• No results found

Scaling-Up Riparian Restoration Efforts across the Gunnison Basin, Colorado

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Scaling-Up Riparian Restoration Efforts across the Gunnison Basin, Colorado"

Copied!
38
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Scaling-Up Riparian Restoration Efforts across the Gunnison Basin, Colorado

Final Performance Report

Prepared for

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Award 65-8B05-A-14-09

By The Nature Conservancy

In Collaboration with the Gunnison Climate Working Group

March 16, 2016

By

The Nature Conservancy, Colorado Chapter

In Collaboration with the

Gunnison Climate Working Group

March 17, 2017

(2)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PURPOSE ... 1

PROJECT SUMMARY ... 1

Objectives ... 3

ACCOMPLISHMENTS ... 3

1. Prioritize the Most Important Sites Needing Treatment Across the Gunnison Basin: ... 3

2. Design and Implement Restoration Treatments at Priority Sites: ... 7

3. Monitor Ecological Response to the Restoration Structures: ... 13

4. Share Best Practices and Lessons Learned to Increase Restoration: ... 15

DELIVERABLES ... 18

1. Prioritized List and Map of Sites Needing Restoration to Benefit the Gunnison sage-grouse: ... 18

2. Short Descriptions of Priority Sites Treated: ... 21

3. Summary of Stream Miles Treated and Area Influenced by the Restoration Work: ... 25

4. Results and Interpretation of Vegetation Monitoring: ... 28

5. Summary of Best Practices and Lessons Learned: ... 32

FUNDING ... 33 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 34 ACRONYMS ... 35 REFERENCES ... 35 COVER PHOTOGRAPH ... 36 APPENDICES ... 36

(3)

1

PURPOSE

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have a common purpose of helping to bring about conservation and sustainable use of land, water, wildlife, and related resources, working with private land owners and natural resource managers across jurisdictional

boundaries. The purpose of this project is to facilitate restoration and increase resilience of wet meadows and riparian areas along small streams in the sagebrush ecosystem within the Upper Gunnison Basin to help the Gunnison sage-grouse (Centrocercus minimus) adapt to a changing climate. The Gunnison Climate Working Group1 (GCWG), a public-private partnership, is using innovative yet simple restoration methods, e.g., rock structures, plug and spread structures and drift fences, designed by Bill Zeedyk, Zeedyk Ecological Consulting, LLC. The restoration treatments are intended to improve

hydrologic and ecosystem function of small streams by raising the water table, re-connecting the channel to the floodplain, restoring livestock and wildlife compacted trails, and increasing wetland plant cover, and insect abundance at priority sites.

NRCS generously contributed a total of $75,000 over three years (2014-2016) towards this project. This funding was leveraged by hundreds of thousands of dollars from other funders to accomplish restoration over a total project period of five years. This report represents the culmination of all the work that was completed during that five-year period.

PROJECT SUMMARY

In late 2016, the Project Team2, a subset of the GCWG, completed its fifth year of a restoration project to enhance resilience of riparian and wet meadow habitats in the Gunnison Basin to help the Gunnison sage-grouse and other wildlife adapt to a changing climate. The sage-sage-grouse utilize mesic and wet meadows to rear their young chicks in the later summer months, feeding on insects and forbs. While only a fraction of the total land area in sagebrush systems, these riparian areas are also critically important habitats for other wildlife species, e.g., neo-tropical migratory birds, mule deer, elk, and to ranchers for livestock grazing. Already compromised by lowered water tables and erosion, many of these areas are likely to be

negatively impacted by increasing drought, invasive species, and erosion from intense runoff events associated with a changing climate.

To address these impacts, Bill Zeedyk, Zeedyk Ecological Consulting, restoration ecologist and primary author of Let the Water do the Work (2014) and author of The Plug and Spread Treatment (2015), and

1 Gunnison Climate Working Group Members: BIO-Logic, Inc., Bureau of Land Management-Gunnison Field Office, Colorado Natural Heritage Program; Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Gunnison County, Gunnison County Stockgrowers Association, Gunnison Conservation District, Lake Fork Valley Conservancy, National Park Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rocky Mountain Biological Lab, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, Western State Colorado University, and Western Water Assessment.

2

Project Team Members: Gay Austin (BLM-Gunnison Field Office), Andrew Breibart (BLM-Gunnison Field Office), Teresa Chapman (TNC), Jim Cochran (Gunnison County), Shawn Conner (BIO-Logic, Inc.), Jonathan Coop (WSCU), Frank Kugel (UGRWCD), Pat Magee (WSCU), Betsy Neely (TNC), Suzie Parker (USFS), Imtiaz Rangwala (WWA), Renée Rondeau (CNHP), Nathan Seward (CPW), Ken Stahlnecker (NPS), Brooke Vasquez (Gunnison Conservation District), Matt Vasquez (USFS), Liz With (NRCS), and Bill Zeedyk (Zeedyk Ecological Consulting).

(4)

2

Shawn Conner, restoration specialist, BIO-Logic, Inc., designed innovative yet simple restoration methods, e.g., rock structures, plug and spreads and drift fences, to improve hydrologic and ecosystem function of wet meadows and riparian areas managed by Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW), US Forest Service (USFS), and private ranchers/landowners. The restoration structures are intended to raise the water table, reduce erosion, re-connect channels to the floodplain, and increase wetland plant cover (and insect abundance, a key food source for sage-grouse chicks). The structures include grade control structures (one rock dams, low water crossings), headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs and log and fabric structures) and flow dispersal structures (media lunas, plug and spreads, low water crossings, and rock mulch.

Over the past three years (2014-2016) of this project, the team built a total of 865 new restoration structures on both private and public lands within four new priority watersheds and significantly expanded restoration at four previously treated sites. The team also modified 101 previously built structures to enhance their effectiveness along five stream miles and 36 riparian acres. This work contributes to the team’s five-year accomplishments of building 1,112 structures to restore 143 acres (including new treatments and maintenance) on 12 reaches along 21 stream miles within eight watersheds across a range of elevations, watershed sizes, floodplain widths, and water sources. The team also

developed initial designs for new treatments on approximately 46 acres along six stream miles at five new sites for 2017 implementation. Including both new structures and enhancement of previously built

structures, this project has benefited nearly 782 acres of Gunnison sage-grouse brood rearing habitat, enhanced winter range for mule deer and elk, and has improved the resilience of key watering and foraging sites for regional livestock producers.

This project serves as an important demonstration of simple and effective tools for restoring and increasing resilience of wet meadow and riparian habitats. The structures are working to capture sediments and hold/spread water, enabling wetland plant and insect species to expand, thus improving important brood-rearing habitat for the Gunnison sage-grouse. These techniques provide significant results and have the potential to improve hydrologic function over a much larger area. The methods are already being adopted and replicated by partners in the Basin and others working to improve brood-rearing habitat for the Gunnison sage-grouse in the satellite populations (San Miguel and Crawford). In addition, the Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV) and Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI) have indicated a strong interest in applying these techniques to improve brood-rearing habitat for the Greater sage-grouse. One of the most exciting developments is that the NRCS has approved these restoration practices for Farm Bill funding to implement projects on private lands, which has a huge potential to benefit to both Gunnison and Greater sage-grouse. This effort has been spearheaded by the Gunnison office of the NRCS. They have already contracted with at least three landowners and are working with other

landowners to design future projects near Gunnison. NRCS staff in Montrose, Delta, Glenwood Springs, Alamosa and other areas are interested in applying the techniques. The Gunnison NRCS reports that they field several calls a month from NRCS colleagues to discuss questions about project design, costs, and planning. The national NRCS is working on consistency across states and moving the practice to be a non-engineering practice so that wildlife and range staff can plan them (personal communication, Liz With, NRCS, Gunnison, Colorado).

(5)

3 Objectives

The overall objectives of this project are to:

1. Increase ecosystem resilience to climate change by restoring hydrologic and ecological function of priority wet meadow and riparian habitats within the sagebrush landscape across the Gunnison Basin at a scale large enough to help the Gunnison sage-grouse (to improve brood-rearing success), neo-tropical migratory birds, big game species and ranchers who depend on these habitats for their livelihoods cope with projected impacts of a changing climate.

2. Build a “no regrets” strategy that appeals to landowners no matter their position on climate change. These projects benefit the land and provide ecosystem resilience in any context.

3. Build a sustainable and enduring program to increase restoration across the Basin. 4. Ensure scientific rigor of this project through a long-term monitoring program.

5. Develop and evaluate cost-effective tools, methods, and planning to help scale up the project. 6. Share best practices and lessons learned to encourage application of methods within and outside of

the Basin.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

1. Prioritize the Most Important Sites Needing Treatment Across the Gunnison Basin:

Determine the overall, Basin-wide need and opportunity for treatments to significantly scale up the project across the Basin and incorporate climate science and local knowledge into the prioritization process.

Site Prioritization Analysis: Teresa Chapman, TNC’s GIS manager, conducted a comprehensive climate-informed site selection analysis of the Upper Gunnison River Basin. The objective of this analysis was to identify and prioritize stream reaches for restoration work, providing a landscape-scale model of the restoration need and potential of stream reaches in the entire Basin. The model was used to identify stream reaches within critically important Gunnison sage-grouse habitat that offer the greatest potential to respond favorably to restoration techniques designed by Bill Zeedyk (Zeedyk and Clothier 2014). Once reaches with the highest potential are identified, local knowledge and on-the-ground investigations can further refine opportunities and constraints for restoration at each site. We used four criteria to select and prioritize stream reaches for restoration: 1) location within potential Gunnison sage-grouse brood rearing habitat; 2) proximity to lek locations (<= 2 miles); 3)

Restoration Potential Index measuring difference in greenness between a wet year and a dry year (score between 60-100) – this indicates riparian areas that significantly dried during drought but maintain greenness during wet years; and 4) Riparian Condition Index measuring the extent of the floodplain and the current extent of riparian vegetation (score between 1-25) – this indicates that the current riparian vegetation occupies a small percentage of the floodplain. See Appendix A for detailed methods and results of this analysis.

Once the GIS analyses were completed, the team filtered the resulting stream reaches by feasibility, land-ownership, and local knowledge to narrow down the list of potential sites, considering the following criteria: 1) landownership and willingness of landowners; 2) status of NEPA permitting (NEPA) and US Army Corps of Engineers permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Action

(6)

4

process; 3) accessibility (first cut); 4) proximity to other sites to increase efficiency; 5) opportunities for scaling up more efficiently; and 6) geographic representation across the Basin.

The restoration experts and team members then conducted rapid field assessments to determine specific restoration needs and potential treatments and further prioritize sites for restoration treatment. This assessment includes completion of a field form developed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) which aims to evaluate sites for potential treatment by the following criteria: 1) restoration potential problems, e.g., head cuts, compaction, roads, etc.; 2) level and extent of work needed; 3) accessibility; 4) potential for significantly increasing stream miles treated; 5) importance for Gunnison sage-grouse; 6) opportunity for increasing efficiency, e.g., proximity to a nearby site; and 7) adjacent sagebrush habitat condition.

See Table 1 for a summary of priority restoration sites and Figure 1 for an overview map of priority restoration sites in the Gunnison Basin.

Table 1. Priority Restoration Sites Treated, Maintained and/or Monitored between 2012-2016. The asterisk indicates new sites started in 2014 or later; treatments other sites were significantly expanded, maintained and/or monitored during this time.

Site Name and Stream Reach Landownership Tributary / Priority

watershed (Appendix A) 1. Chance Gulch* BLM and Private: CPW

Ballantyne State Habitat Area Tomichi Creek / Chance Gulch- Tomichi Creek

2. Kezar Basin Private Cebolla Creek / Willow

Creek Blue Mesa Reservoir 3. Redden Ranch, West Flat

Top Mountain Private, BLM and USFS Ohio Creek / Lower Ohio Creek 4. Sage Hen Gulch* BLM and Private: CPW

Lypps-Ballantyne State Habitat Area Tomichi Creek / Chance Gulch- Tomichi Creek 5. South Cottonwood at Flat

Top Mountain: Lower, Upper and East Fork*

USFS and Private Ohio Creek / Lower Ohio Creek

6. West Flat Top Mountain at Henkel Road USFS: Bebb’s Willow Reach, Section 36 & Exclosure

USFS Ohio Creek / Lower Ohio

Creek

7. Wolf Creek: East Fork, Middle Fork, Lower and Upper

BLM and Private:

CPW Kaichen State Habitat Area Cebolla Creek / Outlet Cebolla Creek 8. Yogi, West Flat Top

(7)

5

Treatment Designs for 2017 Implementation: Over the summer of 2016, restoration experts Bill Zeedyk and Shawn Conner, with team members Nathan Seward, CPW, Andrew Breibart, BLM, and Matt Vasquez, USFS, conducted field work to evaluate and design preliminary treatments for five potential new sites. Rock was purchased and delivered to Dutch and Graflin Gulches. The team designed treatments for approximately six stream miles at the following sites:

1. Dutch Gulch State Wildlife Area, southeast of Gunnison (CPW and BLM)

2. Centennial State Wildlife Area, north of Blue Mesa Reservoir, west of Gunnison (CPW) 3. Graflin Gulch, Lypps-Ballantyne State Habitat Area (Private)

4. Teachout, north of Gunnison at the base of Flat Top Mountain (USFS)

(8)

6 Figure 1. Overview Map of Priority Restoration Sites in the Gunnison Basin.

(9)

7 2. Design and Implement Restoration Treatments at Priority Sites:

Treatment Objectives: The primary objectives of the restoration treatments are to:

a. Disperse flows more widely across floodplain surfaces to maximize infiltration and increase bank storage during flood events

b. Stabilize eroded wet meadow soils to control head-cutting and reduce gully expansion, thereby retaining bank storage and extending base flows (raise and maintain water table within the root zone of the plants, improving base flows and bank storage)

c. Increase health, vigor and density of riparian/wetland vegetation, such as native sedges, rushes, and wet-loving grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

d. Decrease the upland species, such as rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and non-wet-loving grasses, forbs, and shrubs within the riparian corridor.

e. Restore and enhance natural flow patterns, including harvesting water off rural roads.

Treatment Design: Bill Zeedyk, Zeedyk Ecological Consulting, Shawn Conner, BIO-Logic, Inc., and project team members – Andrew Breibart, BLM, Nathan Seward, CPW, and Matt Vasquez, USFS, designed new restoration treatments for priority sites. Restoration design followed methods outlined in Zeedyk and Clothier (2014), Zeedyk (2015) and Zeedyk (2006). Team members staked locations of structures, estimated the type and amount of rock supplies needed, refined specifications for rock, and identified specific locations for staging rock near the restoration sites. TNC developed contracts with operators to haul materials to sites.

The treatments are intended to restore hydrologic and ecological function of streams by raising the water table, connecting the stream channel to the floodplain, restoring head cuts, restoring livestock and wildlife trails and increasing wetland plant cover at priority sites. The structures work to capture sediments, hold/spread water, allow water to percolate beyond compacted areas, enabling wetland and riparian plant species to expand.

Restoration techniques include grade control structures (one rock dams, log mats, sod dams and low water crossings), flow dispersal structures (media lunas, low water crossings, plug and spreads, filter dams) and headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, laybacks, log and fabric

structures). Most of structures are made of rock, but several other techniques were used depending on restoration needs. Drift fences, a line segment of fence built perpendicular to the stream channel, were used to reduce cattle and elk trailing and soil compaction, increasing water retention. See Figure 2. The team experimented with a relatively new technique called the “plug and spread” structure, built with a bulldozer and skid steer, used to counteract the effects of channel incision and restore hydrologic connectivity with adjacent wet meadows (Zeedyk 2015). These structures were used in areas where transporting rock was not practical or where the extent of channel incision made rock hand work unfeasible; they can restore many acres of former wetland with a few structures. The team also modified road crossings at several locations to restore meadow and/or re-graded roads to harvest water using Zeedyk’s methods for low-standard rural roads (2006).

(10)

8 Figure 2. Selected restoration structures used in this project designed by Bill Zeedyk.

Sources: Zeedyk (2014), Zeedyk (2015) and Sponholtz and Anderson (2010).

PLUG AND SPREAD

Used to restore sheet flow across an impaired wet meadow

(11)

9

Hands-on Training for Field Crews and Private Contractors: Contractors Bill Zeedyk, Shawn Conner, and Clayton BonDurant, along with team members Nathan Seward, Matt Vasquez and Andrew Breibart conducted hands-on training for youth field crews, i.e., Western Colorado Conservation Corps (WCCC) and Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) at priority sites (e.g., Chance Gulch in 2015, Sage Hen in 2016). Andrew Breibart, Clayton BonDurant, Shawn Conner, Nathan Seward and Matt Vasquez provided technical oversight of the youth field crews in building rock structures during July and August. Contractors and team members also conducted a one-day training organized by CPW, NRCS and Gunnison Conservation District (GCD) for three local private contractors in July, 2016 at Sage Hen Gulch. Two of the trained contractors completed rock structures on private lands later in the field season.

Installation of Structures: Over the past three years (2014-2016) of this project, the team built a total of 865 new restoration structures on both private and public lands within four new priority watersheds (sites) and significantly expanded restoration at four previously treated sites. The team also modified 101 previously built structures to enhance their effectiveness along five stream miles and 36 riparian acres. This work contributes to the team’s five-year accomplishments of building 1,112 structures to restore at total of 143 acres on 12 reaches along 21 stream miles within eight watersheds across a range of elevation, watershed size, floodplain width, and water sources. The team also developed initial designs for new treatments on approximately 46 acres along six stream miles at five new sites for 2017 implementation.

See Appendix B for site maps with structure locations, and Tables 2-3 for details of new and

maintained structures completed over the last three years (2014-2016) and over the life of the project (2012-2016). See Appendix C for tables of types and numbers of new structures constructed during the 2014-2016 field seasons.

While most of the treatments consist of rock structures, the team applied several other innovative techniques to address specific restoration needs and increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness. The plug and spread treatment (Zeedyk 2015) was used to counteract the effects of channel incision and restore hydrologic function in areas deemed impractical for rock structures. Restoration experts Bill Zeedyk and Shawn Conner, coordinating closely with BLM, CPW, NRCS and USFS team members, designed and guided Stonefly Earthworks in building plug and spread structures at Chance Gulch, Kezar Basin, South Cottonwood, Sage Hen Gulch, and West Flat Top. Shawn Conner and Nathan Seward seeded disturbed areas shortly after construction.

(12)

1 Table 2. Quantity and Types of New Structures built on Priority Sites during 2014-2016 relative to Total Structures Built over the five years (2012-2016).

Site/

Manager Chance Gulch

Kezar Basin

Redden Ranch at West

Flat Top Mountain Sage Hen Gulch

South Cottonwood at Flat Top Mountain West Flat Top Mountain at Henkel Road Wolf Creek Yogi at West Flat Top Mountain Structures BLM Private State Habitat

Area Private BLM Private USFS BLM

Private State Habitat

Area Private USFS USFS BLM

Private State Habitat Area USFS Contour Swale 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Ditch Bank Berm 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Drift Fence 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 Filter Dam 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Flow Splitter 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Lay Back 0 1 0 2 0 1 5 0 0 1 11 2 2 2

Log and Fabric 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Low Water

Crossing 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

Media Luna 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 3 3 4 0

One Rock Dam 66 78 0 17 57 9 53 0 28 38 111 41 48 4

(13)

11 Site/

Manager Chance Gulch

Kezar Basin

Redden Ranch at West

Flat Top Mountain Sage Hen Gulch

South Cottonwood at Flat Top Mountain West Flat Top Mountain at Henkel Road Wolf Creek Yogi at West Flat Top Mountain Spread Rock Baffle 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 4 1 0 0 Rock Mulch 6 6 0 7 2 0 25 0 8 2 14 1 2 0 Rock Rundown 33 30 0 7 15 8 54 0 9 36 87 6 13 0 Sod Plugs 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 Steel Dam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Water Bar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Worm Ditch 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 Zuni Bowl 4 12 0 2 4 2 8 0 0 0 16 3 1 0 TOTAL 2012-2016 120 130 16 38 80 23 155 2 50 88 258 59 77 6 1112 TOTAL 2014-2016 120 130 13 38 25 23 155 2 50 88 173 15 17 6 865

(14)

12 Table 3. Quantity and Types of Maintained Structures on Priority Sites during the 2015-2016 Field Seasons.

Site Chance Gulch Kezar

Basin

Redden Ranch at West Flat Top Mountain

Sage Hen Gulch South Cottonwood at Flat Top Mountain West Flat Top Mountain at Henkel Road Wolf Creek Yogi at West Flat Top Mountain Structure BLM Private Private State Habitat

Area Private BLM Private USFS BLM

Private State Habitat

Area Private USFS USFS BLM

Private State Habitat Area USFS Flow Splitter 1 Media Luna 1 2 One Rock Dam 5 28 18 12 11 Rock Baffle 1 Rock Rundown 1 5 9 3 Steel Dam 2 Zuni Bowl 1 1 Total Total 2012-2016 0 0 6 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 29 15 17 0 101 Total 2014-2016 0 0 6 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 14 0 83

(15)

13

Rock and Delivery: Shawn Conner, BIO-Logic, Inc., estimated and documented amounts of rock needed for priority sites, working with Bill Zeedyk, Nate Seward, Matt Vasquez and Andrew Breibart. TNC worked with Gunnison Gravel and Earthmoving to supply and deliver the rock to the priority 2016 sites. Rock was delivered in late September to Dutch Gulch in preparation for 2017 work. Table 4 is a summary of rock amounts by cubic yards and tons by site (data are provided as an example of annual rock supplies needed for this project).

Table 4. Amount of rock purchased and delivered to the 2016-2017 priority sites.

Tons Cubic Yards Site

20.8 16 rip rap mix (6-18 in) Graflin Gulch (Lypps-Ballantyne SHA) 2.6 2 (<1.5 in shot granite fines) Graflin Gulch (Lypps-Ballantyne SHA) 58.5 45 (6-18 in) West Flat Top-Henkel Road USFS 29.9 23 (6-18 in) Redden Ranch BLM and Private 62.4 48 (6-18 in) South Cottonwood Private 46.8 36 (6-18 in) Dutch Gulch State Wildlife Area

221 170 Total (note: conversion rate for rock is 1.3 tons=1 cu yd.)

3. Monitor Ecological Response to the Restoration Structures:

Vegetation Monitoring: The team’s working definition of success for this wet meadow and riparian restoration/resilience building project includes: 1) a demonstrable increase in the capacity of treated systems to absorb changes and maintain hydrologic and ecological function; 2)

documented response to determine if the treatments are being effective at increasing resilience in the face of drought and intense runoff events.

The monitoring program is intended to document response and ecological effectiveness of the treatments and emphasizes cost-effective methods which can easily be replicated in other areas. The primary metric used to document ecological response is cover of wetland and riparian plant species in the wet meadow and riparian habitats, because plant species are a good proxy for soil moisture and provide insect habitat and cover that sage-grouse require.

Vegetation monitoring objectives are to: 1) increase the average cover of native sedges, rushes, willows, and wetland forbs in the restored portion of the treated sites by at least 20% within five years after treatment; and 2) decrease the average cover of rabbitbrush, sagebrush, and other upland species in the restored portion of treated sites within five years after treatment. Ecologists Renée Rondeau, CNHP, Gay Austin, BLM, and Suzie Parker, USFS, used the line-point intercept method and repeat photography to monitor vegetation response. They established a total of 192 transects (154 in treated stream reaches plus 49 controls) and 543 photo points on 12 stream reaches at eight priority sites. The methods are consistent with the monitoring guidelines as outlined in Zeedyk and Clothier (2014). See Appendices D-E for details.

(16)

14

Monitoring Other Ecological Responses:

The rigorous monitoring program set up from the beginning with this project has branched into many opportunities for ecological restoration monitoring and has set a sound example for other projects to follow this template.

A Western State Colorado University (WSCU) graduate student study documented higher abundance and diversity of arthropods (primarily insects, spiders and centipedes) in treated sites vs. untreated sites (Rowland, 2016). This is important because insects are a key food source of sage-grouse chicks, and it shows that these treatments have multiple ecological benefits.

Nathan Seward, CPW, installed remote motion-activated cameras in 2016 in treated and untreated reaches at four sites to monitor Gunnison sage-grouse and other wildlife use (Seward, 2016). A graduate student at Western State is currently analyzing the data. Preliminary results indicate that sage-grouse are using the treated areas, but it is still too early to make conclusions. See Figure 3 below.

Other monitoring efforts resulting from the project include investigations related to increased biomass production, water table monitoring and soil moisture monitoring. Team members Andrew Breibart, BLM hydrologist, Liz With, NRCS and other soil scientists established

monitoring programs of the water table/soil moisture at selected sites. They installed piezometers, continuous water level loggers, and/or soil probes at Wolf Creek, Sapinero Mesa, Kezar Basin, and Chance and Sage Hen Gulches (results are not yet available). BLM began monitoring the water table in three priority watersheds in the fall of 2015 with the installation of Onset Hobo water levels, used to collect data every six hours. By November 2020, BLM expects to have a robust dataset to analyze the effects. Three sites will have pre-project data, including two years in Sapinero Mesa, planned for 2017. Other sites include public and private lands in Wolf Creek and public lands in Chance Gulch. Within Wolf Creek, the BLM installed eight sensors at three sites on public and private lands. The sensors were placed on a horizontal gradient from the stream channel. Within Chance Gulch, two sensors were installed including one, which caught a high intensity short duration rain event in August 2016. Two sensors were also installed in Sapinero Mesa.

(17)

15 Figure 3. Three Gunnison sage-grouse hens captured on camera on July 16, 2016 in a wet meadow treated with plug and spread structures in Kezar Basin (Photo by Nathan Seward, CPW).

4. Share Best Practices and Lessons Learned to Increase Restoration across the Gunnison Basin and across Western Colorado:

Throughout this project, team members have shared best practices and lessons learned from this project to a wide variety of audiences through presentations, field tours, lecture trainings, and hands-on trainings. The team completed the following activities to build capacity and increase restoration across the region:

Presentations: Team members made multiple presentations to agency partners and/or at

conferences, i.e., Biennial Society of Wetlands Conference-Rocky Mountain Chapter, Colorado State University (CSU), Colorado Chapter of The Wildlife Society, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Gunnison Basin Gunnison sage-grouse Strategic Committee, Gunnison County Stockgrowers’ Association, Fourth Gunnison sage-grouse Summit, IWJV, National Adaptation Forum, NRCS, New Mexico Wetlands Roundtable, Quivira Coalition, NOAA, SGI, Society for Ecological Restoration (Central Rockies Chapter) and High Altitude Restoration, Sustainable Watersheds Conference, Tamarisk Coalition Conference, Upper Gunnison River Water

Conservancy District (UGRWCD), US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 13th Biennial Conference: Science and Management of the Colorado Plateau, WSCU, TNC, and Western Slope Native Plant Committee in Grand Junction.

(18)

16

Field Tours: The team organized special field tours for federal and state agencies and universities, including CSU’s Center for Collaborative Conservation graduate class, National Fish and

Wildlife Foundation, TNC’s State Director and staff, GCD, UGRWCD Board, multiple WSCU undergraduate and Masters of Environmental Management graduate classes, and regulators with the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Restoration Training and Sharing Best Practices: The team conducted hands-on training for many groups, including BLM, Colorado Mountain College, Colorado Division of Water Resources, CPW, CSU, Gunnison Basin Gunnison sage-grouse Strategic Committee members, GCD, Gunnison High School, IWJV, San Miguel Conservation District, Delta Conservation District staff and land managers, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, NRCS, ranchers and

landowners, San Miguel Gunnison sage-grouse Working Group, Crawford Gunnison sage-grouse Working Group, UGRWCD, US Army Corps of Engineers, USFS, WCCC, and WSCU. In addition, restoration experts conducted separate technical trainings for the San Miguel Gunnison sage-grouse working group and CPW assisted with designing treatments for the Crawford Gunnison sage-grouse working group. Team members shared restoration techniques, budgets, lessons learned and best practices with organizations and agencies interested in replicating the techniques in other areas, e.g., USFWS, IWJV, NRCS, etc.

Volunteer Events: Volunteer events provided an excellent opportunity for sharing and teaching a wide range of people the restoration techniques and the importance of preparing for change. The team hired Wildlands Restoration Volunteers (WRV) to help organize an annual multi-day volunteer event to build rock structures in early September for the past three years (2014-2016). WRV organized crew leader and technical training for prospective crew leaders and restoration experts provided hands-on training for all volunteers. Bill Zeedyk, Shawn Conner, Nathan Seward, Clayton BonDurant, and Matt Vasquez provided technical training and oversight to the volunteers. Nathan Seward, CPW, provided the Miller Ranch State Wildlife Area for the WRV volunteer camping and barbecue.

Most of the volunteers were students from WSCU and Gunnison High School, but volunteers also came from the BLM, BIO-Logic, BLM, Colorado Mountain College (CMC), CPW, the Front Range, UGRWCD, High Country Conservation Alliance, San Miguel Basin Gunnison sage-grouse Working Group, USFS, Wildlife Society (Student Chapter), WRV, community members and others. The National Park Service (NPS) and USFS provided UTVs to move rock within sites during the volunteer events.

The number of volunteers participating in the WRV events increased from 83 in 2014 to 144 in 2016. Total volunteer hours nearly doubled from 1,247 to 2,088 from 2014 to 2016. The number of local volunteers more than doubled in 2016 (120) as compared to previous years (54, 56). See Table 5 below for details.

In addition to the WRV events, partners organized several other volunteer events to build rock structures. For example, BLM hosted several Public Lands Day Events with WSCU Masters in Environmental Management (MEM) Restoration Ecology Classes to build and maintain

(19)

17

structures built in previous years. The CPW organized several volunteer days with WSCU’s Student Chapter of the Wildlife Society, WSCU classes and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. These volunteer events provided terrific opportunities for learning and community service for students and community members.

Table 5. Number of volunteers, crew leaders trained, total volunteer hours, value of volunteer time and number of local vs. Front Range volunteers at the WRV volunteer event. D=Day, Vol=Volunteers

Yea r # Unique Volunteer s Number of Volunteers per Day # Crew Leaders trained Total Vol Hrs Value of Volunteer Time Gunnison Volunteers : WSCU and GHS Students Front Range Volunteer s D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 D 5 2014 83 36 18 34 30 26 6 1247 $29,379 54 29 2015 76 26 38 38 23 4 1353 $31,877 56 20 2016 144 68 80 67 46 7 2088 $49,193 120 24

(20)

18

DELIVERABLES

1. Prioritized List and Map of Sites Needing Restoration to Benefit the Gunnison sage-grouse:

TNC’s GIS manager Teresa Chapman completed the climate-informed GIS site selection analysis to identify and prioritize stream reaches for future restoration work. The revised analysis indicates that 765 acres of riparian vegetation along 272 stream miles in 32 sub-watersheds would benefit from these restoration techniques. See Table 6 for a summary of priority stream reaches identified through this analysis with current priority sites indicated by shading. See Appendix A for details and Figure 4 for a map of high priority stream reaches including current sites and identified priority sites for future treatment. These results are a starting point for prioritization -- field assessment is needed to narrow down the priority stream reaches and restoration needs.

Table 6. Summary of Priority Stream Reaches in the Gunnison Basin by Sub-watershed. An estimated 765 acres of riparian habitat within 32 sub-watersheds would benefit from the restoration techniques. Shaded sub-watersheds contain priority sites treated during 2012-2016.

Sub-watershed Name Number of Priority Stream Reaches Average Restoration Potential Index Riparian Condition Index Average Number of Leks within 2

Miles Riparian Acres Stream Miles

1 140200030506 5 85 17 1.0 10.7 3.4

2 Alder Creek 8 92 9 1.9 3.9 3.1

3 Alkali Creek 21 93 10 1.0 16.0 8.0

4 Antelope Creek 24 92 12 1.5 50.2 9.4

5 Archuleta Creek 8 87 14 1.0 11.0 3.7

6 Barret Creek-Tomichi Creek 33 87 14 1.1 50.2 19.0

7 Cabin Creek 1 98 0 1.0 1.3 0.9

8 Chance Gulch-Tomichi Creek 11 93 14 2.0 8.3 6.0

9 Goose Creek-Cebolla Creek 1 75 0 3.0 1.6 0.6

10 Headwaters Razor Creek 2 100 0 1.0 1.4 3.3

11 Headwaters Willow Creek 8 94 10 1.0 13.5 5.3

12 Hot Springs Creek 17 89 13 2.2 21.3 11.0

13 Long Gulch 30 95 10 2.5 30.9 13.1

14 Long Gulch-South Beaver Creek 11 88 13 1.8 21.3 7.3

15 Lower East River 11 90 13 1.3 7.5 4.6

16 Lower Ohio Creek 79 93 10 6.5 100.7 37.2

17 Lower Quartz Creek 6 91 15 1.5 8.3 2.4

18 Lower Taylor River 5 85 16 1.0 2.6 1.8

19 Middle Ohio Creek 29 99 2 4.4 24.8 17.1

20 Mill Creek 1 95 0 1.0 0.5 0.4

21 Outlet Cebolla Creek 7 83 16 1.0 13.1 3.9

22 Outlet Cochetopa Creek 37 92 12 1.6 32.0 14.2

(21)

19 Table 6. Continued. Sub-watershed Name Number of Priority Stream Reaches Average Restoration Potential Index Riparian Condition Index Average Number of Leks within 2

Miles Riparian Acres Stream Miles

24 Outlet Razor Creek 19 90 13 1.4 46.8 7.7

25 Pine Creek Mesa-Blue Mesa Reservoir 9 94 7 1.3 16.9 3.4

26 Sewell Gulch-Tomichi Creek 11 95 10 1.6 7.6 5.6

27 Sheep Gulch-Gunnison River 52 87 14 2.3 48.5 28.4

28 Steers Gulch-Gunnison River 6 91 13 1.7 15.9 4.4

29 Stubbs Gulch 11 95 8 1.0 25.0 6.2

30 Sugar Creek-Willow Creek 10 86 11 1.3 46.7 6.0

31 Willow Creek-Blue Mesa Reservoir 23 96 5 2.1 61.4 13.0

(22)

20 Figure 4. Map of high priority stream reaches in the Gunnison Basin based on the GIS analysis with overlay of priority catchments treated with restoration structures from 2012-2016 and potential catchments under current review for upcoming seasons. The stream reaches (red) have high potential to benefit from restoration techniques and increase resilience to the impacts of climate change. Field verification of other priority catchments is needed to confirm specific needs and restoration

(23)

21 2. Short Descriptions of Priority Sites Treated, with Restoration Need, Objectives and

Treatments.

a. Chance Gulch: This area is in the south-central region of the Gunnison Basin and combines a section of private lands managed by CPW for Gunnison sage-grouse (Ballantyne State Habitat Area) and BLM managed public lands on either end. Being able to restore entire reaches across land management boundaries is particularly important when treating riparian areas. Working with CPW and the private landowner, TNC secured approval and a

landowner agreement to enable treating this entire reach.

Restoration need: This stream reach is degraded, with frequent and expanding head cuts, old roadways trapping stream flow and runoff, and increased incision of the stream channel. These factors are causing significant decline of traditional wet meadow habitats that are critical for brood rearing success for the Gunnison sage-grouse.

Objectives: The objectives for restoration in this area were to restore proper functioning hydrology of the stream reach and its associated wet meadow habitats. To achieve this, team members intended to stop or stabilize advancing head cuts and other erosional features, utilize grade control structures to curb increased channel incision, and spread stream flows and surface runoff across a wider area.

Treatments: Typical treatments used in this area included headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs) grade control structures (one rock dams and rock mulches), and flow dispersal structures (media lunas, sod dams, worm ditches and a low water armored rocked road crossing). In addition to these treatments, the access road up Chance Gulch was re-graded by BLM to include water harvesting techniques that will enhance the riparian zone. In lower reaches, plug and spread techniques were used to expand existing mesic meadow surfaces. See Appendix B.

b. Flat Top Mountain: The area known as Flat Top Mountain is in the north-central part of the Gunnison Basin and is comprised of mostly public lands managed by the USFS. Restoration activities in this area are in two locations: off Henkel Road, and the Exclosure (Appendix A). The Henkel Road area of West Flat Top is a higher elevation site for Gunnison sage-grouse and provides excellent habitat for all life phases of the bird. This area is very important, as it is centered on the largest and most abundant known Gunnison sage-grouse sub-population. The Exclosure is an area that was fenced off from livestock use due to a large historical and expanding headcut.

Restoration need: Riparian systems in these areas on Flat Top Mountain are generally snowmelt driven and show signs of increased degradation from erosion and down cutting. Adjacent and formerly wet meadow habitats are drying out resulting from the incised stream channels and a subsequent dropping water table. The large historical headcut in the

(24)

22 Objectives: The restoration objectives in these areas were to restore a properly functioning hydrology of the drainage network by reconnecting the channel with the floodplain, eliminating negative effects of livestock and wildlife trailing, curbing increased channel incision and halting advancing head cuts, spreading surface water flows out across meadow surfaces, and improving water storage and ground water recharge capabilities of alluvial fans.

Treatments: Treatment types used in these areas included grade control structures (one rock dams), headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs and log and fabric structures) and flow dispersal structures (media lunas, rock baffles, worm ditches, rock mulches, drift fences and filter dams). See map in Appendix B.

c. Kezar Basin: This area lies in the southwest corner of the Gunnison Basin, south of Blue Mesa Reservoir. Treatment efforts here were centered on privately owned ranchlands within a large area of BLM managed public lands. The area is remote, provides excellent habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse, and is also a critical over-wintering area for deer and elk herds.

Restoration need: Riparian areas in the Kezar Basin are degraded, and show signs of

increasing channel incision and subsequent loss of adjacent wet and mesic meadow habitats. This area has generally wider and less steep valley bottoms than many adjacent areas. Compaction from livestock and extensive wildlife trailing is also a prominent problem in this area. These trails capture stream flows and runoff and create gullies over time which drains surrounding wet meadow areas and converts them to upland communities. The trails prevent the movement of water out into the surrounding banks through capillary action.

Objectives: The objectives of the project in this area were to manually restore stream flows onto adjacent wet and mesic meadow habitats, stop increased incision and active gully expansion, and create barriers for trailing ungulates to reduce destructive trailing in riparian zones.

Treatments: Treatment types used in the Kezar Basin (Appendix B) included plug and spread treatments, contour swales, and drift-fences. For plug and spread treatments, compacted soil plugs were installed within incised drainages, and outfalls were designed to spread flows evenly across formerly wet adjacent meadow surfaces. Contour swales were used to recollect surface flows and redistribute runoff evenly over meadow surfaces. Drift fence segments were installed perpendicularly to the stream channel in specifically designed locations to reduce and eventually eliminate the negative erosional and soil compaction effects of livestock and wildlife trailing. The fences prevent the trailing and the season freeze/thaw breaks up the compaction, allowing the water to move farther out into the banks.

d. Redden Ranch: This area is in the north central part of the Gunnison Basin, and represents an area where restoration treatment efforts started in 2012 and have continued through the life of the project. The area spans public lands managed by the USFS, continues down on and through private ranchland and terminates on a section of public lands managed by the BLM. This area is a classic example of the most effective riparian restoration approach of

(25)

23

collaboration among multiple land ownerships and restoring an entire stream reach across jurisdictional boundaries.

Restoration need: The upper section of this reach on USFS managed public lands begins at the top of a large alluvial fan, and the main channel has become moderately incised and was bypassing the historical alluvial fan. The team wanted to slow this water down to recharge the fan to enable longer base flows in the system. Further down the channel, the area is degraded with frequent and expanding head cuts, and increased incision of the stream channel. The channel incision and lowered water table were leading to significant drying of wet meadow and mesic habitats, desiccation of existing willow patches, and exacerbating the negative effects of a flashy runoff.

Objectives: The objectives for restoration in this area were to restore proper functioning hydrology of the stream reach and its associated wet meadow and mesic habitats. To achieve this, team members intended recharge historical water storage capabilities of alluvial fans, to stop or stabilize advancing head cuts and other erosional features, utilize grade control structures to curb increased channel incision, and spread stream flows and surface runoff across a wider area.

Treatments: Typical treatments used in this area included headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs) grade control structures (one rock dams and rock mulches), and flow dispersal structures (rock baffles, plug and spreads, and contour swales). See Appendix B.

e. Sage Hen Gulch: This area is in the south-central region of the Gunnison Basin with its headwaters on a parcel of private lands (Lypps-Ballantyne State Habitat Area) and the majority on BLM managed public lands. Working with CPW, NRCS and the private landowner, TNC secured approval and a landowner agreement to enable treating this entire reach.

Restoration need: This stream reach is largely intact and functioning in the upper section, however significant livestock and elk trailing are channelizing flows and forming gullies between mesic patches. Further down valley, the area is degraded with frequent and expanding head cuts, historical roadways trapping stream flow and runoff, and increased incision of the stream channel. Current BLM road alignment within the mesic meadow prevents this area from reaching its full potential until BLM has the capacity to move the road into the sagebrush. These factors are causing significant drying of former wet meadow and mesic habitats.

Objectives: The objectives for restoration in this area were to restore proper functioning hydrology of the stream reach and its associated wet meadow and mesic habitats. To achieve this, team members intended to stop or stabilize advancing head cuts and other erosional features, utilize grade control structures to curb increased channel incision, modify livestock

(26)

24

movement patterns to reduce compacted trailing effects and spread stream flows and surface runoff across a wider area.

Treatments: Typical treatments used in this area included headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs) grade control structures (one rock dams and rock mulches), and flow dispersal structures (media lunas, worm ditches plug and spreads, and low water armored rocked road crossing). In addition to these treatments, the access road up Sage Hen Gulch was re-graded by BLM to include water harvesting techniques that will enhance the riparian zone. Drift fences were installed to modify livestock movement patterns and reduce trailing in key areas. See Appendix B.

f. South Cottonwood and Yogi: The area known as South Cottonwood and Yogi are on the southwestern flanks Flat Top Mountain and are in the north-central part of the Gunnison Basin. This area is comprised of both USFS managed public lands and continues onto private ranchlands. The headwaters of this area are high on the mountain at the aspen/sagebrush interface and the treated project area runs all the way down the mountain ending in private ranchlands near the base of the mountain in a critical area for the grouse, as it is near some of the largest and densely attended leks in the Basin. These areas are also critical for wintering elk and deer herds in the area.

Restoration need: Riparian systems in these areas on Flat Top Mountain are generally snowmelt driven and show signs of increased degradation from erosion and down cutting. Adjacent and formerly wet meadow habitats are drying out resulting from the incised stream channels and a subsequent dropping water table. Historical roads and closed routes are trapping and channelizing runoff.

Objectives: The restoration objectives in these areas were to restore a properly functioning hydrology of the drainage network by reconnecting the channel with the floodplain, reducing negative effects of old roads trapping runoff, curbing increased channel incision, spreading surface water flows out across meadow surfaces, and improving water storage and ground water recharge capabilities of existing wet and mesic sites. Improving and restoring willow stands and other important vegetation for wintering big game herds was another objective of this area.

Treatments: Treatment types used in these areas included grade control structures (one rock dams, rock mulches), headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs) and flow dispersal structures (plug and spreads, rock baffles, water bars, and filter dams). A closed route and former road were also ripped to reduce compaction, and water bars were added to utilize runoff off the former road surface and eliminate further erosion of the former roadway surface See map in Appendix B.

g. Wolf Creek: This area is in the southwestern section of the Basin, and is comprised of BLM managed public lands as well as private lands under conservation easement to benefit Gunnison sage-grouse (Kaichen State Habitat Area),Working with CPW and the private landowner, TNC secured approval and a landowner agreement to enable treating multiple

(27)

25

areas along privately owned sections of this area. Hydrology of the drainages in the upper sections in this area are ephemeral, snow and storm driven systems, while lower sections are perennial spring fed areas with significant wet meadow resources.

Restoration need: The upper reaches of ephemeral stream areas of Wolf Creek show signs of increased degradation from erosion and down cutting. Adjacent and formerly wet meadow and mesic habitats are drying out resulting from the incised stream channels and a subsequent dropping water table. Lower down within perennial spring fed areas, erosion and

channelization has led to significant drying out of former wet meadow and slope wetland habitats. Ranch roads crossing wet meadows negatively impacted historical sheet flow across meadow surfaces, and has led to their degradation by trapping and channelizing runoff. Upstream stock ponds also greatly reduce peak runoff and trap sediments needed for filling in incised and eroded areas on the West Fork of Wolf Creek.

Objectives: The restoration objectives in these areas were to restore a properly functioning hydrology of the drainage network by reconnecting the channel with the floodplain, eliminating negative effects of roads trapping runoff, curbing increased channel incision, spreading surface water flows out across meadow surfaces, and improving water storage and ground water recharge capabilities of existing wet and mesic sites. Lower Wolf Creek has a monoculture of non-native smooth brome grass, which doesn’t provide good brood-rearing habitat; the objective was to convert the smooth brome to native wetland and riparian vegetation and to support a diversity and abundance of insects.

Treatments: Treatment types used in these areas included grade control structures (one rock dams, rock mulches), headcut control structures (Zuni bowls, rock rundowns, lay backs) and flow dispersal structures (media lunas, worm ditches, rock baffles, armored low water crossings). Abandoning former road routes through wet meadows and relocating them into the uplands was another technique used in this area. See map in Appendix B.

3. Summary of Stream Miles Treated and Area Influenced by the Restoration Work:

Table 7 below provides a summary of acres treated, stream miles and enhanced acres over the life of this project (2012-2016) to date. The team treated a total of approximately 143 acres

(including both new treatments and maintenance) on both private and public lands on 12 stream reaches along 21 stream miles within eight priority watersheds across a range of elevation, watershed size, floodplain width and water sources in the Gunnison Basin.

Wildlife experts estimate that the Gunnison sage-grouse utilize the wet meadow-sagebrush interface within 50 meters of riparian habitat for brood rearing (Nathan Seward, CWP, personal communication). The enhanced acres of sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat were delineated by buffering the channel by 50 meters. Based on this analysis, this project has benefited

(28)

26

enhanced winter range for mule deer and elk, and has improved the resilience of key watering and foraging sites for regional livestock producers.

Table 8 provides a summary of new acres treated, stream miles and enhanced acres by site. Because we reworked several stream reaches to increase and enhance treatment effectiveness; thus, these numbers are not broken out by year. Please note that wet meadows vary in topography and size, and the area restored is likely to increase as the structures store more water over time.

Table 7. Total wet meadow and riparian stream miles and acres treated, including acres of enhanced Gunnison sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat across all priority sites including new structures and modified/maintained structures.

Years Restoration Stream Miles Riparian & Wet Meadow Acres Riparian and Wet Meadow Acres Buffered (50m)

2012-2016 New 15.8 107.9 773.5

2012-2016 Maintained 4.8 35.5 245.0

(29)

27 Table 8. Summary of stream miles, acres restored and acres enhanced of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat by the restoration treatments in the Upper Gunnison Basin from 2012-2016. This table does not include the maintained stream miles and acres restored or enhanced.

Site Stream

Miles

Riparian & Wet Meadow Acres

Riparian Acres Buffered by 50m

Chance Gulch BLM 2.23 17.5 107.30

Chance Gulch Private 0.18 1.17 7.77

Chance Gulch Private State Habitat Area 0.63 3.18 33.91

Kezar Basin BLM 0.04 0.09 1.73

Kezar Basin Private 0.94 6.11 50.83

Redden Ranch at West Flat Top Mountain BLM 0.29 2.08 8.66 Redden Ranch at West Flat Top Mountain Private 0.02 0.38 0.56 Redden Ranch at West Flat Top Mountain Private (w/

Protection) 0.56 3.04 25.46

Redden Ranch at West Flat Top Mountain USFS 0.22 0.6 10.27

Sage Hen Gulch BLM 2.34 12.3 106.78

Sage Hen Gulch Private State Habitat Area 0.18 0.55 8.84 South Cottonwood at Flat Top Mountain Private (w/

Protection) 0.48 2.84 27.10

South Cottonwood at Flat Top Mountain USFS 1.60 6.2 71.92 West Flat Top Mountain at Henkel Road USFS 2.82 24.2 140.07

Wolf Creek BLM 1.29 12 68.51

Wolf Creek Private State Habitat Area 1.85 12.6 86.97

Yogi at West Flat Top Mountain USFS 0.20 3.06 16.86

(30)

28 4. Results and Interpretation of Vegetation Monitoring:

Renée Rondeau, CNHP, Suzie Parker, USFS, and Gay Austin, BLM, completed the vegetation monitoring report summarizing five years of data collection (see Appendices D-E). Data analysis was conducted on sites with at least two years of data. To assess meeting the management objectives, the team pooled all wetland species and graphed differences in cover between years. At least three years of post-treatment are needed to detect vegetation response. The increase in wetland species cover varied by reach and the number of growing seasons post treatment and ranged from 0-245%. The team categorized the response rate into three categories: fast, slow and no response yet.

See Table 9 and Figure 5 below for a summary of wetland species cover change from the year restoration structures were installed (baseline) at all priority sites (except South Cottonwood, which was not monitored). Baseline wetland species cover ranged from 11% to 71% across all the sites. Redden Ranch and Middle Wolf Creek had the lowest percent cover initially at 11% and 13%, and Chance Gulch and West Fork of Wolf Creek had the highest percent cover at 71% and 68%. The largest percent change in wetland plant species cover was at Redden Ranch (336%) and Middle Wolf Creek (154%), both ephemeral reaches.

Management objectives are being met but at different rates of response across sites. The increase in wetland species cover varied by reach and the number of growing seasons post treatment. Several factors may be influencing this, e.g., differences in flow rates, floodplain width, geology, snowmelt and/or precipitation during storm events. Further study is needed to understand the importance of these variables. In addition, other metrics, aside from wetland plant species cover, are changing, e.g., sediment is building and raising the stream bed, reducing down-cutting and head cutting.

See Figures 6-7 includes photographs with examples of fast and slow responses to structures at Wolf Creek and West Flat Top Mountain. See Appendix E for pre-and-post restoration treatment photographs of structures at West Flat Top Mountain by Matt Vasquez, USFS.

(31)

29 Table 9. Wetland species cover response rates grouped into fast, slow and no response yet categories for priority sites and stream reaches (from Rondeau, Austin and Parker 2016).

Site/Stream

Reach Wetland Species Cover Increase Number of Years Post Treatment General Characteristics/Comments Fast Response

Wolf Creek-East

Fork Media Lunas 220% 4 Perennial water from spring; wide flood plain with approximately 25% of floodplain occupied by wetlands prior to treatment

Redden 245% 4 Ephemeral; snow melt and storm events

are primary water source; medium wide floodplain; sediment source upstream Wolf

Creek-Middle Fork 37% 4 Ephemeral; snow melt and storm events are primary water source; narrow floodplain

Wolf Creek-Upper

and Lower 37% 3 Perennial water from spring; wide floodplain with approximately 25% of floodplain occupied by wetlands prior to treatment

Kezar Basin 27% 2 Perennial water from springs; wide

floodplain with approximately 25% of floodplain occupied by wetlands prior to treatment

Slow Response Wolf Creek-East

Fork above Media Lunas

28% 4 Mixed water source with some perennial, snow melt and storm events; narrow to medium flood plain width

Flat Top-Henkel

Road 24% 3 Ephemeral snow melt and storm events are primary water source; narrow to moderately wide floodplain

No Response Yet

Flat Top-Exclosure 6% 3 Ephemeral; snow melt and snow events; preventing the migration of a large headcut was the primary goal Flat Top-Above

Exclosure 0% 2 Repeat photos show that sediment is building and we expect to see a positive response next year

Above Redden 0% 2 Purpose was to provide additional ground water to meadow below (not to increase wetland plant cover)

Wolf Creek-West

Fork 5% 3 Multiple upstream ponds capture snow melt, water from storm events and sediment; low water crossing has been problematic

(32)

30 Figure 5. Percent change in wetland species cover for reaches with four years (top) and three years (bottom) after structures were built. Blue bars represent treated areas and orange bars represent controls (untreated areas).

(33)

31 Figure 6. The Wolf Creek East Fork site showed fast response to media lunas. Wetland area increased from approximately 25% of the floodplain in 2012 and 80% in 2016. Wetland species cover increased by 220% over 4 years.

Figure 7. West Flat Top Exclosure showed slow to no response to a log-fabric structure to treat a deep head cut three years after construction in 2013. Wetland plant cover only increased by 6%, but the head cut is not moving upstream and gully is filling with sediment.

(34)

32 5. Summary of Best Practices and Lessons Learned:

Best Practices:

1. Conduct a climate-informed site selection analysis to help prioritize streams that would benefit from these restoration techniques. Hold a meeting with wildlife biologists, hydrologists,

ecologists and restoration experts to review and narrow down the list of sites, incorporating local knowledge. The results provide a starting point for field evaluation to further prioritize stream reaches for on-the-ground treatment.

2. Develop and maintain a workplan for priority sites, e.g., a table including team lead, team members for each project, restoration contractor, clear roles and responsibilities, timeline, tasks, and permits needed, etc.

3. Restoration experts are needed to evaluate sites, assess restoration needs, design treatments and train and provide technical oversight of field crews and volunteers in building structures. When working with youth field crews, it is important to emphasize the importance of developing skill sets, e.g., leadership, land management, restoration, being an outdoor steward, instill a work ethic, and be positive.

4. Design all treatments prior to arrival of field crews and/or contractors to increase efficiency and effectiveness of installation.

5. Plan, design and build a variety of structures tailored to the restoration needs and objectives. 6. Consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and US Army Corps of Engineers (environmental

consulting firms can assist with this) to determine permits needed well in advance of project implementation. Complete necessary wetland delineations and permit applications per agency requirements, as well as agreements with private landowners/ranchers.

7. Revisit/monitor treated sites to determine needs for modification and/or expansion early in the season. These projects require repeated visits to treated stream reaches to monitor effectiveness, identify maintenance needs, and additional layers to ensure long-term successful response. 8. Vegetation monitoring is critical to evaluate progress and to document ecological response to the

restoration practices. A picture “can say a thousand words” and before-and-after photographs can quickly convey the effectiveness of treatments.

9. Transect data and repeat photographs should continue for a minimum of five years on any given treated reach. Control sites/transects are exceedingly hard to find, thus we recommend that the established control transects be considered permanent and no structures built on them during the next five years. Without these controls, it is very difficult to detect and document the

effectiveness of the structures.

10. Purchase and transport rock to sites to avoid overuse of local rock and disturbing nearby sagebrush and roosting habitat, if treating wet meadows within Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. 11. Recruit and train local private contractors to build structures to enable private landowners to

implement restoration work on their lands.

12. Coordinate closely with graduate students and professors on research projects regarding access to restoration sites, objectives, methods and outcomes to ensure success.

(35)

33

Lessons Learned:

It will take many years to re-build resilience of wet meadows and riparian areas at a landscape scale across the Gunnison Basin and the region, as there are many drainages that would benefit from this work. Restoration is an ongoing task, given that heavy precipitation and/or spring snowmelt events often result in increased stream channel erosion and gullies.

Lessons learned from this project are: 1) collaboration and partner engagement are key, particularly when working across property boundaries on watershed level restoration projects; 2) technical

training and building local capacity can help ensure long-term engagement and success; 3) restoration treatments need technical planning, design and oversight during installation by restoration experts to ensure quality and effectiveness; 4) establishing credibility and trust with local landowners is essential; 5) at least three to five years of vegetation monitoring is needed to document trends in short-term response; 6) monitoring, modification and maintenance of existing structures are critical to ensure effectiveness; 7) working at the watershed-scale across land ownership/management

boundaries is important for optimal response; and 8) sharing best practices with managers and landowners across the Basin and beyond takes time but is important for quality work and adoption of methods in new drainages.

FUNDING

Funding from the NRCS supported significant costs of youth field crews for two years and restoration expert contractor for one year. During the 2014-2015 field seasons, TNC hired the WCCC for a total of eight weeks (four weeks/year for 2014-2015) of youth crews to work on both public and private lands as part of this project. The field crews consisted of a crew leader, an assistant crew leader, and eight crew members. Their work included: 1) participating in training on restoration techniques; 2) preparing sites for construction of restoration treatments; 3) staging rock near to structure locations; 4) installation of rock structures; 5) repair and maintenance of rock structures; and 6) post-construction site clean-up. The NRCS funding leveraged additional funding for field crews by the BLM, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), and UGRWCD.

In 2016, the NRCS funding supported restoration expert Shawn Conner, BIO-Logic, Inc., hired on contract by TNC to provide overall technical restoration expertise and design, including: 1) oversight to crews building restoration structures; 2) gathering GPS data on structures; 3) monitoring of structures; 4) identifying rock specifications and delivery details; 5) developing work plans for plug and spread work; 6) seeding new plug and spread structures; and 7) conducting extensive outreach activities.

The NRCS funding was leveraged by hundreds of thousands of dollars from other funders to accomplish restoration over this project period of five years. See acknowledgement section below for a list of other funders.

References

Related documents

When leaders complete Basic Leader Training at (name of council), they are asked to fill out an evaluation on the training. The immediate feedback new leaders give is

from the Blues Brothers Movie Think Big Band Arranged by Philippe Marillia Vocal (Aretha) Aretha F ranklin Ted White Think f.. Think Think Think you think think

The key segments in the mattress industry in India are; Natural latex foam, Memory foam, PU foam, Inner spring and Rubberized coir.. Natural Latex mattresses are

CT Excitation Characteristic 1.4 Voltage developed across CT secondary Another important function of a current transformer is to develop enough voltage to drive required

Driving intentions usually use fuzzy inference model according to the throttle opening and changing rate, speed,. braking signal.Throttle opening and its changing ratecan

The design of the robot controller is based on STM32F103VET6 as the main control chip, the car through the ultrasonic ranging to get the distance of the obstacle

effect of government spending on infrastructure, human resources, and routine expenditures and trade openness on economic growth where the types of government spending are

 HCC is developing in 85% in cirrhosis hepatis Chronic liver damage Hepatocita regeneration Cirrhosis Genetic changes