Project Details

Bighorn sheep have been reintroduced to the Flaming Gorge area.  However, vegetative habitat conditions have changed in many areas of the canyon to the detriment of bighorn sheep requirements.

Wild fires were historically a common component in plant community dynamics in the Green River Corridor (Goodrich 2008). The natural fire regime of the Upper Green River Corridor in Utah was altered following the impoundment behind the Flaming Gorge Dam. Fires historically originated in woody vegetation types in the canyon bottom and ran up slope along canyon walls. The result was periodic removal of shrub and tree vegetation and maintenance of more open and grassy communities.  The periodic fires created differing vegetation type and age class mosaics resulting in more diverse canyon plant communities. Altered fire regimes (longer periods between fires) created conditions that favor the slow displacement of open grass habitats by taller shrub, woodlands, and conifer species.

Similar vegetative community type changes contributed to the decline and extinction of 36 bighorn sheep populations in Colorado (Wakelyn 1987). Singer et al. (1999) also reported similar habitat condition influences upon bighorn sheep populations.  Conversely, fire and habitat improvement efforts that create or maintain open vegetation types have been associated with bighorn population increases and range expansions (Bentz and Woodard 1988,  Smith et al. 1999, Seip and Bunnell 1985, Greenwood et al. 1999). Reduced visibility by bighorn sheep due to large tree and shrub encroachment contribute to higher levels of cougar predation (McKinney 2006). Tree and shrub management actions were recommended for improving visibility and reducing cougar predation.

The advancing site dominance by pinyon and juniper closed canopy woodlands will also decrease vegetative understory. Large, intense, wildfires that may result from more monotypic vegetation classes in the future will also contribute to exotic noxious weed (cheatgrass) expansion and site dominance.  Results of such events would contribute to increased soil movement through lost permanent ground cover and a resultant decrease in reservoir water quality.

Bighorn sheep are an Ashley National Forest Sensitive Species. Since their reintroduction, they have become an iconic species for the public. The Forest Land Management Plan encourages actions that maintain and improve bighorn habitat, herd health, and population viability.  Vegetative treatments are now needed to mimic and replace the historical canyon fire regime.  If no action occurs, vegetative seral conditions will continue to advance toward a more shrub and tree dominated landscape and bighorn sheep habitat will decline.

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

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

Small and periodic fires have declined in the Flaming Gorge Reservoir canyons.  Vegetative communities within the Green River Corridor of the Flaming Gorge area are at risk of moving toward a more monotypic community, structure, and age class.  Tall shrub and conifer species are increasing in both distribution and density.  Native understory species will diminish under this seral stage advancement.  Reduced ground cover and more extensive and intensive wildfires can result in long term watershed and habitat loss.  The Flaming Gorge Reservoir is a municipal watershed for the local rural communities.

Habitat loss, change, and altered fire regimes are all widely noted as threats to local and national bighorn sheep populations (NatureServe 2015).  Bighorn sheep rank N4 and S3 for National and Utah State conservation needs, respectively (UWAP 2015).  The Utah Bighorn Sheep Statewide Management Plan (UDWR 2013); current North Slope, Uinta Mountains Unit #8 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (2004); and the draft update Uinta Mountains, North Slope/South Slope, WMUs #8 and #9 Bighorn Sheep Management Plan (April 2015, pending administrative Wildlife Board adoption) all address vegetation management practices to offset habitat losses.  This project addresses habitat losses to altered fire regimes and subsequent loss of open habitat to conifer species. It also promotes improved bighorn range distribution and subsequently reduces disease interaction risks from high density population interactions.

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

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

The project supports:
1.  Entire project is within the "Rangeland" WRI NER focus area.
2.  Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986). The Forest Plan mandates actions that "manage pinyon-juniper to provide for maximum wildlife habitat and esthetics. Sage-grass-browse and openings of various sizes and shapes should be maintained and expanded where slopes, watershed conditions, soils, and esthetics considerations permit." (p. A-5, Vegetation Section 5.(2,3,5); Wildlife and Fish Section 6.(1,2,12,15), p. A-9 Esthetics Section 2.(1,3,4,5,13,17).  Bighorn sheep are also considered an Ashley National Forest Sensitive Species and mule deer are a Management Indicator Species.  Both management status categories receive local management level considerations for both the species and their habitats.
3. The Utah Statewide and local bighorn sheep herd management plans (North and South Slope Units 8 & 9, respectively) recommend vegetation management actions to offset habitat losses or degradation.
4.  The Utah Statewide and local mule deer herd management plans (North Slope, Unit 8) both recommend vegetation management actions to offset habitat losses or degradations.
5.  The Utah Wildlife Action Plan (2015) (WAP) includes bighorn sheep as a Species of Greatest Conservation need (SGCN) with a National and Utah State ranking of N4 and S3, respectively.  The project includes portions of 3 key habitats defined in the WAP: lowland sagebrush, mountain sagebrush, and mountain shrub (true mountain mahogany) communities.  Specific key habitat types are dependent upon local site slope, aspect, and elevation within the treatment polygons.

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

The project area is within the Dutch John municipal watershed. Fire events such as the Mustang Ridge and Bare Mountain west slope fires resulted in large scale and nearly complete vegetative community conversions.  Fuel build up in the form of high crown canopy and fuel density contributed to these large fire scales and high intensity impacts.  The altered fire regime within the Green River corridor is allowing vegetative communities to advance in seral stage toward high fuel density and canopy height.  This project will mimic the historical fire regime to some extent and will help maintain vegetative community mosaics.  This will also provide a level of protection for the Dutch John municipal watershed.

Small scale prescribed fire is not included as a treatment method in this project proposal because of potential impact concerns to cultural/historical sites and visual impacts to recreation.  Therefore, lop and scatter hand cutting is being used as a substitute.  One of the project objectives is to reduce the potential of large scale wildfires by reducing crown canopy and lowering fuel density and height levels.  Threats to scenic and cultural values as well as vegetative communities and a municipal watershed will be reduced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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