The Difficulties of Monitoring Wet Meadow Restoration Projects in Central Utah

The Difficulties of Monitoring Wet Meadow Restoration Projects in Central Utah 

Dallin Baker1*, Wally Macfarlane2, Clint Wirick3, Jeff Adams4 

Wet meadows are an important habitat for wildlife such as birds, insects, ungulates, and fish. These habitats are often degraded throughout the western U.S. due to factors such as drought, cattle grazing, and human development. In addition to disappearing completely, wet meadows commonly experience erosional impacts when intensive land use occurs, including channelization, incision, headcut formation, and reduced sediment input. These processes decrease the inundated area, wetland vegetation, and overall habitat quality. To address these issues, we have been restoring wet meadows in central Utah by building rock dam structures (Zeedyk structures) that slow water, capture sediment, and spread flow laterally. These structures have been effective at increasing inundation, drowning out upland vegetation, and creating more suitable habitat for wetland vegetation and wildlife. 

Monitoring wet meadow restoration projects with remote methods comes with unique challenges, though. Drone-collected imagery is useful for capturing inundated area and changes in vegetation type and cover, but the ephemeral nature of wet meadows makes monitoring these response variables unpredictable. Unlike perennial streams, which tend to have more stable flow, wet meadows may remain inundated all year or dry up by mid-summer, making it difficult to determine the best timing for data collection. The increasing drought in central Utah has made this even more challenging by limiting the ability to detect meaningful changes in both inundation and vegetation. 

Despite these difficulties, there is still valuable data that we can collect to inform restoration activities and improve monitoring methods. In particular, focusing on overflow areas where upland vegetation is drowned out, and focusing on how each structure affects flow has shown promise as reliable indicators. Moving forward, it will also be necessary to incorporate ground-based monitoring, especially for structure condition and geomorphic responses. This will complement the remote-based approach and provide a more complete understanding of restoration outcomes.