Greater Fremont Plateau Habitat Restoration Phase II
Region: Southern
ID: 4806

Project Status: Completed

Project Details

The overarching project (including phase I, WRI 4402) will enhance and/or restore several habitat types such as:  lowland sagebrush, mountain sagebrush, mountain shrub, aspen, wetland, wet meadow, and springs.  This proposal is a continuation of Phase I WRI ID 4402.

Because this is a continuation of a project from FY 2018 this proposal may look familiar and have some similar language from past proposals.

Habitats near water -- stream sides, wet meadows and wetlands -- support the greatest variety of animal and plant life, and attract wildlife during their daily and seasonal movements. In a water-scarce landscape like Utah, these lush habitats are also where people have naturally settled.  A recent study (Donelly et. al. 2014) reveals a strong link between wet sites, which are essential summer habitat for sage grouse to raise their broods, and the distribution of sage grouse breeding areas or leks.  The authors found 85% of leks were clustered within 6 miles of these wet summer habitats.  Moreover, although wet habitats covers less than 2% of the western landscape, more than 80% are located on private lands.  This study makes it clear that successful sage grouse conservation will greatly depend on cooperative
ventures with private landowners, ranchers and farmers to help sustain vital summer habitats.  This project area has several springs and wet meadows that are critical summer and brood rearing areas for grouse as well as important big game calving and fawning.  
  
This project area also lies within the Panguitch Sage Grouse Management Area identified in the Conservation Plan for Utah Greater Sage Grouse and is critical habitat for sage grouse brood rearing because of the springs, wet meadows, and adjacent sage brush habitat.

The project falls within an identified Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) with shrub-steppe and wetland habitat listed as priority habitats types for conservation.  Sagebrush dependent species such as sage grouse, sage sparrow, and brewer's sparrow are listed as priority birds needing conservation practices implemented.  Many of these species identified in the BHCA are not captured in the species portion of this proposal but also need conservation measures implemented.

This project will address priority habitats, species, and threats identified by numerous state agencies, federal agencies, NGO's, and conservation organizations as being important for conservation and restoration.  Some of this habitat has been categorized as critical for priority species such as mule deer, sage grouse, and other sage brush obligate species.  
 
The project is also a continuation of previous sagebrush steppe restoration accomplished on adjacent public lands, private lands, and state lands that was funded by several partners, including WRI.  This project will connect these previous projects and create a more contiguous area restored and enhanced. 
 
Sage grouse have been observed using the springs and ponds on the project sites and have been observed using the adjacent treated sites.  It has been said by land managers, biologist, and researchers familiar with the project area that this area is very important because Sage grouse are space limited here, meaning available habitat seems to be the limiting factor for population growth.  As habitat is made available VHF and GPS collar data show immediate use.

The area in and around the project site has been identified as being critically important mule deer habitat and the area has been identified in the Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan as being a "priority for restoration of crucial mule deer habitat" (Utah Statewide Mule Deer Managment Plan, 2014).  The area has also been identified in the Utah Migration Corridor plan as being an important big game migration area (UTAH ACTION PLAN
For Implementation of Department of the Interior Secretarial Order #3362, 2018).

The project area also provides important recreational hunting for the local population and people travel from across the state (and from other states) to hunt on the Beaver and Panguitch units for pronghorn, elk, and mule deer.  These highly sought after hunting opportunities within the project area provide a financial boost to local economies in in a number of ways.

It is important that we continue to work in these areas that are critically important to the landscape around them, and because these wet areas are mostly private it is extremely important to work with private landowners restoring these areas whenever possible.

Areas that become dominated by by pinyon and juniper out compete understory herbaceous species and leave bare soil prone to erosion.  This herbaceous vegetation is important to reducing overland flow and reducing soil loss.  Pinyon and juniper dominated sites can intercept 10-20% of precipitation (Horman et al., 1999).  By completing this project this will allow more precip to contact the soil and get into the water table.  Treating areas of lower densities will prevent a future situation as described above.  According to Folliott 2012, research showed that pinyon and juniper expansion into areas historically dominated by higher forbs and grasses impeded stream flow for off-site uses.  Because pinyon and juniper is very competitive for water this often reduces grasses and forbs within the area.  "The increase in bare soil, particularly in the spaces between trees, typically leads to increased runoff and soil loss as the juniper infestation increases" (Thurow, 1997).  Increased runoff and sediment load, decreases water yield and water quality within the watershed.  Studies have shown that an evaluation of alternatives using conversion treatments to enhance stream-flow in the pinyon and juniper should be made (Barr, 1956) where possible.

It could be thus assumed that by completing the pinyon and juniper removal project that more water will enter the soil profile and streams, wet meadows, and springs will continue to flow and have the potential to increase flow.

This phase of the project will also address needs to restore aspen communities.  Mass aspen community decline has been of particular concern across the West during the 21st century with no clear answer to why decline is happening, more aspen communities are dying than regenerating.  The concern rises because aspen communities are one of the most biologically rich and diverse eco-types.  For example,  several studies have shown that aspen forests generally support greater bird species richness and total abundance of birds than do other North American montane habitats (Salt 1957, Winternitz 1976, Reynolds and Finch 1988)

From a watershed health standpoint as it relates to Aspen, in a 2005 and 2006 study published in Ecosystems, measurements of snow water accumulation, snow ablation (melting), soil water content, snowpack sublimation, and evapotranspiration (ET) were measured in adjacent aspen and conifer stands. Peak snow water equivalent (SWE) averaged 34-44% higher in aspen in 2005 (average snow fall) and 2006 (above average snow fall), respectively, whereas snow ablation rates were greater in aspen stands (21 mm day"1) compared to conifer stands (11 mm day"1). When changes in soil water content (due to over-winter snowmelt) were combined with peak snow accumulation in 2006, aspen had greater potential (42-83%) water yield for runoff and groundwater recharge (LaMalfa and Ryle, 2008).

Because this area has been identified as CRUCIAL mule deer habitat and an extremely important area piece for increasing sage grouse populations in this Sage Grouse Management Unit (more on this discussed in other parts of proposal) we feel that this projects need and importance should be elevated because of the overall impact of the habitat to these species of wildlife.  Another qualifier for elevating this project is that the project falls within an identified Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) as previously discussed.  The project will also address several conservation needs for several bird species not captured in the species section of this proposal.

Acreage totals for this phase of the project:

Private Acres Treated = 2,282 lop/scatter

BLM Acres Treated = 4,076 lop/scatter 
     78 acres aspen treatment

State Acres = 590 lop/scatter

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.

1)  Reduce pinyon and juniper to a sagebrush steppe/mountain brush condition as described in    the NRCS ecological site descriptions
     *	Reduce conifer cover to <5% within in treatment polygons while leaving islands/corridors for 
        cover, bedding, loafing, etc... 
 
2)  Maintain and increase available forage
     * This will be accomplished by preventing Pinyon/Juniper expansion, repairing ponds to 
        help distribute livestock, setting Aspen communities back to a early seral state, and 
        restoring hydrology in wet meadows.

3) Stop and repair head-cutting and raise water table in and around ephemeral drainages and 
    washes
     *  Increase soil moisture and raise water table anywhere from 2" to 10"
     
4) Improve aspen stands by removing competing conifer and initiating aspen regeneration. 
     *Improve health by creating multiple-age classes.
     *Construct and maintain an eight foot fence around 78 acres to protect aspen regeneration.
     *After aspen sprouts reach a height that allows them to continue successful prolonged 
      growth without a fence, the fence will be removed and wildlife will be allowed to establish 
      use patterns within each area.

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.

Ecological Threats:
The majority of the work to be done is phase 1 pinyon and juniper with intact understory vegetation.  Working in these light to medium densities mean the vegetative community hasn't crossed an ecological threshold where high amounts of restoration inputs are necessary.  The project as it relates to the pinyon/juniper work is a proactive approach to treat areas where sagebrush steppe habitat is still well established.  Doing so has several other benefits to preventing soil loss through erosion, maintaining habitat to high interest species previously listed, water-soil infiltration, etc... Not treating pinyon/juniper in the near future will result in negative ecological consequences.

Not doing work in these areas of low pinyon/juniper density means the threat of higher costs, inputs, and risk will become greater over time.
This project will increase and maintain the availability of a diverse suite of vegetational communities.  A healthy landscape has a diversity of vegetational states within an ecological site.  A diverse landscape benefits a larger community of wildlife species and people.  A diverse landscape is also more resistance and resilient to disturbance.  By allowing this landscape to continue to move further into a dominant PJ woodland it increases the risk of its resistance to disturbance and its resilience to bounce back and and heal after a disturbance.

Although occupying a few acres and limited to the mountain tops, these aspen units provide valuable wildlife habitat and watershed amenities. Most aspen in the project area are successional to conifers or seral. Lack of disturbance over the past 100 years has allowed conifer encroachment into what were once aspen stands with few conifer species present.
If left untreated a continued decline in aspen is expected. With a decline in aspen, ungulates will continue to be negatively impacted.  As conifer continues to increase, and aspen decreases, the amount of usable forage for ungulates will decrease.  As conifers continue to increase, the risk for large uncharacteristic/catastrophic wildfires will also continue to increase.

The wet meadow erosion control treatments are low impact/low risk/high reward type practices.  In some of the wet meadow at one of the project site there are small gullies and head-cutting that needs to addressed.  Stopping the head-cuts will and aggrading small gullies below them can have exponential benefits to soil moisture, water loss, and maintain and increase rare mountain wet meadow habitats that are extremely limited habitat types.  Not doing these will certainly lead to head-cuts moving up valley and more rare wet habitat converting to brush.  More info on these structures can be found here:  
*  See additional attachment for more information on these structures

Species Threats:
Although it was determined by the USFWS that listing under the ESA was not warranted for Greater sage grouse there is an impending review to see if further action or protection is needed and to see where we collectively are at mitigating threats.  Continuing to do work as identified in the Statewide Sage Grouse Management Plan to conserve sage grouse will support a continued "not warranted" status.

It has been said by land managers, biologist, and researchers familiar with the project area that this area is very important because Sage grouse are space limited here, meaning available habitat seems to be the limiting factor for population growth.  As habitat is made available VHF and GPS collar data show immediate use.  By doing this project we are addressing an immediate threat to one of the primary limiting factors for this population.

As previously mentioned the area has been identified as priority for restoration of CRUCIAL mule deer habitat under the Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan.  "Crucial" means the areas habitat is necessary to sustain the areas mule deer herd.  Allowing the area to move into phase 3 pinyon and juniper encroachment will mean less quality habitat to meet mule deer objectives.

As described above the area is within a designated Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) with priority being sagebrush obligate birds like sage grouse, sage thrasher, and Brewer's sparrow.  Not doing the project will lead to an increase density of pinyon and juniper that will decrease the amount of available habitat for these sage dependent bird species in an area being designated as important for birds.

A federally protected species that lies in and around the project area is the Utah Prairie Dog.  UPD's are protected under the status of "threatened".  Protecting, enhancing, and restoring sagebrush steppe habitats in a diversity of states will directly benefit UPD's and help with recovery goals.  UPD's are in and around some of the project sites.

In 2018 USFWS along with UDWR non-game biologist visited the springs on the project site to survey amphibian and mollusks.  They found that the springs in and around Phase I of this project had springsnails (Pyrgulopsis sp.) in them.  Samples were taken and are going to be sent off for identification but are likely a new population of Toquerville Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis kolobensis).  Project work from phase I and II will benefit this new population. There are also other populations nearby and habitat work can be expected to benefit spring habitat.  All springsnail species in Utah are managed under a recent conservation agreement signed by UDWR, US FWS, and other partners, and any habitat work that would protect or restore their habitat would show how we're conserving those species.

Financial Threats:
This also means the site hasn't crossed that financial threshold where cost becomes a prohibitive factor.  With that said there are a few sites where we will be treating phase 3 using a bullhog and seeding.  These sites have crossed an ecological and high input/financial threshold but if we do the project now these higher density sites make up a far lesser part of the project.  If we leave it be the entire area may become phase 3 at some point in the future.

Social/Political Threats:
There is also a social threshold to consider with the private lands as part of this project.  Right now we have dozens of individuals part of a grazing associations, other leasees and landowners on the other project site willing to work with agencies to do the project.  This has required meetings, presentations, voting, dozens of individuals coming to a consensus, and a lot of signatures and paperwork to get to this point.  Not taking advantage of this while everyone is willing may mean a lost opportunity in the future.

The project area also provides important recreational hunting for the local population and people travel from all over the state (and from other states) to hunt on the Beaver and Panguitch units for pronghorn, elk, and mule deer.  The highly sought after hunting opportunities within the project areas provide a financial boost to local economies in several ways.  Continuing to do work to maintain the habitat in this area will help to perpetuate the recreational and economic benefits.

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.

This project will to address threats, work within focus areas and with focus species, help meet objectives and goals of the below listed plans.  Under those plans are specific language from the plan describing threats, goals, strategies, and objectives this project will help meet.

1) USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Strategic Plan
     *Project addresses habitat threats for a priority species (sage grouse an UPD) within a PFW priority 
area (Plateau Focus Area) for restoration work.
2) Utah Greater Sage Grouse Conservation Plan
     *Protect 10,000 acres of habitat on private and School and Institutional Trust Lands 
Administration (SITLA) lands
     *Increase habitat by 50,000 acres per year, and improve an average of 25,000 acres of habitat each year.
3) Utah Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan
     *Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with
emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that have been
taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by
encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats, ensuring that seed mixes
contain sufficient forbs and browse species.
     *Work with local, state and federal land management agencies via land management
plans and with private landowners to identify and properly manage crucial mule deer
habitats, especially fawning, wintering and migration areas.
4) Beaver Mountains Deer Herd Unit #22 Management Plan
    *Cooperate with federal land management agencies and private landowners in carrying out habitat improvement projects. Protect deer winter ranges from wildfire by reseeding burned areas, creating fuel breaks and reseed areas dominated by cheatgrass with desirable perennial vegetation. 
     *Reduce expansion of Pinion-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinion-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects.
     *Work with federal and state partners in fire rehabilitation and prevention on crucial deer habitat through the WRI process. 
5) Utah Wildlife Action Plan
     *Lowland sagebrush is a key habitat identified in the WAP
     *WAP identifies inappropriate fire frequency as a threat to lowland sagebrush habitat.  This project will reduce future fire risk and act as a fire buffer to adjacent higher risk areas. 
6)  Intermountain West Joint Venture Habitat Conservation Strategy
     *Support existing public-private partnerships to implement sagebrush habitat conservation, at regional, state, and local scales.
     *Remove encroaching conifers to functionally restore sagebrush habitat.
7) Sage Grouse Initiative 2.0 Investment Strategy, FY 2015-2018
     * Restore 25,773 acres in Utah representing 58 percent of non-federally encroached priority areas.
     * Restore and enhance degraded mesic areas to help increase populations.
8) Utah Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy 
     *Reduce fire risk by managing and removing invasive species
9) USDA Forest Service: Using Resistance and Resilience Concepts to Reduce Impacts of Invasive Annual Grasses and Altered Fire Regimes on the Sagebrush Ecosystem and Greater Sage-Grouse
     *Use mechanical treatments like cut and leave or mastication to remove trees, decrease woody fuels, and release native grasses and forbs in warm and moist big sagebrush ecosystems with relatively low resistance to annual invasive grasses that are in the early to mid-phase of pinyon and/or juniper expansion.
     *Prioritize areas where restoration of sagebrush and/or perennial grasses is needed to create large patches of landscape cover of sagebrush or connect existing patches of sagebrush habitat.
10) Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0
     *Create, enhance and protect small ephemeral "wet areas" within nesting and brood-rearing habitats for sage grouse.
     *Manage large blocks of land for contiguous Shrubsteppe habitat and avoid activities that cause fragmentation.
11) UTAH ACTION PLAN For Implementation of Department of the Interior Secretarial Order 3362. 2018.
     * This project is SPECIFICALLY mentioned as being a priority in this plan for restoration work
12) USFWS Utah Prairie Dog Revised Recovery Plan, 2012 
The project is located within a UPD Recovery Unit and will provide enhancement to UPD habitat and ideally increase UPD population numbers to maintain population numbers set in the USFWS Recovery Plan.  The project will also address habitat issues of shifting UPD habitat from suitable brush and open grassland habitat to unsuitable habitat where pinyon and juniper begin to encroach and eventually dominate.

13) BLM Western States Programmatic Environmental Report
The project enhances UPD habitat and is in keeping with BLM recommendations.
BLM's Final Programmatic Environmental Report:  Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report, June 2007.

14) All springsnail species in Utah are managed under a recent conservation agreement signed by UDWR, US FWS, and other partners, and any habitat work that would protect or restore their habitat would show how we're conserving those species.

This is within Sage Grouse Management Zone III (Southern Great Basin) and is part of the Panguitch/Bald Hills sage grouse population. The 2013 conservation Objectives Final Report (COT) identified this area as the highest potential for increase in Utah due to habitat treatments to remove pinyon and juniper.
Key threats identified in the COT report include increased predator populations, vegetation
management (conflicting uses or lack of), energy development, and residential/commercial development.  BLM Utah also recently completed an, "approved resource management plan amendment for sage grouse, which tied sage grouse treatment objectives and thresholds for disturbance to existing land use plans. Primary to this document is a section that integrates the State of Utah's strategy of improving greater Sage Grouse habitat through vegetation treatments by setting treatment objectives to increase areas available for sage grouse habitat and to reduce the threats of wildfire to sage grouse habitat (pp 1-13) (Appendix C). This project will both reduce threats of wildfire while also increasing available connectivity and habitat.

BLM Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 2015
A. The project is consistent with the SGARMP (2015) goals, objectives and Management Actions that were identified in the Special Status Species section as follows:
Special Status Species Goal: Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners.

Refer to the following Objectives and Management Actions in the SGRMPA (Objectives: SSS-3, SSS-4, SSS-5) and Management Actions (MA-SSS-4, MA-SSS-6, MA-SSS7).

B. The project is also consistent with the SGARMP (2015) objectives and Management Actions that were identified in the Vegetation section as follows:

Refer to the following Objectives and Management Actions in the SGRMPA (MA-VEG-1, MA-VEG-2, MA-VEG-4, MA-VEG-5, MA-VEG-6, MA-VEG-8, MA-VEG-9, MA-VEG-10, MA-VEG-12 and MA-VEG-14).

C. The project is also consistent with the SGARMP (2015) Management Actions that were identified in the Fire and Fuels Management section as follows:

Refer to the following Management Actions in the SGRMPA (MA-FIRE-1 and MA-FIRE-3)
D. The project is also consistent with the SGARMP (2015) Management Actions that were identified in the Livestock Grazing/Range Management section as follows:

Refer to the following Management Actions in the SGRMPA (MA-LG-3, MA-LG-4, MA-LG-5, MA-LG-12, MALG- 13, MA-LG-16 and MA-LG-17)

The Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah was approved by the Governor in April 2013. The plan establishes incentive-based conservation programs for conservation of sage-grouse on private, local government, and School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration lands and regulatory programs on other state- and federally managed lands. The Conservation Plan also establishes sage-grouse management areas and implements specific management protocols in these areas.

The Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan in 2009 identified threats and issues affecting sage-grouse management in Utah as well as goals, objectives, and strategies intended to guide UDWR, local working groups, and land managers efforts to protect, maintain, and improve sage-grouse populations and habitats and balance their management with other resource uses.

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.

This project will decrease the risk of high severity wildfire by reducing fuel loading and promoting the growth of understory vegetation, which are critical to maintaining ecosystem resilience.   As demonstrated by the nearby Brianhead fire during the summer of 2017, treatments like these can break up the continuity of fuels and act as fuel breaks.  This project along with already completed adjacent projects will do the same if a fire ignited nearby where fuel loading is heavy in phase 3 pinyon and juniper invaded sites.

The current fire regime condition class is moderate (2), and would be reduced to low (1) immediately after treatment. The habitat type has been identified in the 2015-2025 Utah Wildlife Action Plan that lowland sagebrush is a key habitat and the threats associated with this key habitat are inappropriate fire frequency and intensity. This project will help to achieve this goal.  Reducing the threat of wildfire is important because of the critical nature of this habitat to mule deer and sage grouse.

Completing this project and reducing the risk of fire will help to protect important sagebrush steppe and mountain brush habitat that is critical for priority species including, but not limited to, Greater sage grouse and mule deer.

This project will also help to protect the springs and wetlands.  If a high severity fire were to move through the area water soil infiltration would decrease, erosion will increase, and the potential for water to get into the aquifer will decrease and spring flows may decrease.

This project treatments would be implemented to effectively restore resilient, fire-adapted aspen ecosystems on a landscape-scale by moving the stands toward properly functioning condition in terms of composition (species diversity) and density (crown spacing and fuel loading). In addition the treatments would improve structural diversity, promote aspen regeneration and recruitment, reduce the hazardous fuel loading, and reduce the continuity of fuels across the landscape.

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.

Areas that become dominated by by pinyon and juniper out compete understory herbaceous species and leave bare soil prone to erosion.  This herbaceous vegetation is important to reducing overland flow and reducing soil loss.  Pinyon and juniper dominated sites can intercept 10-20% of precipitation (Horman et al., 1999).  By completing this project this will allow more precip to contact the soil and get into the water table where there is a higher density of pinyon and juniper.  Treating areas of lower densities will prevent a future situation as described above.  According to Folliott 2012, research showed that pinyon and juniper expansion into areas historically dominated by higher forbs and grasses impeded streamflow for off-site uses.  Because pinyon and juniper is very competitive for water this often reduces grasses and forbs within the area.  "The increase in bare soil, particularly in the spaces between trees, typically leads to increased runoff and soil loss as the juniper infestation increases" (Thurow 1997).  Increased runoff and sediment load decreases water yield and water quality within the watershed.  Studies have shown that an evaluation of alternatives using conversion treatments to enhance stream-flow in the pinyon and juniper should be made (Barr 1956).  It could be thus assumed that by completing the pinyon and juniper removal project that more water will enter the soil profile and streams, wet meadows, and springs will continue to flow and have the potential to increase flow.

Because the project is at a larger scale project and connecting adjoining projects the impact to potential water and erosion savings is greater than just this fiscal years project area.

Also, the overarching project area has several springs and wet meadows that are critical to deer fawning, elk calving, sage grouse brood rearing, and several other species of birds.  The project will have direct impacts to improving these wet areas by decreasing runoff and increasing infiltration in the uplands that can come through the soil profile to these areas.

Phase I included funding for fencing off the springs we will directly benefit water sources from overuse, trampling, and mitigate water quality issues.

As stated earlier, in a 2005 and 2006 study published in Ecosystems, measurements of snow water accumulation, snow ablation (melting), soil water content, snowpack sublimation, and evapotranspiration (ET) were measured in adjacent aspen and conifer stands. Peak snow water equivalent (SWE) averaged 34-44% higher in aspen in 2005 (average snow fall) and 2006 (above average snow fall), respectively, whereas snow ablation rates were greater in aspen stands (21 mm day"1) compared to conifer stands (11 mm day"1). When changes in soil water content (due to over-winter snowmelt) were combined with peak snow accumulation in 2006, aspen had greater potential (42-83%) water yield for runoff and groundwater recharge (LaMalfa and Ryle, 2008).  Aspen treatments may have an important and critical role in water quality and quantity changes.

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.

Pinyon and Juniper Reduction:
This will be accomplished using a saw crew to lop and scatter 100% in polygons.

Fence:
Pasture fence will be a simple post and wire fence built to livestock and wildlife specs.
Temporary fencing will be constructed around aspen regeneration units.  More information about that below.

Head-cuts:
Head-cutting is happening in small ephemeral drainages and washes.  We propose to use simple rock structures that are being use across the West in several other states to stop and repair head-cuts.  
*  See additional attachment for more information on these structures

ASPEN:
Objectives will be met by using hand thinning treatments to remove conifers from serial and stable aspen stands while also retaining as much of the existing aspen as possible.

Prescribed fire treatments will be implemented utilizing hand ignition techniques targeting spruce/fir, mixed conifer, and seral aspen with mosaic burn patterns and mixed burn severities as a objective.

Burning would take place during the late summer/fall/winter to take advantage of soil moisture, precipitation and vegetation green-up, which would reduce fire impacts to existing perennial vegetation, and to allow for adequate fuel moisture characteristics to facilitate a burn.  Site preparation including identification and implementation of fuel breaks would be implemented prior to the Prescribed Fire Treatment as necessary.  It is expected that adhering to design features and completion of Prescribed Fire Burn Plan would minimize direct impacts as a result of the treatment.

Construct and maintain an eight foot fence around 78 acres to protect aspen regeneration.
Detailed: A wildlife proof fence will be constructed around areas burned in the mixed conifer/aspen types on the Fremont prescribed burn project.  The fence will consist of two 39 inch net wire laid one on top of the other.  A strand of barbed wire will be placed on top of that.  The resulting fence will be approximately eight feet tall.  It needs to be capable of keeping elk and other wildlife species from browsing the aspen spouts.  It must be maintained for five to seven years.

Private Acres Treated = 2,282 lop/scatter

BLM Acres Treated = 4,076 lop/scatter 
     78 acres aspen treatment

State Acres = 590 lop/scatter

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.

NRCS:
Pre and post photopoint monitoring in treatment areas.
Sage grouse Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guide to be done pre-treatment to assess habitat conditions.
UT-2 Range vegetation assessment done pre-treatment and post treatment.
NRCS Pinyon and juniper woodland survey will be conducted pre and post treatment

Sage grouse monitoring via GPS loggers is going on in the Panguitch SGMA as well as adjacent SGMA's.  These are showing connectivity between populations and will show if grouse are using newly treated areas.  This could be put together in a map form and uploaded as part of the completion report.

USFWS
Will work with partners to complete some of the monitoring described as well as doing their own photopoint monitoring.  Also as part of the USFWS landowner agreement USFWS biologist will visit the site at minimum once per year to assess needs, success, failures, and need for any follow-up treatments/maintenance for the duration of the Agreement (10 years).

UDWR
Annual aerial and ground mule deer counts and classifications.
Area sage grouse lek counts each spring.

BLM
In response to aspen overbrowsing, aspen in the project area will be monitored. Short-term temporary adjustments in livestock/wildlife management may be needed to ensure new aspen regeneration successfully recruits.
Pre and post monitoring photos, Frequency trend studies - 2 existing and up to 2 additional studies to be added.

Wildlife Monitoring Plans: 
This year, each BLM Field office will have entire team devoted to the Assessment, Inventory and Monitoring program (AIM), and although the sample points are random, it is likely that some of these points will fall within the project area.  This monitoring program uses standard core indicators and methods to provide a statistically valid sampling design across the landscape.

Additionally, this project falls within potential sage grouse habitat. Habitat Assessment Framework monitoring is a multiscale, sage-grouse habitat assessment tool that will be integrated with the AIM. This monitoring is done from a broad-to-fine scale. The dataset at the site scale (which includes this project) describes habitat indicators, such as sagebrush cover, sagebrush height, grass and forb cover, riparian stability, and/or proximity of detrimental land uses and structures. These data will ensure appropriate project implementation, as well as guide future actions in sage grouse habitat.

Currently, there are no AIM, HAF (sage grouse) monitoring points in this treatment area; however, these areas will be prioritized for data collection during 2019. There are also no UDWR trend studies in this area; however, UDWR will read Southern Region projects during 2019 and a data site could be requested at that time.

A raptor survey will be conducted before the project begins. The majority of the raptors in this area, nest along the canyon edges, and those trees are left. Additionally, if nest trees are found during surveys, they are buffered and left as islands to serve as refuges for all wildlife Additionally, archaeological resources that are found within the area are buffered and worked into the overall project design. These islands would also be left for perching raptors.

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.

USFWS:
Will be providing funding/planning/implementation support and is one of the project managers working closely with Stan Gurley from NRCS/UDWR on work directly tied to private land.

UDWR:
Stan Gurly of UDWR/NRCS is working as a project manager and providing funding/planning/implementation support.  We will also be working with habitat and wildlife biologist to address any needs they see.

NRCS:
Stan Gurly of UDWR/NRCS is working as a project manager and providing funding/planning/implementation support.  The NRCS State Biologist has also visited the project area and provided input and support for the project.

BLM:
We have contacted the field office and received input on the project.  They support connecting the private to the BLM treated acres.  This project includes project work on BLM managed lands working with the Color Country Field Office.

Local Grazing Association made up of several landowners:
The project will be working with 1 grazing association across 2 private landownerships where planning and implementation will be done to meet their objectives as well as agency objectives.

Color Country and Southwest Desert Local Working groups:
The project was discussed at both of these local working group meetings and has support from the members of the groups.  These groups are made up of agencies, private landowner representatives, and county government.

SITLA:
The project was discussed with the SITLA representative and SITLA lands are being treated as part of Phase I.

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.

The private landowners will enter into a contract with NRCS and USFWS.  As part of the landowner agreement with USFWS the landowner agrees to leave the habitat restored in place for a 10 year period and during that time will work with the USFWS biologist to monitor and access needs, success, and any needed adaptive management.

Landowners will be contracted with the NRCS to manage grazing to mantian a 12" stubble height on in contracted areas for 2 years.  Grazing will be allowed, because this lop and scatter practice does not require seeding and understory in great condition.

This project will also help the landowners better distribute and graze not only his private property but also his adjacent public allotments.  This means the potential for improved range management and range conditions moving forward.

There is no grazing rest prescribed as part of this phase II project as current management is adequate to meet project goals and objectives.

No seeding will occur so no need for grazing rest prescriptions.

The area is part of the Panguitch and Beaver unit big game management areas and is managed according to the mule deer and elk management plan cited in the management plan sections.  These units are managed for big bull trophy elk through a draw process with permitted OTC spike hunting.  The mule deer hunting is managed through the general season draw process.

No sage grouse hunting is permitted at this time.  The area is also carefully managed as core sage grouse habitat.  Any actions undertaken by agencies consider both Federal and State management plans.

By generally sequencing the treatment of aspen in this project, browse pressure may be more directed away from newly treated areas; this is expected to increase the probability of regenerating aspen to reach 6 feet tall after treatment. Aspen browse thresholds and adaptive management response options have been developed and will be implemented to help ensure new regenerating aspen successfully recruit (become 6 feet or taller). To assist this effort, aspen monitoring and protection fences will be put in place.

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.

The private, SITLA, and adjacent BLM administered lands are all part of grazing rotations.  This project will have a big benefit to the private grazing operations.  Working across landownerships will have a greater ecological and economic impact for livestock producers.

The lop and scatter treatment may slightly increase available forage but more importantly prevent future loss of forage.

Wet meadow restoration will increase herbaceous vegetation.

As previously mentioned in other sections of the proposal the project area is a high use area for recreational hunting of big game.

Aspen communities are some of the most productive vegetative communities on the planet.  Working to restore these communities will provide a substantial increase of available forage for all grazing animals, native and domestic.  Aspen communities are also very important habitat for pollinators with a high percentage of forb species in the understory.

ATV and UTV use in these areas is one of the dominant recreational uses on this landscape.  Each summer people from all over the country travel in and around these project areas to ride the thousands of miles of improved atv trails.  Improving and creating fire resistant habitat adds value to atv rider experience.

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.