Aquatic and Riparian Improvement on the Lower Beaver River near Minersville Reservoir - FY24
Region: Southern
ID: 6648

Project Status: Completed

Project Details

Habitats near water support the greatest variety of animal and plant life, and attract wildlife during their daily and seasonal movements. In a water-scarce landscape like Utah, these lush habitats are also where people have naturally settled.  In the West, riparian habitat covers less than 1% of the land, yet the role of riparian habitat in the landscape is substantial.  These wet habitat are disproportionately critical to the landscape around them.

Within Utah, 66-75% of all bird species use riparian habitats during some portion of their life history. Typically, diversity and abundance of birds dramatically increases in western riparian habitat compared with other habitat types, and numerous avian species are now considered as riparian obligates (Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy 2.0, 2002).

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. Unfortunately, large flood events (especially in the early 1980s) left this section of stream with streambanks characterized by vertical, eroding, bare dirt and poor in and near-stream habitat. Additionally, invasive Russian Olive and Tamarisk still dominate sections of the river corridor.

In the current degraded state of untreated areas, a lack of suitable habitat is thought to be the limiting factor for trout, a significant barrier to a successful reestablishment of Southern Leatherside Chub, and negatively impact Sage Grouse; not to mention making recreation less appealing. The largely homogeneous stream channel is unable to satisfy diverse habitat requirements at different times of the year and over the life history of trout (e.g., pools with cover for refuge and riffle/glide sections for spawning). The lack of in-stream cover makes avoiding predation from larger fish and birds difficult for small trout and potentially Southern Leatherside Chub. The absence of brood-rearing habitat is a limiting factor in the Bald Hills SGMA for Sage Grouse (e.g., inadequate herbaceous vegetation for brood rearing forage). The extremely dense growth of Russian Olive and Tamarisk has made activities such as fishing and hunting difficult because sportsmen have trouble navigating the river corridor.

Active restoration work has already been completed on sections of the lower Beaver River immediately below this proposed project to return the stream to a desirable, functioning state that helps valuable game and conservation species and provides improved recreation opportunities for the public. Past work has shown that addressing the aquatic and riparian habitat problems goes a long ways towards achieving these main goals. Additionally, while the past work has been largely successful, Russian Olive and Tamarisk have been persistent in attempting to reestablish.

This project proposes additional aquatic and riparian improvement work on a previously untreated section of the lower Beaver River and maintenance of past work to build on and protect the gains made over the past several years.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

If the project does not go forward, the state of the stream in the new 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 200 acres and completed stream improvement work on about 2.75 miles of the lower Beaver River. This project would add approximately 0.3 miles of stream improvement work and 35 acres of Russian Olive and Tamarisk removal, as well as retreat areas where Russian Olive and Tamarisk have been removed, and provide additional planting and seeding of vegetation to reduce elevated erosion rates and provide benefits to wildlife.

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).

These private mesic lands and surrounding public rangelands are critically important to the health of wildlife populations.  Research shows that 60--80% of wildlife is dependent on mesic habitats (e.g., wetlands and riparian areas; Thomas et al. 1979, Patten 1998, Belsky et al. 1999, Peck and Lovvorn 2001).  If true wildlife conservation is to take place on a sustainable level, public wildlife managers must engage private landowners whenever possible.

The landowner we plan to work with was a hold out for a few years and has recently agreed to move forward with the work. This opportunity may be lost if not capitalized on.

Climate change has come to the forefront as a global threat to humans and wildlife alike.  Although models vary on future impacts of global climate change one thing stands out is that water may become more scarce in the West. Preserving and restoring wet areas like this project aims to do has been identified as a key way to mitigate impacts like drought, increasing temperatures, and other impacts that a changing climate will have on human and wildlife.

Although it was determined by the USFWS that listing under the ESA was not warranted for Greater sage grouse, an impending review in the future to determine if further action or protection is needed and to see where we collectively are at mitigating threats. Continuing to do work as identified in the Statewide Sage Grouse Management Plan to conserve sage grouse will support a continued "not warranted" status. This area is mapped sage grouse habitat and working in aquatic habitat in sage grouse areas has been identified as a national priority.  Project partners have observed sage grouse droppings on the hill directly above the project site as well as vehicle killed grouse up the road.

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).

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

The project would help to address "Threats" listed in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan:
1. "Improper Grazing (current)" - the previous projects utilized riparian fencing and an agreement with landowners to create a riparian pasture that allows for a rest period followed by short duration, high intensity grazing during spring time only (i.e., Potential Conservation Action Code 2.1.2) and the riparian pasture will become unusable if Russian olive and tamarisk are allowed to reestablish.
2."Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional)" - the project promotes a more diverse riparian plant community that will offer greater resistance to streambank erosion than existed under the community dominated by Russian olive and tamarisk (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).

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. The 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.

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.

Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan
1. "Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer..." through vegetation treatment projects that improve the condition of ranges that have been overtaken by invasive and/or undesirable trees.

Beaver Unit Mule Deer Herd Plan
1."West of I-15 seek opportunities to improve riparian vegetation in fawning habitat to furnish water, cover, and late to mid summer succulent forage."

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

The vegetation makeup in the "untreated" project area is one of a closed canopy, significant ladder fuels, and numerous fine ground fuels. The fire behavior in this situation makes it unsafe for ground resources to initial attack an unwanted wildfire. It would be a fast-moving, high-intensity crown fire that would require aerial resources to fight the fire. Following implementation and removal of the vegetation, there would be a reduction in live fuel loading, removal of ladder fuels, reduced canopy density and closure. The fire behavior result would be 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 proposed project would greatly reduce fire/fuel issues in the "untreated" area and help prevent invasive vegetation from reestablishing and returning to the high risk fire/fuels conditions in the already "treated" areas. 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. of the problem.

Areas like these rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and meadows serve as buffers, greenstrips, and/or firebreaks that can be critically important in defending landscapes against large fires and protecting adjacent habitat.  Allowing them to become monotypic stands of woody invasives decreases the value of habitat as a fire buffer and increases the risk of fire starting in the riparian area.

Also wet areas like these can themselves become at greater risk of fire due to degradation like channel downcutting and decrease in water table elevation which leads to changes in vegetation and drier conditions.  This project will protect, restore, and enhance these wet areas and decrease fire risk from moderate (2) to low (1).  Also if left and woody invasives became the dominant species the fire risk could increase from moderate (2) to high (3).  So by removing woody invasives we are maintaining a low risk fire regime and reducing the future increase in fire risk.

Also by reducing the fire risk (and maintaining the low risk) on the project site and surrounding area we are protecting extremely valuable land types (riparian and wetland) that are critically important to both wildlife and the communities that surround them.

Riparian, wetlands, and stream habitat is also very important for filtering heavy sediment, ash, and other compounds from post-fire areas in adjacent upland and up stream habitat.  Protecting wetland and riparian habitat protects the watershed from off-site negative impacts to both rural communities and wildlife.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

The project has the potential to improve water quality. The 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 (though the lower Beaver River below Minersville Reservoir is not listed, nor is there any known water quality available for the lower Beaver River). Nonetheless, 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 protect and promote 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) implemented in earlier phases would help to increase litter cover and water infiltration and maintaining a usable riparian pasture is critical to continuing with the grazing management plan. 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.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

The strategies for achieving project goals are centered on improving function and health of the stream channel and riparian 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 seed mix to reduce elevated erosion rates and provide benefits to wildlife 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 newly "treated" project area on private land 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 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). Small sections of recently constructed fence that was damaged during 2019 flooding would be repaired and replaced to maintain the grazing management plan in previously "treated" areas.

(5) Treating/retreating Russian Olive and Tamarisk - The UDWR heavy equipment crew would remove and pile Russian Olive and Tamarisk trees as they are doing stream restoration work in the "untreated" area (except for some tree trunks and root wads that could be salvaged for use as large woody debris in stream structures). All piled Russian Olive and Tamarisk would be burned or shredded/chipped. The entire area where Russian Olive and Tamarisk has already been removed over the past several years would 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 fall of 2023 and spring of 2024.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

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.

As part of the landowner agreement with USFWS the landowner agrees to leave the habitat restored in place for a 10 year period and during that time will work with the USFWS biologist to monitor and access needs, success, and any needed adaptive management.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Monitoring of the project would guide future management. As needed, the riparian fences and crossings would be maintained, failing stream structures would be repaired or replaced, and additional woody riparian vegetation would be planted.

The level of retreatment required for Russian Olive and Tamarisk has decreased each year since the initial removal and it is likely that maintenance required will eventually be reduced to small herbicide application efforts every few years. There are discussions to continue the stream and riparian corridor work proposed in this project downstream (this project would complete all work essentially up to Minersville Reservoir). Eventually, the desire is to improve aquatic and riparian habitat and extirpate Russian Olive and Tamarisk from the entire lower Beaver River corridor.

Grazing is currently excluded on BLM land, 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 one of the private landowners 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.

The private landowners will enter into a contract with NRCS and USFWS.  As part of the landowner agreement with USFWS the landowner agrees to leave the habitat restored in place for a 10 year period and during that time will work with the USFWS biologist to monitor and access needs, success, and any needed adaptive management.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

The earlier phases of this project created a riparian pasture for livestock and rotational grazing will 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. It is essential for the riparian pasture and grazing management plan that Russian Olive and Tamarisk do not reestablish.

Removal and preventing Russian Olive and Tamarisk from reestablishing is critical for the recreational value of the lower Beaver River in the project area. This project helps to ensure the gains to sport fish, game, and other recreational opportunities that have been made during earlier phases of the overall project are not lost (e.g., the density of Russian Olive along the stream made angling extremely difficult, if not impossible, throughout much of the stream corridor prior to the removal efforts).

Although the river part of the project is private land, hunting is an important recreational opportunity directly adjacent to the project.  Pheasant, turkey, chukar, and deer hunting are some of the opportunities for species that will directly benefit from this project.

Walk-in-Access for the public is also allowed on the private land.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.