Southern Region Riparian Tree and Shrub Planting - FY19
Project ID: 4533
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:
Purchase bare root riparian trees and shrubs and contract with a conservation corps crew to plant riparian vegetation along streams where stream restoration work has recently occurred in the Southern Region.
Location:
Various locations in Beaver, Garfield, Piute, and Wayne Counties where stream restoration/improvement work has already been implemented (e.g., installation of in-stream structures to reduce stress and erosion on stream banks, riparian fencing and grazing management plan to minimize exploitation of riparian vegetation from livestock use) and riparian vegetation is currently lacking.
Project Need
Need For Project:
One key factor for stream enhancement projects to be successful is the establishment of woody riparian vegetation. Woody riparian vegetation helps to stabilize stream banks, create valuable instream and nearstream habitat, directly and indirectly increase food production for fish and wildlife, and other numerous benefits.
Objectives:
The main goal of the project is to improve the condition and function of riparian corridors in the Southern Region. The main objective is to establish a healthy, diverse woody riparian vegetation community where none currently exist along important stream corridors in the Southern Region.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
If the project is not funded, it will take longer for woody riparian vegetation to establish or some areas may never have the diversity of trees and shrubs necessary to significantly benefit wildlife and users. The absence of important woody riparian vegetation negatively impacts wildlife (e.g., poor habitat for sensitive species and game fish), reduces recreational opportunities (e.g., poor habitat related to riparian vegetation can be a limiting factor for popular game fish), leads to poor water quality (e.g., no buffer for nonpoint source of pollutants from overland flow), puts past stream enhancement efforts at risk (e.g., elevated rates of erosion could cause the loss of structures or other past enhancement work), etc. Furthermore, the project sites have had substantial investments in restoration work done and not funding can either set back or put at risk habitat goals and objectives. If the project is funded, there are no notable threats or risks. Similar projects have been funded and implemented in the past without any major problems and positive results.
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 riparian planting to promote a more diverse riparian plant community (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Code 2.3.6). 3. "Sediment Transport Imbalance" - the project would use planting 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 planting 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" - establish woody riparian vegetation where needed, decrease sediment flow into the river, etc. 2. "Provide suitable habitat for a diversity of wildlife species" - provide and protect quality fish habitat and recreational angling opportunities. 3. "Maintain and restore desired vegetation that is resilient and sustainable" - move vegetation communities closer to desired conditions. 4. "Maintain ranching and agricultural as sustainable economic, cultural and lifestyle components of the Upper Sevier Watershed" - riparian plantings along the Sevier River are 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 help to achieve water quality and beneficial use goals cited in the Otter Creek - East Fork Sevier TMDL Study: 1. "Stabilize channel banks" - reduce streambank erosion and promote stability. 2. "Increase filtering capacity" - buffer nonpoint sources of phosphorous (pollutant of concern) from overland flow. 3. "Protect waters for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain" - shift and maintain temperature and dissolved oxygen at suitable levels for cold water aquatic species. 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" - restore habitat conditions within the historical range of southern leatherside. 2. "Restore Hydrologic Conditions" - restore natural hydrologic characteristics and water quality (e.g., riparian buffer of nonpoint source pollutants). 3. "Range Expansion" - create suitable habitat conditions for potential reintroduction of southern leatherside to the lower Beaver River. The project would help to meet habitat-related objectives in the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah: 1. Riparian plantings would promote a healthy, functioning riparian habitat along the upper Sevier River and benefit late brood-rearing habitat for greater 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 to a limited degree and increase the potential use of these areas as control points and fuel/fire breaks.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project has the potential to improve water quality. The project would occur in areas where a healthy community of riparian vegetation is currently lacking; such areas are more likely to contribute pollutants to streams via both direct inputs (e.g., total phosporous in soil from eroding stream banks) and indirect pathways (e.g., pollutants entering streams from overland flow are not buffered, stream temperature fluctuations are greater because the microclimate associated with dense, healthy riparian vegetation does not exist). The project would help to establish and increase woody riparian vegetation abundance and diversity along important stream corridors in the Southern Region, which would then help with decreasing pollutants and improve water quality. The project promotes reconnecting the stream with the floodplain and increasing water infiltration, both leading to ground water recharge and more consistent flows later into the season. In relation to water quality/quantity and the Upper Sevier River Watershed TMDL, the project would "Maintain or improve water quality and quantity for local needs..." by establishing woody riparian vegetation where needed, decrease sediment and nutrient load sources from streambank erosion, and create a buffer from phosphorous-rich overland flow into the river. In relation to water quality/quantity and the Otter Creek - East Fork Sevier TMDL Study, the project would "Stabilize channel banks" by reducing streambank erosion and promoting stability, "Increase filtering capacity" by buffering nonpoint sources of phosphorous (pollutant of concern) from overland flow, and "Protect waters for cold water species of game fish and other cold water aquatic life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain" by shifting and maintaining temperature and dissolved oxygen at suitable levels for cold water aquatic species.
Compliance:
Archaeology clearance and NEPA would not be required. All planting would be done by hand and only involve small plants (e.g., willow stakes and bare root stock), the areas being planted are already highly disturbed from flooding and land use, and the majority of the project would occur on private land.
Methods:
Bare root trees and shrubs would be purchased from various nurseries depending on stock availability and price. A conservation corps crew would be hired to plant bare root stock and willow cuttings along stream corridors where past stream enhancement projects have been completed and woody riparian vegetation is still lacking. Planting projects would begin in April of 2019. Because where and how planting occurs is so important (particularly where planting occurs relative to the vertical height of the plant on the streambank), a UDWR Biologist would work with the crew for the first day showing them how and where to plant and then a UDWR technician familiar with the area and how to plant would also works with the crew the entire duration of the project. This project has been a yearly maintenance project of older stream improvement projects since FY15 and there has been a lot of planting work done in this time. However, the amount of riparian corridors in the SRO where stream improvement work has been completed is great (~ 9 miles of stream proposed for the FY19 project). Specific sites for planting are determined by selecting localized areas within past projects where woody riparian vegetation is lacking (e.g., a particular outside bend that has seen improvement in terms of herbaceous riparian vegetation reestablishment, but an absence of willow). The reason woody riparian vegetation is lacking in most of these locations is because it has either never been planted (e.g., initial stream improvement project lacked resources) or there was an initial failure that we don't think will be repeated (e.g., initial failure to implement grazing manangement plan).
Monitoring:
Surveys of vegetation and fish population in the project areas are already being done and would be continued. Specifically, the UDWR monitors vegetation through periodic visual assessments of plantings and vegetation, game fish populations (i.e., brown trout, rainbow trout, and cutthroat trout) through electrofishing surveys, and native fish populations (e.g., southern leatherside) through seining surveys. Additionally, UDWQ has initiated multiple indicator monitoring (MIM) of stream channels and streamside vegetation at sites within the project areas. Fisheries biologists with the UDWR plan to work with UDWQ to aid and expand their monitoring efforts within the project areas.
Partners:
Multiple private landowners, agencies, and other stakeholders have been contacted, involved, and/or expressed support for the project. These partners were first contacted to gain input and support for the initial stream enhancement work (installation of in-stream structures, bank sloping, riparian fencing, etc.) and continue to be engaged in efforts to maintain and further improve upon the initial stream enhancement project. Specific examples of partners include multiple private landowners, local water users, UDWR, USFWS, BLM, UDWQ, and USU.
Future Management:
All of the areas are fenced and fences actively maintained or are not currently being grazed. Grazing is excluded along the riparian corridor in most of the areas. There are also grazing plans in place with the landowner or permittee in all areas to manage for establishment of woody riparian vegetation. Planting locations will be monitored and it will be determined if additional plantings are needed.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Livestock grazing occurs in the form of managed springtime grazing at most of the project locations. While the woody riparian vegetation that would be planted is intended to be beneficial for fish and wildlife and not necessarily high value for livestock (e.g., willow, cottonwood, water birch, red-osier dogwood, chokecherry, golden currant), it would help to provide some forage for livestock. Landowners working with USFWS are in different stages of resting the riparian treatments for 5 years after which a riparian specific grazing plan will be developed. Most of these projects have divided the riparian areas into several separate pastures so that grazing management can be maximized.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$16,300.00 $0.00 $16,300.00 $2,500.00 $18,800.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Hire a conservation corps crew for approximately 640 hours of planting (e.g., one four-person crew working for four weeks). $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Materials and Supplies Purchase bare root stock trees and shrubs. $4,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Motor Pool Regional vehicle mileage. $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) UDWR and UDEQ employee planning, helping, and supervising the project. $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$16,300.00 $0.00 $16,300.00 $2,500.00 $18,800.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Habitat Council Account HCRF $16,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2019
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Agricultural Pollution Low
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (Direct, Intentional) Low
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Agricultural Pollution Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Agricultural Pollution Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Low
Waterfowl
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) 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, A few questions 1) Is the maintenance of vegetation work maintenance of past work funded by WRI? 2) Could you frame these reaches 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 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) You list TMDLs in the management plan section can you discuss the potential benefits to the TMDL listed water in the Water quality/quantity section? 5) Will all of the acres be reopened to grazing at some point? Will the project improve any grazing issues on the areas in question? 6) What if any values at risk might be protected by using these healthy riparian areas as fuel breaks? 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 (e.g., #2648, #3283). 2) Everywhere planting would occur is on a past stream improvement project, so it is a maintenance project and does not necessarily connect or extend existing work. The importance of these reaches are that they are critical riparian zones that benefit a slew of organisms (fish, wildlife, invertebrates, etc.) and processes (e.g., buffer overland flow runoff, reduce elevated rates of streambank erosion and resulting sediment and nutrient loads), as well as helping to ensure success of past efforts where time, effort, and money have already been expended. 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. 4) I've updated the Water Quality/Quantity Section to include potential benefits related to the TMDL listed waters. 5) In the areas that would be planted, grazing is either excluded or there is a grazing management plan with riparian fence and pasture that allows for an initial rest period of 3-5 years following the initial stream work and limited short duration, high intensity grazing after the rest period. We would only target areas for planting where grazing is excluded or the landowner/permittee has demonstrated a willingness to follow the grazing management plan. 6) Examples of the values that could be at risk from a fire in the project areas include recreational sites (i.e., picnic areas), fences, and aquatic/wildlife habitat. I hope that helps address your questions. Thanks. Nic
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Nic, This work could benefit a much longer list of species, especially natives, than you provide. Keith
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hey Nic - As we see this project year in and year out I am curious about a few things. How much success are we seeing? How many times does a single site get planted? How do you decide when it is successful? How do you decide when it is not going to be successful and you move on? What are some lessons learned from doing this year after year?
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Gary, Thanks for the questions. Generally, based mostly on my qualitative sense from walking areas that have been planted, there is good success. There tends to be either very high success or very high failure varying by location, both at the reach-scale and vertically on the streambank. Otter Creek, East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon, and the lower Beaver River all seem to respond well to plantings, while efforts on the upper Sevier River (Highway 12 to confluence of Asay Creek and Mammoth Creek) have been less successful. There appears to be a narrow band along the streambanks relative to water level where plantings have high success rates, so plantings that are too high or too low don't survive. We do not plant the same sites repeatedly each year. We do plant within the same larger sections of stream each year (e.g., lower Beaver River where past stream improvement work has been completed), but typically only plant a specific sites within that larger section once (e.g., a particular streambank along the outside bend). One of the biggest lessons I've learned is to work closely with the crew doing the planting throughout the project to ensure the plantings are in the exact locations desired to maximize success/benefits. In addition to me working with the crew for the first day showing them how and where to plant, a UDWR technician familiar with the area and how to plant also now works with the crew the entire duration of the project. An example of a success from this type of project is Walk-in-Access property of the lower Beaver River immediately upstream of BLM land. The stream improvement work and initial planting occurred in spring of 2014, but there was poor success because the riparian fence was not constructed until late summer and the plantings were grazed by livestock much more heavily than anticipated. The riparian planting project in 2015 allowed us to hit this section of stream again and the 2015 plantings are doing well and have not needed much additional work. It is the success of this lower Beaver River example that we are trying to recreate in this project. For example, initial planting efforts following stream work on the upper Sevier River are thought to have been unsuccessful because the volunteers used did not provide the quantity or quality of work required to adequately plant all areas of the stream improvement projects needing woody riparian vegetation. Therefore, this project is seeking to hit these areas of the upper Sevier River because in many cases they have not actually yet received a good, initial planting. I've added some of this response to the "Methods" section to help clarify how the project would actually be implemented. I hope that helps to answer your questions. Nic
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Nic, I guess from an outsiders perspective, I am reading this proposal and seeing a lot of "trust me" type language. I guess I don't see any clear assurance that other partners are included, areas will be protected/improved, etc. from livestock grazing. I am not being critical of what you are doing - I think it sounds great. I am just concerned that there is not a lot of language here to really show WRI how their investment is protected. (similar to Gary's comments). You mention that most of this will occur on private lands, but then on the map it shows an awful lot of BLM and USFS? Who specifically have you coordinated iwth on this? NEPA? Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) does require federal agencies to consider the effects to historic properties from ANY undertaking. The level of review, however, is commensurate with the undertaking. For example, a hand thin project does not have the same impacts as a bullhog project, therefore the kind of review is different. Even though there will be little impacts from something like this, technically a review or "clearance" is still required. The triggers for a Section 106 review are similar to NEPA in that any project occurring on federal lands, involving any federal funds or federal permits require review. Even the state has it's own version of Section 106 known as U.C.A. 9-8-404. I would make sure you cover this base on all of these projects. Thanks, Vicki
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nic Braithwaite
Hi Vicki, Thanks for the comments and questions. I certainly understand wanting more specifics and assurances with this project, especially where it has been an ongoing project the past several years. Hopefully my response to Mike's question #5 about grazing management and Gary's questions helps to address those concerns. My reasoning for additional clearance not being needed on this project is that the work would fall under the clearance originally obtained for the initial stream improvement project (e.g., NEPA or consulting with local federal office on federal land and consultation with USHPO on state and private land). I will look into it more though and make sure though. I hope that helps to address your concerns and questions. Thanks. Nic
Completion
Start Date:
03/18/2019
End Date:
06/20/2019
FY Implemented:
2019
Final Methods:
Bare root trees and shrubs were be purchased from various nurseries. A five-person conservation corps crew was hired for three weeks to plant the bare root stock and willow cuttings on stream enhancement projects that have been completed in the past and other areas that have proper livestock grazing management in place. Areas that were planted include the lower Beaver River between the town of Minersville and Minersville Reservoir, the upper Sevier River near the town of Hatch, East Fork of the Sevier River in Kingston Canyon, and Otter Creek upstream of the reservoir. Planting projects were completed in March, April, and June of 2019.
Project Narrative:
The project was implemented as planned. There were no significant problems, difficulties, etc. The partnership with landowners was beneficial to the project and utilizing a conservation corps crew to do the plantings seemed to be effective.
Future Management:
All of the areas are fenced and fences area actively maintained. Grazing is excluded along the riparian corridor in most of the areas. There are also grazing plans in place with the landowner or permittee in all areas to manage for establishment of woody riparian vegetation. Planting locations will be monitored and it will be determined if additional plantings are needed.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
6414 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Pole planting/cuttings
Project Map
Project Map