Fisheries Improvement on the Lower Beaver River near Minersville Reservoir - FY19
Project ID: 4521
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 increase the abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife in about .33 miles of the lower Beaver River near Minersville Reservoir using the following stream improvement techniques: (1) streambanks would be shaped and sloped, (2) some woody debris would be added for instream habitat, (3) the riparian corridor would be planted and seeded with a mixture of beneficial vegetation, (4) livestock grazing would be fenced and then managed, (5) retreat Russian olive and tamarisk.
Location:
The project would occur on lower Beaver River about 1.5 miles east of the SR-130 and SR-21 intersection (traveling on SR-21). The project would be a direct continuation of previous stream improvement work completed between 2014 and 2017.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The lower Beaver River falls primarily on Walk-In-Access and BLM property and is a very popular recreation area for fishing, camping, hunting, wildlife viewing, and picnicking, especially for local residents. The BLM has been developing the area as a destination recreation area with vaulted toilets, parking areas, picnic tables, dispersed camping, and hiking trails. Overgrazing has caused the stream banks to be characterized by vertical, eroding, bare dirt, and poor habitat is currently thought to be the limiting factor for trout in the stream. Invasive tamarisk and Russian olive dominated the river corridor before removal work was completed over the past several years. However, follow-up treatment of the tamarisk and Russian olive removal work is needed to ensure the invasive vegetation does not reestablish. Improving the aquatic and riparian habitats would help trout survive and provide improved recreation opportunities for the public. This project is within the Bald Hills 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 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 Bald Hills SGMA. Continued improvement to brood rearing habitat in this area may also facilitate connectivity to historic sage grouse habitats east of the mineral mountains and north of Highway 21.
Objectives:
Primary Goal: 1. Increase abundance and diversity of fish and wildlife. 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). 7. Prevent reestablishment of Russian olive and tamarisk. Biological Objectives: 1. Increase trout abundance, size structure, and biomass. 2. Increase non-game fish 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 in the project area will remain in relatively poor condition. Fish and wildlife populations will not reach desirable and/or historic levels because the absence of suitable habitat will persist. Additionally, there is a risk that past work could revert back to a degraded, undesirable state. Since 2013, the BLM and UDWR have removed invasive Russian olive and tamarisk from about 175 acres and completed stream improvement work on about 2.5 miles of the lower Beaver River. The proposed FY19 project would retreat areas where Russian olive and tamarisk have been removed, provide additional planting and seeding of native vegetation, add about .33 miles of stream improvement work immediately downstream of past work, and allow for maintenance of previous stream improvement work. 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, as well as some of the threats/risks described in the above paragraph (e.g., reestablishment of invasive Russian olive and tamarisk). If the project does go forward, there are few notable threats/risks. Similar stream improvement work has been completed along other portions of the lower Beaver River without negative impacts and many positive impacts (e.g., increases in game and non-game fish abundance and biomass).
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. "Invasive Plant Species -- Non-native" - the project would treat regrowth of invasive Russian olive and tamarisk that once posed a significant fire risk and has been removed during previous phases of the project. (Potential Conservation Action Code 2.2.3). 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 that can reduce solar inputs (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Codes 2.3.5, 2.3.6, 2.3.15). Although southern leatherside chub are not currently found in the lower Beaver River, this section of stream is within a southern leatherside chub geographic management unit (Sevier River Basin GMU) and 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). Clean Water Act: It is the national goal that an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved. Beaver River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 303(d) Report, UDEQ (1984). Minersville Reservoir and the Beaver River above the reservoir are on the state of Utah 303(d) list of impaired waters and this TMDL is available. However, the lower Beaver River (below the dam) is not listed, nor is there any known water quality available for the lower Beaver River. The information and analysis contained in the Beaver River Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment made logical assumptions and applies them to the project area based on what is contained in the TMDL report. The project is in conformance with the Cedar Beaver Garfield Antimony Resource Management Plan (1986). Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.): FLPMA specifies that the BLM consider the land's inherent natural resources, as well as its mineral resources, when making land management decisions. Clean Water Act: It is the national goal that an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved. Beaver River Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 303(d) Report, UDEQ (1984). Minersville Reservoir and the Beaver River above the reservoir are on the state of Utah 303(d) list of impaired waters and this TMDL is available. However, the lower Beaver River (below the dam) is not listed, nor is there any known water quality available for the lower Beaver River. The information and analysis contained in the Beaver River Enhancement Project Environmental Assessment made logical assumptions and applies them to the project area based on what is contained in the TMDL report. 2010 Draft Utah Integrated Report - Water Quality Assessment 305(b). This report lists waters from the USFS boundary to Minersville Reservoir as impaired, but lists the waters below the Minersville Reservoir as "Not Assessed." 1968 Carlson-Foley Act: Directs federal agencies to enter upon lands under their jurisdiction having noxious plants (weeds) and destroy noxious plants growing on such land and provides for the authorization for reimbursement of expenses to State or local agencies for weed control work. Federal Noxious Weeds Act of 1974, as amended by Sec.15 -- Management of Undesirable Plants on Federal Lands, 1990: This bill requires each Federal Agency: (1) Designate a lead office and person trained in the management of undesirable plants; (2) Establish and fund an undesirable plant management program; (3) Complete and implement cooperative agreements with State agencies; and (4) Establish integrated management systems to control undesirable plant species Executive Order 13112 (1999): This EO directs that BLM use relevant programs and authorities to: (i) prevent the introduction of invasive species; (ii) detect and respond rapidly to and control populations of such species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner; (iii) monitor invasive species populations accurately and reliably; (iv) provide for restoration of native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; (v) conduct research on invasive species and develop technologies to prevent introduction and provide for environmentally sound control of invasive species; and (vi) promote public education on invasive species and the means to address them. Further, Federal agencies are to not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species in the U.S. or elsewhere unless, pursuant to guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm from invasive species. Southwest Desert (SWARM) Adaptive Resource Management Plan 1. The SWARM plan list wet habitat as being critical to brood rearing hens in the summer. This projects goal 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:
The vegetation makeup in the project area prior to earlier phases of this project was one of a closed canopy, significant ladder fuels, and numerous fine ground fuels. The fire behavior in the previous situation makes it unsafe for ground resources to initial attack an unwanted wildfire. It would have been a fast moving high intensity crown fire that would require aerial resources to fight the fire. Following implementation and removal of the vegetation, there was a reduction in live fuel loading, removal of ladder fuels, reduced canopy density and closure. The fire behavior result is that of a slower moving ground fire that could safely be initial attacked by ground resources, and would significantly reduce the negative impacts of an unwanted wildfire. The current project would greatly reduce the risk of invasive vegetation reestablishing and returning to the high risk fire/fuels condition. Examples of the values that could be at risk from a fire in the area include recreational sites (i.e., picnic areas), fences, Minersville town, fairgrounds, and aquatic/wildlife habitat.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project has the potential to improve water quality. The project would likely help reduce phosphorous and sediment loads in the lower Beaver River, as well as address habitat alteration issues. 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. 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 and NEPA have been completed. See documents in "Images/Documents" section of the WRI database. Utah Division of Water Rights Steam Channel Alteration Permit and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits have been 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 structures - Private contractors would haul any rock material needed to the project area. The UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew would 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 will be narrowed and deepened in some locations, but cross-sectional area of the channel will 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 a conservation corps work crew 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 on private land was fenced in the summer of 2016 to manage livestock grazing, which should also help to protect large woody debris structures, riparian vegetation, and streambanks over the long-term. Livestock grazing on the private land will 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). A small section of new fence would be constructed and a longer section of old fence would be rebuilt to exclude livestock from the downstream portion of BLM property. (5) Retreating Russian olive and tamarisk - The entire area where Russian olive and tamarisk has been removed over the past several years will be retreated by hand application of herbicide to any newly sprouting Russian olive and tamarisk. The bulk of project implementation would likely occur in the spring of 2019.
Monitoring:
The UDWR is primarily monitoring the overall project through electrofishing surveys and photopoints. There are three electrofishing stations 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 are 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), the BLM (project design, implementation, funding on other work in the area), and private landowners (support of project, maintenance). The project dovetails with the work that has recently been done on BLM and private land in the area. Also, individuals on the southern leatherside conservation team and local irrigation companies are supportive of the project.
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. On BLM land, grazing is currently excluded, though there may be very limited grazing at some point in the future. On private land, grazing will be excluded from the fenced riparian area for a minimum of five years. Currently, the private landowner does not lease their property for grazing and the riparian fence has essentially removed grazing for now (the fence was necessary because of livestock from an adjacent landowner). Once livestock grazing is allowed on the BLM and within the riparian fence on the private land, it 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) in the privately-owned section of the project 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.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$43,000.00 $0.00 $43,000.00 $4,000.00 $47,000.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Private contractor to haul large rock. $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Materials and Supplies Bare root trees and shrubs for planting along streambanks. $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Motor Pool 5089 - DWR dump truck and service vehicle mileage. $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Materials and Supplies Diesel fuel, herbicide for Russian olive and tamarisk resprout, misc. $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) 5089 - UDWR Heavy Equipment Crew, 2 people for 2 weeks. $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Conservation corps crew to plant riparian area and spray Russian olive and tamarisk. $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Seed (GBRC) Seed mix. $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Motor Pool Regional vehicle mileage. $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) UDWR biologist time to plan, implement, and supervise the project. $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 2019
Other 5089 - per diem, 2 people for 2 weeks. $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Equipment Rental/Use 5089 - Wheeler rental of 1 loader for transport and 2 weeks of use. $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Private contractor to construct new fence (~250 ft) and rebuild old fence (~2,000 ft). $9,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$43,000.00 $0.00 $43,000.00 $4,000.00 $47,000.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
BLM HLI Southern N6567 1010 - Mod 11 $12,758.80 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Habitat Council Account HCRF $12,758.93 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 2019
BLM HLI Southern A020 Mod 11 $8,741.20 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Habitat Council Account QHCR $8,741.07 $0.00 $0.00 2020
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
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Low
Wading Birds
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Waterfowl
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Mallard R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Seeding Non-native Plants Low
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Relationship Between Groundwater and Surface Water NA
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 01/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Nic, Great project. I would love to get out again with you this year sometime and see how things are progressing. A few questions 1) Is the maintenance of vegetation work maintenance of past work funded by WRI? 2) 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,? 3) You reference private lands but the mapping shows this year's project is all on BLM? 4) Are you going to be able to extend stream work down onto the private parcel below? 5) How much more work do you see on the lower Beaver? 6) What if any timeline is there for potential southern leatherside reintroduction? 7) You list sage grouse as a benefitting species, can you make the tie to sage grouse use and habitat improvement, will there be (or is there) monitoring that can show habitat improvement and/or use for/by sage grouse? 8) In terms of fire/fuels management can you frame this piece in terms of the larger project? Where have fuels been reduces between the reservoir and Minersville, what kind of private property has been affected? 9) If there is no private land is the entire area in non-use for livestock right now? How will making it a riparian pasture improve an issues on the allotment in question? 10) Are there any sportsmen's groups that are involved with or supporting the project? Thanks Nic!
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Mike, Thanks for the questions and comments. 1) Yes, the maintenance of vegetation work is maintenance of past work funded by WRI (primarily through retreating new growth of Russian olive and tamarisk that was initially removed as part of #3283). 2) This project connects and extends immediately downstream of past stream improvement work that has been completed over the past five years. The importance of this reach in the context of past projects is that it represents the final small section of a much larger effort to remove Russian olive and tamarisk and improve aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat along the lower Beaver River corridor from Minersville Reservoir (though there is still a section immediately below Minersville Reservoir that we are trying to contact the landowner to be able to treat for Russian olive and tamarisk) to near the Beaver County Fairgrounds. 3) I've updated the mapping to show the retreatment of Russian olive and tamarisk, which occurs on BLM and private property. Also, the stream work polygon accurately shows where the downstream work would end, but only represents my best guess for where the upstream work would begin because we have not yet implemented stream work from the FY18 project (which is scheduled for March of 2018). It is very possible that some stream work on the private property would still be needed in FY19 if we don't make it as far as I'm estimating in FY18. 4) I (as well as the BLM and local irrigation companies) have been unable to contact the owner of the small private parcel between where this project would end and the Beaver County Fairgrounds. We will keep pursuing it, but right now there are no plans for work on that section. 5) I would really like to see all of the remaining untreated Russian olive and tamarisk sections between Minersville Reservoir and the Beaver County Fairgrounds be completed within the next couple of years. I've talked with the main property owner, NRCS, UDFFSL, and USFWS to look at different options and I'm optimistic that we will be able to work something out. I also think there is potential for similar work from the Beaver County Fairgrounds downstream through the town of Minersville, although it could be beneficial to allow some time to pass and be guided by how the upstream work responds (especially in terms of the fish response to the stream improvement work). 6) Melinda Bennion and I are starting the process this year to see if we can get southern leathersides reintroduced (identifying where to get natives to translocate to the lower Beaver River, approval of the Southern Leatherside Team, disease certification from FES, and seeking approval from RDCC and county commission/landowners). Obviously, there is a lot to do before southern leathersides are actually reintroduced, but we are actively moving forward this year and don't anticipate any major issues. 7) I've added more specifics on how the project impacts sage grouse to the "Project Details" and "Species" pages (based on suggestions from Rhett). 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. 8) I've added a polygon to the map showing the area that this project would retreat to remove Russian olive and taramisk regrowth, which I think gives a good picture of the larger project in terms of fire/fuel management. Dense Russian olive and tamarisk covered the majority of the area within the "Spot Treatment" polygon, posing a significant fire risk to recreational sites, fences, Minersville town, Beaver County fairgrounds, and aquatic/wildlife habitat. It is possible that the area could return to the high fire risk conditions of pre-treatment if Russian olive and tamarisk are allowed to reestablish. 9) There is no grazing on the BLM land within the project area and that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. There is a grazing management plan in the agreement with the private property owners on this project to rest the riparian pasture (created when a riparian fence was built in an earlier phase of this project; #3283) for at least five years, followed by short duration, high intensity during spring. The private property owners do not currently have any plans to lease the property, but the fence was needed to manage for trespass livestock and in case the property is leased to grazing in the future. Managing grazing has been important to get desirable riparian vegetation reestablished. 10) I've talked to a number of sportsmen that are supportive of the project, but there are not any sportsmen's groups formally involved with the project. I hope that helps address your questions. It would be great to have you come out again this year. Thanks. Nic
Comment 01/23/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Keep the river projects coming and good to see the follow-up on the RO and tamarisk, keep on it. Too many projects treat 1-2 times and let it come back. Is there any sort of written agreement or assurances that the riparian "pastures" will be rested and grazed per the prescriptions mentioned on private land? Not that this makes a difference in overall project score but in the species benefiting you can add wading birds/water birds. This project will benefit things like herons and the such.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Clint, Thanks for the comments and question. A written agreement is in place and the grazing management plan calls for five years of rest and then limited spring grazing (please see see my response to Mike Golden's question #9 for details). I've added wading birds to the species list. I hope that helps answer your question. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Great project and I too really appreciate the re-treatment to protect our previous investment. Mike already asked but I will re-ask as they are important questions to the ranking - 1)If you want credit for the SG you list I want to see some info about them somewhere in the project details. I know there is a lot of collar data in that area, have you seen it? Does it show any use on your previous work? 2)How about a timeline for reintroduction or reestablishment of the southern leatherside.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Gary, Thanks for the comments and questions. 1) I've updated the "Project Details" and "Species" pages with more information on how the project would affect sage grouse (based on suggestions from Rhett) (please see my response to Mike Golden's question #7 for details). I reached out to Nicki regarding the collar data and here was her response: "I don't have any data that shows them using that area. It seems logical that they would be there, but we haven't detected any." 2) I'm optimistic that we will be able to reintroduce southern leatherside chub in the next one to two years (please see my response to Mike Golden's question #6 for details). I hope that helps answer your question. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Randy Marshall
Nic, while I like the work you are and have been doing on the Lower Beaver river, I would disagree that the bank problems have been caused by overgrazing. Very little grazing takes place on this portion of the river. I grew up on this river fishing, swimming, hunting and floating it, I also have driven the highway (forever it seems) 4-5 days a week, so I have seen the change that has taken place over the many years. The giant flood of 1983 and other high flow years have been the rivers main degradation and eroding bank problems, the flows where so high that most vegetation was lost and raw banks exposed. Salt cedar and Russian Olive have since taken over after the disturbance. The lack of proper riparian vegetation after high water events is the main root cause. I'm in full support of the project but just clarifying the real reason for the river degradation. Question: How does this affect Sage Grouse? Maybe it's mapped grouse habitat, but will not affect them one way or another.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Randy, Thanks for the comments and question. I changed the "Need for Project" section on the Project Details page to clarify that large flood events were the cause of the degraded streambanks. Managing grazing has been important subsequently to get desirable riparian vegetation reestablished, especially as Russian olive and tamarisk were removed, but I agree with your main point about grazing not being the original cause of the problem. The project would improve brood rearing habitat for sage grouse (please see my response to Mike Golden's question #7 for details). I hope that helps answer your question. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Nic, I too have enjoyed seeing this reach improved! A couple of quick questions/comments - maybe look at your seed mix - there is an additional line at the bottom that shows that you have 6,700 lbs in the mix. I think it is just a simple typo, but it caught me off guard. This looks like a great investment of WRI funds - a lot of bang for the buck, at a great price? However, has there been any discussion with other partners (BLM, USFWS) regarding matching dollars? It would be nice to see some financial commitment from others. Also, because this is being seeded, will there be a formal rest, like there is on other projects where we seed and/or a protection of WRI's investment of funds on the BLM lands. Thanks. Nice project!
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Vicki, Thanks for the comments and questions. That definitely was a typo with the seed mix and it should be fixed now. There has been huge financial commitment from the BLM (Dan Fletcher estimated ~$225,000) on previous phases of the larger project (e.g., #3283), but it isn't included in the budget for this phase to avoid double counting. There is currently no grazing on the BLM land within the project area and there is a grazing management plan in the agreement with the private property owners on this project to rest for a minimum of five years (please see my response to Mike Golden's question #9 for details). I hope that helps answer your questions. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Nic, I seem to recall that there were some 303(d) concerns on the Beaver River and a watershed plan was completed. Can you address that. Does this project help to alleviate any of the threats for which it was listed? Thanks! Oops- just saw that you listed this in your plans. Can you address in this section how this improves upon that designation?
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
The Beaver River and tributaries from Minersville Reservoir to the headwaters has been listed as impaired for beneficial use 3A ("protected for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain") with the specific pollutants or stressors being total phosphorus, noxious aquatic plants, and riparian habitat alteration. While this project implements work called for in the TMDL and watershed plan to alleviate the threats (e.g., "5.1.3 Riparian and Streambank Restoration Projects"), it is technically outside of the area included in the TMDL and watershed plan (this is the reason we did not receive any EPA 319 funds). Hopefully that makes sense.
Comment 08/20/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This is just a reminder that completion reports are due August 31st. I have entered the expenses in the Through WRI/DWR column on the finance page. Please do not make any changes to numbers in the Through WRI/DWR column. Any "Through Other" or "In-kind" expenses will need to be entered by the PM or contributors. Be sure to click on the finalize button on the completion report when you have your completion report ready to be reviewed by WRI Admin. Don't forget to upload any pictures of the project you have of before, during and after completion. Thanks.
Comment 09/01/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. I have moved this project to completed.
Completion
Start Date:
07/01/2018
End Date:
06/30/2020
FY Implemented:
2020
Final Methods:
The final methods did not deviate significantly from the initial plan. The UDWR utilized heavy equipment to haul rock from nearby CS Mining property, install rock and log structures in the stream, slope streambanks, and remove and pile Russian olive and tamarisk trees. A four-person conservation corps crew was hired for a total of three weeks to plant bare root tree and shrubs and willow stakes along the stream and treat remaining or resprouting Russian olive and tamarisk with Garlon 3A. A private contractor was hired to install just over 1,800 feet of fence to help with managing livestock grazing.
Project Narrative:
The project was completed essentially as planned. Summary of the project implementation: (1) Large woody debris and rock structures - Private contractors hauled rock material to the project area. 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, helped address problems associated with elevated rates of streambank erosion (e.g., recruitment of fine sediment or high total phosphorous loads), and protected cattle crossing structures to manage livestock grazing. (2) Streambank shaping and sloping - 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 was not changed. Work only occurred on existing stream banks. The stream was narrowed and deepened in some locations, but cross-sectional area of the channel was maintained. (3) Riparian seeding and planting - All disturbed ground and areas lacking adequate riparian vegetation were seeded with a native grass mixture and a conservation corps work crew was 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 on private land was fenced in the summer of 2016 to manage livestock grazing, which should also help to protect large woody debris structures, riparian vegetation, and streambanks over the long-term. Livestock grazing on the private land will 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). A small section of new fence was constructed and a longer section of old fence rebuilt to exclude livestock from the downstream portion of BLM property. (5) Retreating Russian olive and tamarisk - The entire area where Russian olive and tamarisk has been removed over the past several years was retreated by hand application of herbicide to any newly sprouting Russian olive and tamarisk. The bulk of project implementation would occurred in the spring of 2019, but additional small amounts of work were completed throughout the entire project time period (e.g., maintenance on fence/stream crossings after high flows in the early summer of 2019).
Future Management:
Future management activities include: completing the remaining stream improvement and Russian olive and tamarisk removal work, 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., adjustments to rock and tree structure or repairing the riparian fence. While the project was largely implemented as planned and likely will be successful, there remains stream improvement work and retreating of Russian olive and tamarisk that need to be completed, especially upstream of the previous work. Another project for FY21 was initiated to complete the upstream work.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
665 Fence Reconstruction Barbed wire
666 Fence Construction Pole top
6958 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Bank slope adjustment/terracing
6958 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Large woody debris/cover
6958 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Vanes (J-hook)
6958 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Pole planting/cuttings
6958 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Seeding
6959 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Herbicide application Spot treatment
Project Map
Project Map