Water Quality and Aquatic Habitat Improvement on the East Fork of the Sevier River - FY19
Project ID: 4492
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: 521
Project Manager: Nic Braithwaite
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Southern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
The project would seek to improve water quality and increase abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife along about 1 mile of the East Fork of the Sevier River using the following stream improvement techniques: (1) shaping/sloping streambanks, (2) installing instream log and rock structures, (3) planting and seeding the riparian corridor, (4) fencing and managing livestock grazing.
Location:
The project would occur on the East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon about 11 miles east of the US-89 and SR-62 intersection (traveling on SR-62). The project would occur immediately upstream of past stream improvement work that was completed in 2009 and represents a portion of a much larger effort to complete stream improvement work on the East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The project is needed because of the degraded state of much of the East Fork Sevier River Watershed, which can be characterized by elevated sediment loads, negative changes in water chemistry, loss of woody riparian vegetation, and an overall lack of cover and suitable habitat for coldwater fishes and other species throughout the system. The East Fork of the 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 East Fork of the Sevier River in both Kingston Canyon and Black Canyon by improving a new, additional section of stream that connects with past work. This project is also within the Parker-Emery 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 rock vanes, 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 Parker-Emery SGMA. Continued improvement to brood rearing habitat in this area may also facilitate connectivity to historic and current sage grouse habitats near the grass valley area such as Circle Valley and Panguitch Valley.
Objectives:
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 during summer and low during 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.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
If the project does not go forward, the state of the stream and river corridor in the project area 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 (e.g., loss of EPA 319 funding, change in landowners willingness to implement the project). If the project does go forward, there are few notable threats/risks. Similar stream improvement work has been completed along other sections of the East Fork of the Sevier River very near this project area without negative impacts and many positive impacts (e.g., increases in game and non-game fish abundance and biomass). Over the past decade, the UDWR and other partners (UDWQ, private landowners, etc.) have already implemented active (e.g., installation of hard structures, bank sloping and shaping) and passive (e.g., grazing management) stream improvement work on about 3 miles of the East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon. The previous stream improvement work has been completed on UDWR Wildlife Management Areas and private land with the cooperation of landowners, other stakeholders, and multiple agencies.
Relation To Management Plan:
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. "Sediment Transport Imbalance" - the project would use structures, grazing management, and planting/seeding to reduce the rate of streambank erosion, which can cause imbalance in sediment transport and elevated levels of nutrients (e.g., total phosphorous) (Potential Conservation Action Code Not Listed). 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 (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Codes 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.15). 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 strategies suggested in the Otter Creek - East Fork Sevier Study TMDL: 1. "Stabilize channel banks" - the project would reduce elevated rates of lateral streambank erosion by decreasing nearbank stress and stabilizing soil via reestablishing riparian vegetation. 2. "Increase filtering capacity through implementation of riparian buffers" - the project would result in a riparian pasture that would be rested for five years, followed by short duration, high intensity spring grazing. 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 East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon and benefit late brood-rearing habitat for greater sage-grouse. Parker Mountain (PARM) Adaptive Resource Management Plan 1. The SWARM plan lists wet habitat as being critical to brood rearing hens in the summer. A primary goal of this project 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.
Fire / Fuels:
This project encourages a healthy riparian zone, which can provide a vegetation community and microclimate that may reduce the risk of fire and increase the potential use of these areas as control points and fuel/fire breaks.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project has the potential to significantly improve water quality. The project would likely help reduce phosphorous in the East Fork of the Sevier River, which was the pollutant of concern listed in the Otter Creek - East Fork Sevier TMDL Study. In addition to reducing total phosphorous, the project would reduce sediment levels and improve aquatic habitat. 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 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.
Compliance:
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 2018. NEPA is not required. An informal Section 7 Consultation with USFWS will be needed to determine the project is not likely to affect any listed species. The only threatened or endangered species listed for Piute County are brown bear (historically, extirpated) and Utah prairie dog (not present near the project). 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.
Methods:
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. The UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew would then 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 by the UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew 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 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 2018 or spring of 2019.
Monitoring:
The UDWR is primarily monitoring the overall project through electrofishing surveys and photopoints. There are electrofishing stations already established in Kingston Canyon 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 were 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.
Partners:
The principal partners in the project are the UDWR (project design, implementation, monitoring, maintenance, in-kind funding), private landowner (support of project, maintenance), and UDWQ (funding). Monitoring efforts are coordinated with the southern leatherside conservation team. The USFWS is also involved in the project to ensure compliance with the ESA.
Future Management:
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.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
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. The planting and seeding efforts that are part of the project should provide some additional forage for livestock.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$81,473.00 $0.00 $81,473.00 $6,000.00 $87,473.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Seed (GBRC) Seed mix. $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) UDWR biologist time to plan, implement, and supervise the project. $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2019
Other 5089 - per diem, 2 people for 4 weeks. $4,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Equipment Rental/Use 5089 - Wheeler rental for 1 loader for transport and 4 weeks of use. $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Motor Pool 5089 - dump truck and service vehicle mileage. $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Materials and Supplies Bare root trees and shrubs for planting along streambanks, diesel fuel, SCA permit, logs, etc. $1,473.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Private contractor to haul large rock. $17,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Conservation corps group to plant riparian area. $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) 5089 - UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew, 2 people for 4 weeks. $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Motor Pool Regional vehicle mileage. $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Private contractor to build new fence. $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) UDWR archaeologist to complete an inventory of archaeological clearance. $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2018
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$81,473.00 $0.00 $81,473.00 $6,000.00 $87,473.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) EPA 319 N6649 EPA 319 funding amount represents 60% of project budget (not including in-kind). $48,884.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
DNR Watershed N3622 $10,863.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Blue Ribbon (Restricted) BRRF $21,726.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
DWR Restricted $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2018
DWR Restricted $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (Direct, Intentional) Low
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (Direct, Intentional) Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Waterfowl
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Mallard R1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Habitats
Habitat
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
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Agricultural Pollution Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Unknown
Riverine
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Project Comments
Comment 01/17/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Nic, Sweet project on these private land parcels.. A few questions 1) Could you frame this reach in the context of the past projects in terms of how it connects or extends past projects, the importance of the reach, etc,? 2) What do prospect look like for hitting that last remaining stretch of private upstream from the WMA and downstream from these projects? 3) You list sage grouse as a benefitting species, will there be (or is there) monitoring that can show habitat improvement and/or use for/by sage grouse? 4) In terms of fire/fuels management can you frame this piece in terms of the larger project? Where have fuels been reduced along the corridor, what kind of private property (or other values at risk) has been affected? 5) Could you further elaborate on the current grazing strategy, how it is contributing to the problem and how the post-project strategy will be better? 6) Are there any sportsmen's groups that are involved with or supporting the project? Local government, Upper Sevier Watershed Planning group? I would say that the project is also supported by the southern leatherside conservation team. 7) Are landowner agreements and post-treatment GMPs in place? What would be their duration? Thanks Nic.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Mike, Thanks for the comments and questions. 1) This project connects and extends immediately upstream of past stream improvement work. The UDWR and other partners (UDWQ, private landowners, etc.) have already implemented stream improvement work on about 3 miles of the East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon. The previous stream improvement work has been completed primarily on UDWR Wildlife Management Areas, as well as some private and BLM property. This main importance of this reach for this project is that it contributes to the fine sediment and nutrient load downstream and represents one of the increasingly few areas in Kingston Canyon where work to reduce the fine sediment and nutrient load hasn't already been completed. 2) We talked with the landowner of that final remaining stretch of private upstream from the WMA and downstream from this project at the same time we started planning for this project and they were not interested in having any work done. We will likely try to get them on-board for the next time the watershed is targeted for funding by UDEQ and I would guess there is maybe a 50/50 chance they change their mind. 3) This project would not monitor sage grouse use directly, but would monitor for the establishment of riparian vegetation via photo points and qualitative habitat assessments during electrofishing surveys. Riparian vegetation within a sagebrush biome provides an important source of brood rearing habitat for sage grouse well into the summer months and is particularly important in drought conditions. I have added more specifics on how the project affects sage grouse to the "Project Details" and "Species" pages (based on suggestions from Rhett). 4) In terms of the larger scope of stream improvement work in Kingston Canyon, this project would add to the existing several miles of improved riparian zone health, which can help reduce the risk of fire and increase the potential use of the riparian corridor as control points and fuel/fire breaks. In the event of a wildfire, this project would help lessen the impact to the highway and recreation areas near Otter Creek Reservoir that are used heavily during the summer months. This project would also help aid in firefighter and public safety in and around Otter Creek Reservoir and State Park. 5) The riparian corridor within the project area has been overgrazed in recent years and this project would reestablish and create new riparian pastures with a grazing management plan. There is currently unrestricted access for livestock to the riparian area along the eastern half of the project area. The western half of the project area, despite a riparian fence and grazing management plan put in place about 10 years ago, has also been overgrazed because the fence is in need of repair/updating and a previous lessee was not inclined to follow the grazing management plan. First, the eastern half of the project would have a new riparian fence constructed. Second, the western half of the project area would have key sections of the existing fence rebuilt as a top rail fence to withstand elk traffic and the current livestock crossing would be moved to a more suitable location. The grazing management plan calls for five years of rest, followed by limited spring grazing between May 1st and July 1st each year or fall grazing between September 15th and November 1st every four to five years. If herbaceous stubble height reaches an average of 4 inches during a grazing period (spring) or 50% of new yearly growth on willows is browsed/eaten (fall), then grazing will end until the following year. Two years ago, the property owner ceased leasing their property, began grazing only their own livestock, and followed the grazing management plan faithfully. Therefore, the project should create an important vegetative buffer along the riparian corridor, improve abundance, distribution, and diversity of herbaceous and woody riparian vegetation, and still allow the landowner to utilize the riparian pastures with their livestock. 6) I've talked to sportsmen that are supportive of the project, but there are not any sportsmen's groups formally involved with the project. I've updated the "Partners" portion of the Project Details to include the Southern Leatherside Conservation Team. 7) There is an agreement in place with the property owner detailing the grazing management plan and it goes through April 1st, 2028. The property owner has indicated that they intend to continue with the grazing management plan for the foreseeable future and have no plans of selling the property. I hope that helps address your questions. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Mike pretty much took all the good questions but I do want to know about current status of the Southern Leatherside. Already present? Planned to be present in the near future? While it is incidental to the project, I would expect we will see increased deer use of this area as the riparian corridor thickens and matures. Also, what is the status of availability of the private land? Is it enrolled in Walk-in-Access?
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Thank you Gary. You beat me to it - what about that little chubbie?
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Gary, Thanks for the comments and questions. Southern leatherside chub are already present in Kingston Canyon. I've added mule deer to the species list. The project area is accessible to the public through the Walk-in-Access program. I hope that helps address your questions. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Nice project. It looks like this project is looking for more habitat council type funds? Excellent match in $. May want to partner with USFWS as they are doing similar projects in this area.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Vicki, Thanks for the question. Basically, about 60% of the project would be funded by EPA 319 money, which requires a 40% non-federal match, so we are seeking the matching funds in equal part from WRI, HC, and BRFAC. I hope that helps. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Danny Summers
On the seed mix, are there concerns that reed cararygrass takes over? Does that happen in this area? What is you experience with it? I know in other places it can be viewed as a weed.
Comment 02/20/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Danny, There is some concern about reed canarygrass being viewed as a weed, but we've been using it on larger streams (including the East Fork of the Sevier in Kingston Canyon) for awhile because it is so good for keeping streambanks together and providing aquatic habitat. We haven't had problems with it yet. I will double-check the mix though and make sure we aren't going too heavy with it. Thanks for the questions. Nic
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 3 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Nic - Is the EPA funding part of the large grant you already secured and have been using for the last couple year?
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 3 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Alison, Yes, this project is using EPA funding from that grant and will be the final year. Let me know if you need more information. Thanks. Nic
Completion
Start Date:
07/01/2018
End Date:
06/30/2019
FY Implemented:
2019
Final Methods:
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 five-person conservation corps crew was hired for one week to plant bare root tree and shrubs and willow stakes along the stream. Finally, a fence contractor was hired to repair and construct fence along the project area, and an additional area of the upper Sevier River, where needed to manage livestock grazing. While the the work and methods were essentially the same as planned, the scale of the project did change as discussed in the Project Narrative of this Completion Form and the project map.
Project Narrative:
The original plan for the project was to do maintenance work on a past stream improvement project and continue with new work immediately upstream of the old work. However, because of the higher than anticipated cost of maintenance work and maintenance work being a higher priority, there was not going to be enough funding to do a substantial amount of new work. Therefore, the maintenance work was completed and the remaining funds were used to construct a new riparian fence on the upper Sevier River near Hatch, UT (see project map for exact location). The following is a summary of work that was completed: (1) Large woody debris and rock structure installation - In April of 2019, the UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew hauled large tree and rock material to the East Fork of the Sevier River 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 June of 2019, 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 spring and early summer of 2019 (April-June), a fence contractor repaired and constructed some new fence along the East Fork of the Sevier River prject area to effectively manage livestock grazing (which will also helps to protect large woody debris structures, riparian vegetation, and streambanks over the long-term). Additionally, a riparian fence was constructed on a section of the upper Sevier River near Hatch, UT. Livestock grazing will not occur within both riparian areas for a minimum of 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.
Future Management:
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).
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
653 Fence Maintenance Barbed wire
834 Fence Construction Livestock crossing (stream corridor)
835 Fence Construction Barbed wire
8226 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Bank slope adjustment/terracing
8226 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Large woody debris/cover
8226 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Vanes (J-hook)
8226 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Pole planting/cuttings
Project Map
Project Map