 |
| Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project |
Idaho County, Idaho |
Primary Project Type: Instream Restoration
Secondary Type: Riparian Restoration |
 |
| |
Looking south at the upstream one-third of the Lower Red River Meadow, including... |
|
|
 |
Primary Problem: Bank Instability, Channel Alteration, Channel Incision, Over-Widened Channel, Sedimentation
Secondary Problem: Change in Land Use |
| Main Restoration Action(s): Channel reconstruction, Floodplain reconnection, Riparian revegetation |
| Native Fish Focus: Bull trout, Chinook salmon, Steelhead |
Is this project part of a watershed scale restoration? No
|
| Project Dates: 1994 to 2004 |
| |
Initial Monitoring: 1994 (pre-restoration, reconnaissance-level monitoring), 1997 (effectiveness monitoring began)
Restoration Implementation: 1996-2001
Follow-up Monitoring: 1997-2004 |
|
Lead Agency:
Idaho County Soil & Water Conservation District (project sponsor)
Bonneville Power Administration (funding agency)
|
| Project Partners: |
|
| Project Location:
The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project is located in north-central Idaho. The initial restoration activities (Phases I-IV) were conducted on acquired private land deeded to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s Red River Wildlife Management Area (RRWMA)near the town of Elk City. The other three parcels located in the meadow are still in private ownership and may be included in future restoration activities. The Lower Red River Meadow is surrounded by Nez Perce National Forest land and situated at an elevation of 4,200 feet. The lower meadow is comprised of four separate land parcels (» 1,300 acres or 526 hectares) and, prior to restoration work, approximately 4.4 miles (7.1 kilometers) of stream channel (LRK Communications et al. 1999),
Click here for a map.
|
| |
Project Description:
The text of this report is adapted from the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Final Project Report – Performance Period 1994-2004 (LRK Communications et al., 2004)
Since the early part of the 20th century, human activities on various geographic scales have had a cumulative impact on the ecology of the Lower Red River Meadow. Construction of reservoirs and hydroelectric dams in the Snake and Columbia River systems downstream has inhibited the migration of anadromous fish species. On a watershed scale, logging, mining, and road-building practices have altered the hydrology, sediment delivery, and water quality characteristics of the Red River. On a local scale, the river channel was straightened and native riparian vegetation eliminated due to dredge mining, or in an attempt to reduce flooding and maximize grazing area throughout the meadow. The river/wet meadow ecosystem responded with decreased channel length and sinuosity, channel downcutting, disconnection from the meadow floodplain and lowered groundwater table, elevated water temperatures, and reduced quantity and diversity of instream fish habitat.
Historically, the Red River supported relatively abundant numbers and diverse populations of
anadromous and resident fish species, including chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), and westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi). Many of the historical fish species are still present in the Red River but are generally found in low numbers. The depressed population levels are due in part to the habitat and water quality degradation in the watershed. |
Project Goals: The project team has established the following Mission Statement:
“This demonstration project is designed as a model to restore the Lower Red River Meadow, using a holistic watershed approach, to a naturally functioning wet meadow ecosystem. The project goals are to increase the quality and quantity of fish and wildlife habitat, improve water quality, and promote watershed restoration education.”
To accomplish this mission, the following general objectives have been defined: (1) Restore natural river channel shape, meander pattern, and substrate conditions to enhance the quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitat for chinook salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, and other species of fish and aquatic organisms. (2) Restore meadow and riparian plant communities to enhance fish and wildlife habitat, stabilize streambanks, and improve water quality. (3) Promote public and agency awareness and scientific knowledge of watershed restoration principles and techniques. (4) Measure and document progress in satisfying short- and long-term project goals, objectives, and outcomes. (5) Manage and communicate project activities. For more info see chapter 3.3 in Biennial Report 1996-1997 [38 KB PDF] (LRK Communications et al. 1999). |
Project Methods:
The text of this report is adapted from the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Final Project Report – Performance Period 1994-2004 (LRK Communications et al., 2004)
The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project (LRRMRP), located in north central Idaho, is a multi-phase ecosystem enhancement endeavor and part of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Initiated in 1994, the LRRMRP is one of Bonneville Power Administration’s (BPA) many efforts at off-site mitigation for damage to salmon and steelhead runs and fish and wildlife habitat caused by the construction and operation of federal hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries.
The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project spans 10 years and is a multi-phase ecosystem enhancement effort that restores natural physical and biological processes and functions to stabilize the stream channel and establish high-quality habitats for fish and wildlife. After the initial two years of pre-restoration data collecting, designing, and planning, the implementation phases began in 1996 on the RRWMA. Restoration of the 1.5 miles of stream on this property was divided into four phases with the intent of completing one phase per year, beginning on the upstream end of the property (Phase I) and finishing on the downstream end (Phase IV). The channel work in Phase IV was completed in 2000. Riparian plantings were completed the following year.
Restoration activities included reconnecting historic meanders, constructing new meanders, reshaping channel cross sections, installing a variety of bioengineered bank treatments, and planting native riparian vegetation. Six reinforced banks of buried log and rock crib walls were constructed in strategic locations perpendicular to the former channel sections to prevent future recapture. Eight rock control sills were installed to create pool/riffle habitat, raise low-flow surface water elevations, and check further channel downcutting.
Click here for more information on methods used.
|
 |
| |
New channel cross-section has been shaped. Soil plug is removed from upstream en... |
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
Close up of Little Ponderosa Bend, looking downstream.... |
|
|
|
|
Monitoring Data and Collection
Methods: The text of this report is taken directly from the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project, Final Project Report – Performance Period 1994-2004 (LRK Communications et al., 2004)
The Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project was a vast undertaking and looked at multiple parameters and conditions. These parameters were studied by a cooperative group of federal, state, tribal and private individuals, which made up the Red River Technical Advisory Committee or TAC committee. For a list of TAC members, see above (Project Partners).
The LRRMRP comprehensive monitoring program began in 1997 to assess both the short-term effectiveness of restoration designs and implementation techniques and the long-term success of restoration work in attaining the specific restoration objectives. Short-term monitoring was performed to facilitate an adaptive management program that resulted in improved designs, construction techniques, and monitoring procedures in the later phases of the project. The long-term monitoring program was designed to track the evolution of the degraded system toward dynamic equilibrium and document the recovery progress at routine intervals.
Click here for more information on monitoring.
|
Was this project effective
and how was this determined? Overall, the physical features of the channel are meeting or evolving toward the performance criteria and thus, in the direction of expected habitat improvements. The small sample size and annual and seasonal variability in discharge patterns hinder our ability to detect a decrease in groundwater depth in the shortterm. Also, the ecosystem is too early in the recovery process to expect sediment balance at this time.
Although aquatic habitat structure has improved, no significant positive trends over time in salmonid densities or chinook redd densities were detected in the project reach. Off-site conditions beyond the project’s control and natural and human-induced fluctuations in both anadromous and resident fish populations affect the number of adult spawners in any given year and complicate analyses. Three years post-restoration is also early in the recovery process relative to expectations for positive changes in fish populations and chinook redd densities.
Bird numbers and species are increasing on the project site while overall terrestrial wildlife habitat has yet to exhibit improvements. Summer water temperatures are increasing. The native riparian shrubs, actively planted throughout the project site, continue to exhibit slow growth rates and reduced vigor, providing only a small percentage of cover in the riparian and greenline plant composition transects. Thus, a shading effect is currently unavailable to help reduce water temperatures, and in turn, to improve the thermal conditions of aquatic habitat. Until a woody riparian corridor, capable of intercepting solar radiation, is sufficiently established on both the restoration site and upstream, overall water temperature decreases, additional significant improvements to aquatic habitat, and significant increases in terrestrial wildlife habitat value appear unlikely.
Click here for more information on project success.
|
 |
| |
(Before) A typical outside bank in the Lower Red River Meadow where shallow root... |
|
|
|
|
 |
| |
(After) Little Ponderosa Bend, looking upstream.... |
|
|
|
|
| Confounding Effects/Additional
Information: There is much more information on the Lower Red River Meadow Restoration Project. All of the current information pertaining to this project can be found at http://www.redriver.uidaho.edu/. |
| Project
Specs (all specs are estimates): |
|
|
| For more information on this project
contact: |
| |
Denny Dawes, Wildlife Habitat Institute, Email: wild@potlatch.com
Linda Klein, LRK Communications, Email: lrklein@completebbs.com
|
| This information
was collected by: William C. Fraser & Kristin Keith |
| Project last updated on: 4/19/2007 |
|
 |
|
