Two-Mile Meadow Stream and Meadow Restoration

Salmonid Habitat Restoration and Acquisition

Instream Habitat Riparian Habitat Upland Habitat And Sediment Wetland
Project ID013 16 CW
Recovery DomainsInterior Columbia
Start Date06/08/2017
End Date05/31/2021
Year2016
StatusCompleted
Last Edited10/21/2021
 
1 - 1

Description    


The Two Mile Meadow Stream and Meadow Restoration Project is located in Latah County, Idaho along the East Fork of the Potlatch River on federal land managed by the Nez Perce – Clearwater National Forest (USFS). The project was designed and implemented to slow flow, force increased floodplain access, enhance groundwater recharge, prevent introduction of sediment from excessive streambank and bed erosion, promote re-establishment of native riparian vegetation, and return hydrologic function to the riparian and wetland areas on 1.71 mile of the East Fork of the Potlatch River. To meet these goals, in-stream structures were built to shift part of the river flow into the sinuous, narrower, and shallower historic channel in the center of the meadow. Remnants of the historic channel were connected with newly constructed channel elevations and wood structures were installed to create habitat, slow flow, and add channel complexity. Brush fascines and Beaver Dam Analogs were installed and are listed as ‘other engineering structures’ in the final metrics. Pools were both constructed and formed by scour. Spawning gravel excavated from the existing channel was added to the newly constructed channel. Over 30 acres of floodplain were reconnected. Wetland restoration included construction of ditch plugs in the old channel/ditch, followed by seeding and planting. It was anticipated that the ditch plugs would create wetland cells, however, they never did function to create artificial wetland. Berm removal, off-channel habitat construction, and slash placement further enhanced the habitat and stability of the project site. Revegetation efforts, invasive weed control, livestock fencing, and construction of water gaps will contribute to a healthy riparian zone. Acres managed for grazing were proposed but in actuality were the same acres managed by the fence; this has been reported as zero in the actual metrics. The number of water gaps increased from 2 proposed to 5 constructed due to damage done to the fence during the 2019 high flow event; fence sections in cattle watering ramps were replaced with water gaps. A portion of an existing road was treated for erosion control, including planting. Post-project UAS and vegetation monitoring indicate that enhanced floodplain access was achieved, and that the riparian revegetation is responding well. Channel heterogeneity was increased providing improved habitat for fish.



A high flow event in April 2019 resulted in changes in the Phase 2 design to create a multi-channel system as opposed to a single meadow channel. The lower meadow work was removed entirely due to anticipated time and funding deficits. These two major variations to the proposed project account for nearly all differences between proposed and actual metrics. Differences between proposed/completed metrics that are not obvious as a result of these variations are detailed above.



Cost variations are due to increases in available funds from USFS and BPA. PCSRF funds were decreased through two contract amendments.

Project Benefit    


This project will implement four of five priority actions identified in the NMFS October 2016 proposed recovery plan for the Lower Mainstem Clearwater River steelhead population of the Clearwater MPG and Snake River steelhead ESU in a priority watershed. The proposed actions include the following:





1. Restore hydrologic processes to retain surface flow by reducing surface runoff from altered land surfaces, disconnecting artificial drainage systems from natural drainage systems, and modifying water uses. This will contribute to reducing stream temperature problems.





2. Restore channel-forming processes by reestablishing floodplains in incised channels, removing or setting back flood control structures, and rehabilitating stream channels that have been straightened.





3. Reestablish riparian vegetation to improve LWD recruitment and create shade for streams.





4. Reduce fine sediment delivery to streams where it is increased caused by agriculture, road drainage systems (including undersized culverts), or other artificial sources.

Accomplishments

Metric Completed Originally
Proposed
Instream Habitat
  Stream Miles Treated 1.71 2.24
Wetland Habitat
  Acres Created .0 1.6
  Acres Treated 24.4 15.0
Riparian Habitat
  Stream Miles Treated 3.42 4.48
  Acres Treated 8.3 10.9
Upland Habitat
  Acres Treated 3.0 3.3

Funding Details

SourceFunds
PCSRF$253,161
Other$709,097
Report Total:$962,258


Project Map



Worksites

Two Mile Meadow    


  • Worksite Identifier: Two Mile Meadow
  • Start Date: 06/02/2017
  • End Date: 10/31/2020
Area Description
Project named for length of meadow, USFS calls area McGary Meadows, but neither name is used on maps.

Location Information

  • Basin: Clearwater
  • Subbasin:
  • Watershed:
  • Subwatershed:
  • State: Idaho
  • Recovery Domain: Interior Columbia
  • Latitude: 46.80093
  • Longitude: -116.409395

ESU

  • Snake River Basin Steelhead DPS

Map

Photos

Metrics

Metrics
  • C.0 Salmonid Habitat Restoration and AcquisitionY (Y/N)
    •      . . C.0.a Habitat restoration and acquisition funding 962,258.00
    •      . . C.0.b Length of stream treated/protected 1.71
    •      . . C.0.c
      Project identified in a Plan or Watershed Assessment
      NMFS. 2016. Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Snake River Idaho Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Populations.
    •      . . C.0.d.1 Project Monitoring (LOV)
    •      . . C.0.d.2 Monitoring Location (LOV)
    •      . . C.4 Instream Habitat ProjectY (Y/N)
      •      . . . . C.4.a Instream Habitat Funding 587,845.92
      •      . . . . C.4.b Total length of instream habitat treated 1.71
      •      . . . . C.4.c.1 Channel reconfiguration and connectivityY (Y/N)
        •      . . . . . . C.4.c.2 Type of change to channel configuration and connectivity (LOV)
        •      . . . . . . C.4.c.3 Miles of stream treated for channel reconfiguration and connectivity 1.71
        •      . . . . . . C.4.c.4 Miles of off-channel stream created through channel reconfiguration and connectivity .16
        •      . . . . . . C.4.c.5 Acres of off-channel or floodplain connected through channel reconfiguration and connectivity 30.1
        •      . . . . . . C.4.c.6 Instream pools created/added through channel reconfiguration and connectivity 10
      •      . . . . C.4.d.1 Channel structure placementY (Y/N)
        •      . . . . . . C.4.d.2 Material used for channel structure (LOV)
        •      . . . . . . C.4.d.3 Miles of stream treated through channel structure placement 1.71
        •      . . . . . . C.4.d.5 Pools expected to be created through channel structure placement 25
        •      . . . . . . C.4.d.7 Number of structures placed in channel 47
      •      . . . . C.4.f.1 Spawning gravel placementY (Y/N)
        •      . . . . . . C.4.f.2 Miles of stream treated with addition of spawning gravel .24
        •      . . . . . . C.4.f.3 Cubic yards of spawning gravel placed285 (Cubic yards)
      •      . . C.5 Riparian Habitat ProjectY (Y/N)
        •      . . . . C.5.a Riparian Habitat Funding 285,215.00
        •      . . . . C.5.b.1 Total riparian miles streambank treated 3.42
        •      . . . . C.5.b.2 Total Riparian Acres Treated 8.3
        •      . . . . C.5.c.1 Riparian plantingY (Y/N)
          •      . . . . . . C.5.c.2
            Species of plants planted in riparian
            Woody species: Alnus incana, Alnus rubra, Alnus sinuate, Amelanchier alnifolia, Cornus sericea, Crataegus douglasii, Physocarpus capitatus, Populus tremuloides, Populus trichocarpa, Prunus virginiana, Rosa nutkana, Rosa woodsii, Salix bebbiana, Salix drummondiana, Salix exigua, Spirea douglasii, and Symphoricarpos albus. Herbaceous species: Achillea millefolium, Agrostis exarata, Agastache urticifolia, Bessya rubra, Beckmannia syzigachne, Bromus carinatus, Bromus marginatus, Carex amplifolia, Carex angustata, Carex aquatilis, Calamagrostis canadensis, Camassia quamash, Campanula rotundifolia, Carex lenticularis, Carex microptera, Carex nebrascensis, Carex pachystachya, Carex simulata, Carex stipata, Carex utriculata, Carex vesicaria, Collomia grandiflora, Collomia linearis, Danthonia californica, Deschampsia cespitosa, Deschampsia elongata, Elymus glaucus, Eriophyllum lanatum, Erigeron speciosus, Gaillardia aristata, Galium boreale, Gentiana affinis, Glyceria striata, Heracleum maximum, Helianthella uniflora, Hordeum brachyantherum, Iris missouriensis, Juncus balticus, Juncus effusus, Juncus ensifolius, Juncus tenuis, Penstemon attenuatus, Penstemon globosus, Phacelia heterophylla, Potentilla gracilis, Potentilla gracilis var permollis, Prunella vulgaris, Rudbeckia occidentalis, Scirpus microcarpus, Senecio integerrimus, Sidalcea oregana, Solidago canadensis, Solidago missouriensis, Symphyotrichum spathulatum, Thermopsis montana.
          •      . . . . . . C.5.c.3 Acres planted in riparian 8.3
          •      . . . . . . C.5.c.4 Miles of streambank treated with riparian planting 3.42
        •      . . . . C.5.d.1 FencingY (Y/N)
          •      . . . . . . C.5.d.2 Miles of fence along stream 2.38
          •      . . . . . . C.5.d.3 Acres of riparian area protected by fencing 29.4
        •      . . . . C.5.f.1 Water gap developmentY (Y/N)
          •      . . . . . . C.5.f.2 Number of water gap installations 5
        •      . . . . C.5.g.1 Conservation grazing managementY (Y/N)
          •      . . . . . . C.5.g.2 Acres managed for grazing .0
        •      . . . . C.5.h.1 Riparian plant removal/controlY (Y/N)
          •      . . . . . . C.5.h.2
            Species of plants treated/removed in riparian
            Centaurea stoebe, Cynoglossum officinale, Hieracium caespitosum, H. aurantiacum, Leucanthemum vulgare, Potentilla recta
          •      . . . . . . C.5.h.3 Acres of riparian treated for plant removal/control 30.1
        •      . . C.6 Upland Habitat And Sediment ProjectY (Y/N)
          •      . . . . C.6.a Upland Habitat / Sediment Funding 10,000.00
          •      . . . . C.6.b.1 Acres of upland habitat area treated 3.0
          •      . . . . C.6.b.2 Miles of road treated in upland area 1.49
          •      . . . . C.6.c.1 Road drainage system improvements and reconstructionY (Y/N)
            •      . . . . . . C.6.c.2 Miles of road treated for drainage system improvements and reconstruction 1.49
          •      . . . . C.6.d.1 Road closure / abandonmentY (Y/N)
            •      . . . . . . C.6.d.2 Miles of road closed / abandoned .00
          •      . . . . C.6.f.1 Planting for erosion and sediment controlY (Y/N)
            •      . . . . . . C.6.f.2
              Species of plants planted for erosion and sediment control
              Bromus carinatus, Bromus marginatus, Elymus glaucus, Pseudoroegneria spicata inermis, Achillea millefolium, Helianthella uniflora, Symphyotrichum spathulatum
            •      . . . . . . C.6.f.3 Acres planted for erosion and sediment control 3.0
          •      . . C.8 Wetland ProjectY (Y/N)
            •      . . . . C.8.a Wetland funding 79,197.00
            •      . . . . C.8.b Total acres of wetland area treated 24.4
            •      . . . . C.8.c.1 Wetland plantingY (Y/N)
              •      . . . . . . C.8.c.2
                Species of wetland plants planted
                Alnus, Amelanchier, Cornus, Crataegus, Physocarpus, Populus spp, Prunus, Rhamnus, Rosa, Salix spp., Spirea, Symphoricarpos, Agrostis, Agastache, Bessya, Beckmannia, Bromus spp., Carex spp, Calamagrostis,Deschampsia spp.,Elymus,Juncus spp.,Penstemon spp.,
              •      . . . . . . C.8.c.3 Acres of wetland planted 24.4
            •      . . . . C.8.d.1 Wetland plant removal/controlY (Y/N)
              •      . . . . . . C.8.d.2
                Species (scientific) name(s) of wetland plants removed
                Centaurea stoebe, Cynoglossum officinale, Hieracium caespitosum, H. aurantiacum, Leucanthemum vulgare, Potentilla recta; others, as needed.
              •      . . . . . . C.8.d.3 Acres of wetland treated 24.4
            •      . . . . C.8.f.1 Artificial wetland createdY (Y/N)
              •      . . . . . . C.8.f.2 Artificial wetland acres created .0