Northern Region Beaver Dam Analog Projetcs Phase II
Project ID: 5336
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2021
Submitted By: 46
Project Manager: Kent Sorenson
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Northern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Northern
Description:
Many tributary streams in northern Utah have experienced channelization and incision resulting in lack of floodplain connectivity, impacting both fish habitat and water quality. BDA's have proven to be successful in the right conditions. Because BDA projects are being done with different levels of monitoring and planning, we propose this regional BDA project that capitalizes on the economy of scale for project development, execution, and monitoring by consolidating them into a regional effort.
Location:
Project locations are on small streams which have incised considerably and where the social and ecological conditions are suitable for BDAs, including (Fish, Franklin, White's, some smaller tribs of the Logan, Blacksmith Fork and streams on the Wellsvilles as well as a few streams in the Monte Cristo area).
Project Need
Need For Project:
Most of the streams listed in the project area have been significantly altered by land management actions, or direct channel modifications. For example, East Canyon Creek has experienced dramatic modifications over time. During the 1900's much of the stream was heavily grazed and then treated with herbicides to remove willows in an effort to maximize forage production for cattle. The resulting channel changes, including lateral bank erosion and channel incision greatly impacted ecological function, degraded water quality and in many cases, permanently altered the water table. Resultant headcutting has delivered fine sediments downstream, where water quality has been negatively affected. In East Canyon Creek historical mining also impacted water quality by releasing large amounts of phosphorus through fine sedimentation. As the area has developed, additional phosphorus-laden fine sediment has been released into the watershed along with dramatic changes in the hydrograph associated with development. These include a flashy hydrography and severely reduced flows. Ultimately the sediments are stored in East Canyon Reservoir. Additionally, many of the original BDA projects are aged and in need of repair/upkeep. Until such time that beavers are re-introduced (if that is planned), some maintenance will be needed.
Objectives:
This project seeks to use constructed beaver dams as a tool to: 1) Maintain or enhance floodplain connectivity to reduce the stream energy during flashy high water events 2) Store fine sediment in the upper watershed and prevent it from being deposited into local reservoirs 3) Improve instream fish habitat 4) Provide templates and/or suitable habitat for reintroduction of beavers 5) Enhance brown trout migration (invasion) barriers in places where native species restoration has occurred
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
BDA's have proven to be an effective restoration strategy at reducing channel degradation within headwater streams. Primary threats addressed by this project include: 1. Continued headwater tributary degradation. This project is needed to begin reversing the trend of habitat degradation within the proposed areas. Continued degradation may result in increased restoration costs with future restoration. 2. Habitat for native fish is currently very degraded in these low-mid elevation low-order tributaries. BDA's reincorporate important habitat variability elements that provide habitat diversity. 3. As was observed in East Canyon Creek. BDA's function very effectively to store fine sediment on the floodplain. Fine sediment filtering is important for maintaining water quality and quantity for reaches downstream. This model is transferable and should be implemented in other regional waters where applicable
Relation To Management Plan:
The 2014 Weber River Restoration Plan indicated that the impacts from land development and management were major challenges to habitat and water quality in East Canyon Creek and the South Fork of Chalk Creek. This project compliments much of the past restoration work that has been completed in the watersheds in the past and implements new strategies in new areas to restore floodplain connectivity. Chalk Creek and all of its tributaries are currently listed as impaired waters by the Utah Division of Water Quality for elevated levels of Phosphorus, fine sediment and physical habitat degradation. In addition to the listed impairments, sections of Chalk Creek reach elevated temperatures during the summer, sometimes exceeding the known lethal limit for Bonneville cutthroat trout. Nevertheless, the strong cutthroat trout population is sustained through a partially connected network of habitat with thermal refugia throughout the watershed. The South Fork of Chalk Creek has the potential to be a significant coldwater refuge for Bonneville cutthroat trout, however past and current land management patterns result in significant heating along the longitudinal gradient of the creek and its tributaries during the summer. This is partially due to unmanaged livestock grazing in riparian areas. The streams on the north slope of the Raft River mountains are also in need of sediment mitigation. Additionally, restoration of yellowstone cutthroat trout has occurred in Johnson Creek and BDAs and beavers will be used to deter brown trout invasion. Utah Beaver Management plan Mule Deer herd unit plans (variable as per herd unit) Utah Native Cutthroat Management Plan WAP
Fire / Fuels:
Healthy and robust riparian areas can provide a significant buffer against catastrophic effects of fires.
Water Quality/Quantity:
We expect to see the following water quality benefits: 1) Improved (colder) stream temperatures 2) Reduced fine sedimentation in riffles 3) Reduced fine sediment being transported downstream out of the system
Compliance:
This will be a noninvasive project. We will consult with the appropriate agencies to ensure that all clearances have been addressed. We will be completing a stream alteration permit for this project
Methods:
Beaver Dam Analogs will be constructed based on design techniques using the ICRRR beaver restoration principles. The basic construction techniques include the use of sharpened lodgepole fence posts, approximately 3-4" diameter, which will be driven into the ground with a gas-powered hydraulic post pounder. The posts will be driven to a depth of approximately 1 m into the streambed. The posts will extend about 1 m above the channel bed depending on the stream. The posts will be spaced approximately 0.5 - 0.8 m apart. We will then weave willow branches or other tree branches that are available onsite between the posts to create a structure that will mimic a beaver dam. The concept is that the dams will last until sediment has aggraded behind the the dam. Riparian an emergent vegetation begins to grow and the stream channel aggrades and floods. We will place dams about 10 - 100 m apart, depending on factors such as gradient and degree of incision. Where appropriate, postless BDAs will be utilized. After a year we will assess the health of the streams again and determine what progress has been made.
Monitoring:
Visual inspection during post-treatment site visits will be used to determine effectiveness of treatments. Maintenance will be performed as necessary. Those areas colonized by beavers either naturally or via re-introduction will be noted.
Partners:
Trout Unlimited USFS UDAF USU, BLM
Future Management:
Depending upon the rate at which the Beaver Dam Analogs are occupied by beavers, we will work with the landowners and project partners to use volunteers to continue maintenance of the beaver dams to ensure that they have the intended effect.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
We expect the project to improve riparian area productivity by enhancing the water table and serving as a local example of rangeland/riparian practices that can be beneficial to livestock, especially if they are paired with livestock management techniques such as off-channel watering and rotational grazing techniques.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$23,400.00 $0.00 $23,400.00 $0.00 $23,400.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Other Permitting costs @ 500/permit. All named streams that require streambed penetration. $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services BDA construction $8,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Materials and Supplies Posts at 600/bundle; 16 bundles $9,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Motor Pool mileage to and from project sites $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Materials and Supplies Replacement and replenishment of existing small tools and instruments; saws, loppers, shovels, etc. $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$23,400.00 $0.00 $23,400.00 $0.00 $23,400.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Habitat Council Account QHCR $23,400.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Medium
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Droughts Very High
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Small Isolated Populations High
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Water Allocation Policies Very High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Low
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Unknown
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Water Allocation Policies Very High
Project Comments
Comment 02/07/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Ken Theis
For long term success, it seems that the projects need to be paired with upland vegetation treatments to improve the potential for aspen stands to sustain a viable beaver population. Additionally, it would be beneficial to project reviewers to have a map or listing of proposed project streams.
Comment 02/10/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Kent Sorenson
Agreed, but many of the locations are on private land and permission to work on the uplands was not granted. Point locations are on the map, but a list will be added to the narrative.
Comment 02/10/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Ken Theis
Thanks for the reply and update.
Comment 01/16/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Kent - Please upload a shapefile for the areas where you will be installing BDAs. Thanks.
Comment 02/07/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Kent Sorenson
Allison, I have been hesitant to do that as I'm having trouble deciding how fine of scale to draw. I'm thinking that I will drop point features on the map for now generally describing a target area since so much of the actual construction is adaptive in nature.
Comment 02/10/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
We understand how that goes so general points for now will be fine. When the project is completed just be prepared to upload a polygon for each complex of BDAs that you had installed. Thanks!
Comment 08/18/2021 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. Update your map features and fill out the completion form. 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. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Comment 09/07/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Please fill out the Completion Form ASAP. Completion reports were due August 31st. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Comment 09/14/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Kent - Follow up question on your completion information. There are 2 points on the map showing BDA complexes. Where there any BDA's actually built in those locations? If so will you map them as a polygon feature instead of a point? The polygon can just cover the stretch of river where the complex was placed. If there weren't any BDAs constructed will you delete the points? Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
07/01/2020
End Date:
06/30/2021
FY Implemented:
2021
Final Methods:
Despite the desire to add several BDAs to the landscape, this project was basically left largely unfinished. Inability to secure volunteer labor due to Covid restrictions led to a scenario where the project was inadvertently confused with a similarly named project and it 'slid off the radar'. Some initial work was completed in the Wellsville area tributaries (Three Mile) and a potential worksite was abandoned once beavers were discovered to have inhabited the area (Echo Creek). Some of this effort was also directed towards Fish Creek (Chalk Creek tributary).
Project Narrative:
Only a small portion of this project was actually completed. Restrictions on use of volunteers precluded its initiation early in the fiscal year when working conditions were favorable. A minimal effort was put into restoring some of the existing BDAs in the Wellsvilles and reconnaissance completed on Echo Creek indicated that beavers had taken up residence there and that precluded the need for BDAs. The intent was to ask for carry-over, but an error on my part with regard to similarly named projects left it off of the request list. Better communication with partners was needed to insure that this project met its expectations. Partner priority alterations mid-year were also an issue.
Future Management:
Consult with partners to decide if this project is a high enough priority to re-submit.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
10823 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Beaver dam analog
10824 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Beaver dam analog
Project Map
Project Map