA), control-impact (CI), and before-after-control-impact (BACI) comparisons; where "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. These types of analyses are required to control for fluctuations in response variables (e.g., total phosphorus levels) that could be influenced by factors with natural spatial and temporal variation (e.g., annual precipitation). Study sites would be selected based on factors that could help to facilitate effectiveness of the study design, such as overlapping with already established study sites/reaches of other agencies or investigators and being geomorphically representative of the greater stream section. The data collection and analysis for monitoring of different chemical, physical, and biological parameters will primarily occur by the following schedule, agency or agencies, and methods: Chemical - total phosphorous, total suspended solids, and dissolved oxygen would be monitored before/after active stream improvement work is completed and ongoing on an annual basis by UDWQ (with support from UDWR personnel when needed). Physical - temperature, channel geomorphology, habitat suitability, and particle size distribution would be monitored before/after active stream improvement work is completed, annually for five years, and then ongoing every five years by the UDWR and UDWQ. Biological - riparian vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and fisheries would be monitored before/after active stream improvement work is completed, annually for five years, and then ongoing every five years by the UDWR and UDWQ.

The principal partners in the project are the UDWR (project design, implementation, monitoring, maintenance, in-kind funding), two private landowners (support of project, maintenance), and UDWQ (funding, monitoring). The USFWS is also involved in the project to ensure compliance with the ESA.

Monitoring of the project would guide future management. As needed, the riparian fence and crossings would be maintained and additional planting of woody riparian vegetation would be completed. Grazing would be excluded from the fenced riparian area for a minimum of five years; thereafter, livestock grazing within the the fenced riparian area would occur at an intensity, duration, and timing such that woody riparian vegetation are not degraded or lost due to grazing by livestock.

The project would ultimately create a riparian pasture for livestock and rotational grazing would be implemented (e.g., short duration, high intensity during spring) that should be mutually beneficial to the stream health and function, fish and wildlife, and livestock. While the woody riparian vegetation that would be planted is not necessarily intended to high value for livestock (e.g., willow, cottonwood, water birch, red-osier dogwood, chokecherry, golden currant), it would help to provide some additional forage for livestock.

03/01/2016

06/30/2018

2018

The final methods did not deviate significantly from the initial plan. The UDWR utilized heavy equipment to haul rock from a nearby BLM rock pit, install rock and log structures in the stream, and slope streambanks. A four-person conservation corps crew was hired for a total of two weeks to plant bare root tree and shrubs and willow stakes along the stream. Finally, a fence contractor was hired to build a riparian fence along the project area where needed to manage livestock grazing. The project took longer to implement than planned and it was necessary to carry over the project into a second year in order to finish the riparian fence construction.

The project was completed essentially as planned. Summary of the project implementation: (1) Large woody debris and rock structure installation - In September and October of 2016, private contractors hauled large tree and rock material to the project area and the UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew operated 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 added cover for fish, help to 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 - At the same time structures were installed, all bare, vertical, eroding banks were 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 were not changed. Work occurred only on existing stream banks. The stream was narrowed and deepened in some locations, but cross-sectional area of the channel was maintained. (3) Riparian planting - In March and April of 2017 and again in 2018, all disturbed ground and areas lacking adequate riparian vegetation were planted with 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. A conservation corps work crew was hired to complete the planting work. (4) Livestock management - In the summer of 2017 (June-August), the stream corridor encompassing the upstream half of the original project area was fenced to manage livestock grazing, which will also help to protect large woody debris structures, riparian vegetation, and streambanks over the long-term. Livestock grazing will not occur within riparian areas for five years. Thereafter, livestock grazing within riparian areas will occur at an intensity, duration, timing, and season such that woody riparian vegetation is not degraded or lost due to grazing by livestock.

Important future management activities include: assessing function of installed structures to determine if changes are needed, working with the private land owners to ensure the grazing management plan is followed, monitoring the fish and habitat response, and completing any maintenance work that might be needed (e.g., additional planting efforts, repairing the riparian fence).