Meadow Creek Riparian Restoration FY2018
Project ID: 4022
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2018
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:
Complete riparian restoration and enhancement work on Meadow Creek. Most heavy equipment stream restoration complete FY17. Primary activities include planting trees and constructing temporary wildlife/cattle exclosures, with primary objectives of providing shade and natural stream bank stability. Numerous wildlife and aquatic species will benefit with increased habitat complexity and availability to an otherwise vacant niche.
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. Land ownership consists primarily of Utah Division of Wildlife (DWR) wildlife management area (WMA), with limited BLM and SITLA. All work will occur within DWR administered lands.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Meadow Creek has been severely impacted by flash flooding and trespass cattle issues over the past 20 years. Over the past 3 years, we've made significant progress to minimize and eliminate cattle issues. Unfortunately, in response to these stressing elements, the stream has cut below its surrounding floodplain, and has exposed banks, decreased water exchange/transfer between stream and water-table, and habitat types are simplified (fewer deep pools/riffles/runs). Previous project proposals have addressed in-stream issues that included solidifying stream crossing on access road, head cuts, cut banks, decreased stream sinuosity, decreased stream complexity (riffle, run, pool complex), lack of spawning gravel, and lack of fish cover. Previous project for this area stated a separate proposal to fund riparian work/plantings to be filed in FY2018 (this proposal). This proposal will be used to fund 2.5 miles of riparian plantings on Meadow Creek on DWR administered lands, with special focus on the upstream portion of the stream. Currently there are limited woody riparian plants within this reach that include only 3 coyote willow trees (in approximately 3 miles). Willow vegetation is well established immediately downstream of the Moon Canyon road crossing, along the entire corridor to the Willow Creek confluence. This proposal will advance tree growth upstream to provide much needed plants to stabilize stream banks, provide in-stream shade, provide big game wildlife with an additional winter forage, and provide non-game wildlife with additional habitat, forage, and refuge. Cattle/wildlife exclosures will need to be constructed in certain areas to protect fragile areas or high-risk plantings. Long-term goal is for beaver to take advantage of and colonize the area. An exciting response to keeping cows out of the Meadow corridor in 2015 was the colonization of lower Meadow Creek by a beaver family. With no cow depredation, willow trees that were already present but beat down within the lower reaches of the stream were able to survive, grow, and multiply well within this area where roots were already established. In response, beaver have moved up into Meadow Creek from elsewhere in the Willow Creek drainage without human intervention to bring them to this new home. Beaver dams have proven to increase stream complexity and resiliency, while providing permanent surface water, and water exchange in drought. Beaver dams have also proven to be excellent solutions for alleviating channel downcutting and moderating massive sediment transport. Both actions can be devastating to a proper functioning aquatic ecosystem, and surrounding riparian area dependent on perennial water. Willow trees will be planted within the upper reach to encourage natural tree growth and dispersal, but additional native tree species will be added as well. This will increase tree diversity, which will increase the value of the habitat types that can exist in this currently devoid area. Several other tree species can grow much larger than willows and thus have increased shade value to Meadow Creek. Several tree species may tolerate drier soils that are further away from the stream, thereby increased capacity and diversity of habitat. Several of the tree species we will plant will have varying benefits for wildlife in terms of habitat and forage. Tree species will include: coyote willow box elder western cottonwood buffalo berry currant bush hawthorne elderberry chokecherry aspen
Objectives:
1. Plant 2.5 miles of riparian corridor with native tree species along Meadow Creek to supplement prior in-stream and riparian restoration to promote better wildlife habitat value. 2. Install 6 temporary cattle/wildlife exclosures in key areas to promote better tree survival. Remove in the future to allow all wildlife benefit to trees. 3. Continue to monitor trespass cattle; identify and implement improvements as necessary to mitigate problems. 4. Promote further upstream beaver migration in the future when conditions allow, if necessary 5. Continue to monitor habitat and biological conditions in the future for other possible improvements
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Threats to mule deer, elk, bison, and bear are addressed by adding forage, including winter forage. Forage includes trees themselves as an opportunistic menu item. Also, in the long term, this project focuses on increasing water availability to the riparian area. A healthy riparian area will provide a rich, thick abundance of forage much better than the current status of the surrounding canyon bottoms that are more arid. Threats addressed to bat species include additional roost availability and habitat diversity. Beaver will greatly benefit through increased forage availability and dam building materials. Thus, this will introduce new, currently unavailable habitat. Currently there is little to no habitat in the upper portions of Meadow Creek for beaver. Thus beaver populations are limited in forage availability rather than having an anchor point with which to create a dam. BDAs (beaver dam analogues) are commonly used in areas where a) there are no beaver, and b) as an attempt to get beaver to construct a dam in a particular place by providing an anchor point. BDA's may be used in the future if beaver are not having the desired effect, or if we wish to attempt to get a beaver to create a dam(s) in specific areas. However, the construction of BDA's at this point have the potential to cause more harm than good. Colorado River cutthroat trout + Northern leopard frog threats addressed include increased water temperature concerns (short term = shading, long term = increased baseflow through groundwater discharge/recharge processes), sedimentation (increasing ground canopy and tree rooting, thus soil stability), and habitat complexity (short term, provides shade and erosion relief characters after a flood event; long term, trees provide log jams and beaver dam materials). Wild turkey will benefit from increased roost capacity near a water source, which is a bit scarce in this neck of the woods. Habitat types in the Meadow Creek bottom include aquatic-forested (limited to a few areas of close-by PJ and willow stands), aquatic scrub/shrub, desert grassland, and lowland sagebrush. Within the direct riparian corridor are the aquatic types. These areas will benefit from habitat complexity created through this project. These areas will continue to benefit by having a rich, diverse, healthy stream to support. By stopping erosion and ensuring persistent, perennial water, these areas will be enhanced and supported in perpetuity. Beaver dams are proven to moderate massive flood events, while capturing some of this flow as ground water, which then leans to increasing baseflow. Decreasing soil erosion only serves to maintain a balance for a healthy riparian. Similar benefits to grassland and lowland sagebrush. These areas will benefit from having a healthy stream/riparian corridor. Soil moisture is the most important component to maintain these eco-types. If soil moisture diminishes, then vegetation will change to more tolerant species, which usually means vegetation will shift to an invasive-dominated landscape, or forage species that are less desirable.
Relation To Management Plan:
Colorado River Cutthroat trout: CONSERVATION STRATEGY FOR COLORADO RIVER CUTTHROAT TROUT. This proposal greatly enhances habitat quantity and quality in terms of diversifying presently occupied habitat, and maintaining that habitat quality into the future. 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. By promoting a more green, healthy riparian corridor, this area may serve as a fire break to potential ground fires.
Water Quality/Quantity:
1. enhance water quality by promoting sediment deposition in key areas in order to slowly rebuild channel height with reference to surrounding floodplain; this will also be accomplished in a long-term goal of establishing beaver in the upper system 2. enhance water quality by vegetating erosive areas that contribute sediment to stream 3. enhance water quality by installing woody vegetation, which will have long-term shading benefits 4. if beaver are able to establish, beaver dams have a proven ability to moderate floods into better baseflow conditions, and through a series of surface to groundwater connections/links, increase baseflow capacity by holding soil moisture in
Compliance:
much of the area of impact has already been cleared by State Archaeologist. I have discussed this particular project in person with DWR staff Archaeologist Monson Shaver on November 16, 2016, since a significant number of plantings will be planted outside the area that was covered in previous projects. I will continue to communicate with Monson about future needs through email, and he has stated that he will review this project automatically due to entry into WRI database. The general jist of our discussions was that there was no cultural significance or value due to the affected area being below ordinary high water mark and completely vegetated with grasses. If additional archaeological clearance is deemed necessary, Monson has stated we could complete a site visit in a day. Stream alteration permit already obtained for upper reach of Meadow Creek, no stream alteration permit required for planting trees along riparian corridor. No NEPA required, all work will be completed on DWR WMA lands.
Methods:
1. Continue to monitor cattle trespass in WMA 2. Restore/enhance Meadow Creek riparian area with tree plantings. Plantings will be completed by multiple methods, depending on accessibility, but will include a) hand digging b) post-hole digger method and c) bobcat auger 3. Construct cattle exclosures by hand and with heavy equipment (bobcat) where available to assist 4. Purchase trees when available, collect willow cuttings in advance of plantings
Monitoring:
1. Monitor trespass cattle, compromise and police as necessary to prevent further resource damage and damage to past stream restoration work. 2. Monitor tree survival and stream rehabilitation on an annual basis for at least 5 years. Replant as necessary. If certain species do not do well, replace with species that are excelling. If certain planting locations or methods work better than others for tree survival, explore those options in re-planting events. 3. Once tree survival and establishment deemed adequate, remove exclosures.
Partners:
1. Discussed project and what we have planned for the Meadow Creek bottom with BLM biologist Jerrad Goodell. However, BLM only manages a very small portion (less than 300 meters) neighboring the project area. Thus this project will benefit BLM lands through respective tree dispersal and beaver colonization. The BLM land already has well-established willow growth. Much of the project area is upstream of the BLM allotment. 2. SITLA lands are neighboring the project. Stream and riparian corridor improvements will continue to benefit from this project through tree dispersal, as well as the current CRCT and other target species occupation. Project discussion with SITLA management staff has been limited to the UPCD meeting and project comments. Hands-on implementation of this project will only occur on the DWR managed sections. Most of the SITLA managed land occurs within the lower portions of Meadow Creek, where there is already a well-established willow population. 3. This project has been discussed with our local chapter of Trout Unlimited, and brought forward to the group to lend a helping hand with labor needs. This small but active group has assisted on numerous DWR stream habitat improvement projects. 4. This project has been discussed with Wade Moulton, Blue Ribbon Council member. He is impressed with how well trout thrive in this system, both in terms of population and growth (i.e., we've surveyed fish >18 inches numerous times). If we are successful in continuing this trend to have additional water holding capacity, and increased trout populations while maintaining the fish sizes that occur in Meadow Creek, it is possible that this could be included as a Blue Ribbon water, much like neighboring West Willow Creek.
Future Management:
Monitor habitat improvements. Continue to explore options for wildlife suitability and habitat quality characteristics to focus on improving this area to benefit all wildlife.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Eliminating, downgrading, or mitigating trespass cattle issues on DWR land; less conflict between wildlife and domestic cattle. Per comments received, I will clarify this benefit: 1. This project does not address or increase any fencing. The only interaction with livestock is to ensure that they are not in conflict with our land management on the WMA by increasing our presence and awareness to be able to communicate to the rancher about these conflicts. By having this presence we are also better able to document any conflicts happening on our neighbor's lands as well. 2. The DWR does not typically allow grazing on wildlife management areas unless there is a benefit to wildlife. Our current agreement with the rancher is for a trailing right through the WMA. By having a presence here, we can be more vigilant about watching for conflict while being better able to enforce current agreements. The important thing is to be able to minimize this conflict during the project's infancy when it is most vulnerable. 3. If there are some neighboring locations on BLM and SITLA that need additional watch, I'm happy to have a list of problems to look out for and report on as part of this project.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$19,389.60 $0.00 $19,389.60 $13,239.60 $32,629.20
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Equipment Rental/Use track hoe, post hole digger, and/or bobcat use to facilitate exclosure construction and pole plantings. $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Seed (GBRC) Herbaceous vegetation seed expense $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Seed (not from GBRC) 520 native tree plantings (yearling) $5,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Motor Pool travel: NER office to Meadow Ck site for- -seasonal employees and interns -gear and camper -trespass cow monitoring *in-kind funds to be used for above activities and fishery monitoring/sampling $3,500.00 $0.00 $1,750.00 2018
Materials and Supplies exclosure construction materials; other small tools and equipment as necessary $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Personal Services (permanent employee) in-kind permanent employee implementation and administrative time $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 2018
Personal Services (seasonal employee) Most of this project relies on manual labor. Without manual labor, this project will not be completed. 3 weeks*2 technicians for habitat costs, will supply 2 additional seasonals with NER Aquatics budget to complete project $3,489.60 $0.00 $3,489.60 2018
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$19,389.60 $0.00 $19,389.60 $13,239.60 $32,629.20
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) In kind from NER DWR aquatics budget $0.00 $0.00 $13,239.60 2018
Habitat Council Account HCRF $14,389.60 $0.00 $0.00 2018
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) NS6524 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
American Beaver
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
American Bison N4 R2
Threat Impact
Livestock Farming and Ranching High
American Bison N4 R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Big Free-tailed Bat N3
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Low
Big Free-tailed Bat N3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Big Free-tailed Bat N3
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Big Free-tailed Bat N3
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Black Bear
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) Low
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
Storms and Flooding Medium
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
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
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Low
Spotted Bat N3
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Spotted Bat N3
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Medium
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures Unknown
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Unknown
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Stormwater Runoff Low
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Unknown
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Relationship Between Groundwater and Surface Water NA
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
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
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Seeding Non-native Plants Low
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
Desert Grassland
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Medium
Desert Grassland
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/10/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
On the title page, you selected Habitat Council as the funding source, but on the Finance page you chose UWRI as the funding source. To which of these groups did you want to submit this proposal? It may be appropriate for both.
Comment 01/13/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks Tory. I assume someone must have added WRI on top of Habitat council on the title page to correct this conundrum. I wish for both sources to consider the project for max exposure. I trust that the way it is set up now, it will receive consideration from both sources? I am happy to add a line somewhere if it needs it to be considered for both.
Comment 01/23/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Sampson
Clint Sampson Wildlife Biologist DWR: The DWR has been releasing more Rio Grande turkeys in this area, and having an increase in roost trees would increase the expansion and health for the turkeys. We are seeing wildlife in Meadow Creek WMA from elk, deer, bison, bear, bobcat, and cougar. This WMA provides a great buffer for large wildlife ungulate grazers from private-land riparian areas. It is a great project.
Comment 01/25/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks for the comment! I directly observed some of these Rio Grande turkeys within 300 meters of riparian corridor that will be affected. Looking forward to seeing more of these bombers!
Comment 01/25/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Brian Maxfield
Improvement of the riparian bottom will improve habitat for numerous bird species and bats. I have an acoustic monitoring site downstream from the project area that has detected several bat species including spotted and big free-tailed bats. Improvement and diversification of the riparian bottom will improve foraging habitat for bats.
Comment 01/25/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks for the comment! I included the two named species of bats on the species affected tab and I took a stab at threats that the project may help mitigate.
Comment 02/15/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
You mentioned by excluding livestock you are addressing livestock/wildlife conflicts. However, this seems to have exacerbate the conflict and has shuffled the grazing problem to other locations. I also have concern that the fencing has hampered the use and movement of bison in the area. On another note I wonder how you are planning on handling the wild horse issue. In recent years horses have been moved from the area. They used to hit this area extremely hard in the winter months. Their use will come back sooner than later.
Comment 02/15/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks for the comment Scott. This may be a better question for Pat Rainbolt to address since he has been much more intricately involved in the upland issues, especially those specific to grazing. Pat is also able to list the history as it relates to livestock grazing (please correct me if I'm wrong in any points below Pat). 1. This project does not address or increase any fencing. The only interaction with livestock is to ensure that they are not in conflict with our land management on the WMA by increasing our presence and awareness to be able to communicate to the rancher about these conflicts. By having this presence we are also better able to document any conflicts happening on our neighbor's lands as well. 2. The DWR does not typically allow grazing on wildlife management areas unless there is a benefit to wildlife. Our current agreement with the rancher is for a trailing right through the WMA. By having a presence here, we can be more vigilant about watching for conflict while being better able to enforce current agreements. The important thing is to be able to minimize this conflict during the project's infancy when it is most vulnerable. 3. If you have some neighboring locations on BLM and SITLA that need additional watch, I'm happy to have a list of problems to look out for and report on as part of this project. 4. Bison movement: I'm not really the best person to discuss this issue, but so far our fencing has not excluded bison use across the Meadow Creek portion of the WMA. I've personally observed bison scaling the sides of the canyon. With this ability, they should be easily able to navigate fencing that only occurs within the valley bottom. 5. Horses: again, I'm not the best person to answer this issue. I've personally observed horses extensively using the Willow Creek bottom (within 1/2 mile of the Meadow Ck/Willow Creek confluence). However, I've only personally observed limited horse use up Meadow Creek. I'm not sure what prevents them - perhaps our canyon bottom fences. For now they don't appear to be an immediate problem for what this particular project addresses. I've included wildlife/livestock exclosures as part of this project to protect some core areas of trees in order to keep tree dispersal as a permanent option for the area. Otherwise, horse issues are handled through our other sections of the DWR.
Comment 02/14/2017 Type: 2 Commenter: Danny Summers
Will this project be utilizing DWR Heavy Equipment Crew?
Comment 02/14/2017 Type: 2 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Thanks for the comment Danny. The Fiscal year 17 portion of this project (already funded and underway) will use the heavy equipment crew for 2 weeks. I've already met with Stan for an on-site visit. The FY18 portion which this proposal is for will not utilize the heavy equipment crew. This project will mostly focus on labor and smaller equipment (i.e., bobcat) to punch in some holes for tree planting and building exclosures. I've talked with Stan about using them for a different project in FY18 (Sheep Creek Trap and Canal); he is aware of the project and we will meet for an on-site to discuss what they can assist me with on that project. I've budgeted that project to completely contract it out if necessary, but will hopefully be able to cut some costs by using the heavy equipment crew there.
Comment 08/15/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Will you just add some info to your report on when the different treatments happened? Thanks.
Comment 08/20/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Complete... I think.
Comment 03/06/2017 Type: 3 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
Altered proposal on finance tab on 3/6/2017 to downsize scale of project to reflect realistic funding limitations on habitat council. This included reduced costs for seasonal labor (4.5 weeks down to 3 weeks), equipment rental fees (we will try to get 1+ wks with region habitat crew's bobcat rather than rental), reduced number of trees purchased (downsized by 100), reduced materials and supplies (fewer exclosures), and mileage to reflect the 3 week decrease. I have increased some in-kind by DWR aquatics, picking up an increased share of mileage and more of a share of my time spent on project as PI relative to project time. This project scored poorly on the WRI ranking criteria. I've submitted project to HC for their review of potential funding. Alterations have cut approximately $10,000 from proposal.
Completion
Start Date:
03/21/2018
End Date:
05/24/2018
FY Implemented:
2018
Final Methods:
Riparian plantings along Meadow Creek were successfully planted along 1.2 miles of stream. Plantings included: 150 coyote willow cuttings planted 250 green willow cuttings planted 200 Fremont cottonwood cuttings planted 250 narrowleaf cottonwood cuttings planted 250 red dogwood cuttings planted 70 native chokecherry, 5 gallon planted 70 douglas hawthorne, 5 gallon planted 35 boxelder, 10 gallon planted 5 woods rose, 5 gallon planted 200 silver buffaloberry, bareroot planted 100 golden currant bareroot planted Plantings were successfully leafing out at last site visit. Future site visits will be needed to determine success of riparian plantings. Work completed 5/2018. Trips to the site were taken at various times to police the area from trespass cows. Completed August-October 2017; March-May 2018. Several fencelines were repaired during this project May 2018. 4 temporary exclosures were constructed around densely planted areas to assist tree survival May 2018. One - 200 foot section of middle Meadow Creek was repaired via trackhoe to stabilize riparian area, key rock grade control structures in better May 2018. Two large bank toewood structures were installed during this project to create fish habitat May 2018 while stepping back erosive banks and preventing further lateral stream migration One - 60 foot section of Kelly Canyon was repaired via trackhoe to stabilize riparian area, key rock grade control structures in better, and install geoweb textile at stream crossing to futher stabilize the area from futher down or side erosion May 2018 Log jam, overhead style fish cover was installed in upper sections of Kelly Canyon to promote better fish habitat and shading in this reach May 2018 Equipment rented included several weeks of mini excavator and dump trailer for the purposes of gathering native materials (logs, trees, rootwads, and large rocks), and renting an auger attachment for the mini excavator for fast, efficient tree planting. April - May 2018. 5 beaver dam analogues were installed as trial run to observe their capacity for holding water behind the structures, ability to raise ground water table - in support of riparian tree plantings, and ability to hold sediment to achieve some channel aggradation with the goal of reconnecting the stream with its floodplain. April - May 2018.
Project Narrative:
1.2 miles of stream corridor were improved by adding woody vegetation that included numerous species of native trees; several species have the potential to be large deciduous shade trees, several other woody species will function as fruit bearing trees that will benefit other wildlife, and several other woody species may function as winter forage in areas that are devoid of any such habitat. Completed April-May 2018. Several key areas of riparian section and stream section were improved by erosion control structures and/or re-shaping/re-sloping the existing channel. Prior work completed March-May 2018, additional work completed May 2018. Several fish habitat structures were installed for increased fish capacity and fish shade/cover. Beaver dam analogues were constructed to 1) increase available fish habitat 2) raise groundwater table to better naturally irrigate riparian vegetation 3) provide additional stream water storage capacity and buffer capacity 4) provide a sediment sink that may allow the stream to aggrade and better connect with the floodplain. Prior work completed April-May 2017; additional work completed May 2018.
Future Management:
No further habitat work is planned for this section of Meadow Creek. We will continue to monitor this stream to gauge success of the prior 3 years of work as well as make repairs as possible. We expect that within the next decade, our work will bear further fruit as beaver make their way into our restoration section and will speed up restorative processes through natural flooding.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
5613 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Pole planting/cuttings
5613 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Seeding
5613 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Seedlings
Project Map
Project Map