Project Details

Phase 1 of a watershed size project.  Various species of conifer are experiencing an advanced growth rate in the Last Chance and Clear Creek watersheds.  Due to advanced encroachment of conifer in sage brush, open meadows, aspen stands, and spruce stands; a loss of sage brush, grass/forb meadows are decreasing at an accelerated rate.  We digitized aerial photos of the area from 1939 and compared the image to current vegetative conditions.  We then mapped the acres of conifer increase across the different eco-types to and were able to visualize the change or encroachment that has occurred since 1939.  This dramatic increase has had an affect on ecosystem balance in these watersheds.  Advanced conifer encroachment in the watershed is having an affect on the overall water quality in the area.  Treatments to remove or reduce the advancement of conifer across the elevation gradient in the watershed should improve more desirable vegetative characteristics for a variety of wildlife. 
 Purpose
The purpose of the project is to provide large open sagebrush landscapes essential to GRSG for breeding, nesting, brood rearing and winter use by implementing goals and objectives outline in the Fishlake LRMP and GRSG ROD to achieve the following goals:
1.	To protect, enhance and restore sage-grouse and its habitat (GRSG ROD, page 12).
2.	Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals (LRMP, page IV-4).
3.	Integrate vegetation management with resource management to maintain productivity and provide for diversity of plant an animal communities (LRMP, page IV-3).
Need
There is a need to conserve, enhance, and restore sage-grouse habitat in order to move toward desired conditions and avoid further impacts to the viability of existing and future sage-grouse populations. Also, conifer encroachment in adjacent stands are contributing to the degradation of sage-grouse habitat, thereby creating a need to improve ecosystem diversity and health to the watershed scale.

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.

Install 4 big game guzzlers and 2 upland game guzzlers (Phase 1 current proposal).  It is our desire that sage grouse will move over the summit and find the proposed vegetation treatments (Phase 2-future proposal) and the guzzlers attractive and expand their range.  This Last Chance Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project is proposed for National Forest System (NFS) lands managed by the Fremont River and Richfield Ranger Districts of the Fishlake National Forest. The purpose of this project is to implement the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) by proposing vegetation treatments designed specifically to achieve the following goals:
1.	Integrate vegetation management with resource management to maintain productivity and provide for diversity of plant and animal communities (Fishlake LRMP, page IV-3).
2.	Coordinate wildlife and fish habitat management with State, other Federal and local agencies (Fishlake LRMP, page IV-3).
3.	Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals (Fishlake LMRP, page IV-4).

The Fremont River and Richfield District Rangers, Fishlake National Forest, have made a preliminary assessment that this proposal falls within a category of actions listed in the Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Handbook that are excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that would preclude the use of these categories (FSH 19009.15 (Chapter30)). The proposed action is a routine activity as defined in FSH 1909.15 Section 32.2 and fits Category 6: "Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction."

Next year we will propose a WRI proposal to start vegetation work within the project area.  Treatment methods would consist of :  (approximately 6,650 acres of hand treatment and approximately 1,804 acres of ground based mechanical treatment) would include cutting conifers (primarily pinyon pine and juniper) with handsaws or chainsaws, lopping with pruning shears and using tracked or wheeled machinery fitted with a grinding implement or shearing implement. Broadcast burning (approximately 3,886 acres) will also occur in areas of conifer encroachment (primarily subalpine fir mixed with aspen) adjacent to sagebrush steppe.

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.

Phase 1 considerations:  (Current proposal) Due to the lack of water in the area to benefit wildlife species we suppose a decline in certain populations will occur. Recent deer surveys in the area have shown a decline over historical population numbers. Without water needed to support wildlife, especially big game, a concern of wild ungulates concentrating to other adjacent areas that have water could become a problem.

Phase 2 vegetation considerations (Future proposal):
One of the greatest risk to this project's success is the possibility of cheat grass invasive species post treatment. This risk is somewhat elevation dependent on this project. The lowest elevations near valley floor pose the greatest risk. As treatments occur further up slope and/ or on northern slopes, the risk decreases. Seeding will occur on the project to promote grasses and forbs in the effort to out compete the cheat grass. Ungulate browse pressure also poses a risk/threat on project success. Multiple phases are planned to complete this landscape scale habitat improvement project.  Neighboring projects to the south have been completed or are on deck to be treated to improve ecological conditions for wildlife with an emphasis on Greater Sage grouse.   The project is predominately in phase 2 transitioning to phase 3. Some understory sage/ grasses/forbs still exists but is about to cross the threshold into phase 3 dominated PJ and lose the remaining understory.

Ground surveys and site visits have allowed us to see the lack of understory plants in the pinion/juniper zone as well as the upland mixed-conifer aspen forest.   Forage productivity has diminished greatly over the past century and the pinion/juniper encroachment continues on a yearly basis into the more productive sage/grass/forb communities. Some areas within the project have lost a majority of the understory sage/grasses/forbs, but other areas have not completely lost the understory. If left untreated the risk increases annually by loosing valuable understory vegetation.  The threat is that all wildlife species will eventually suffer and could lean toward less diversity on the landscape.  Catastrophic fire potential will continue to increase.

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 provide the opportunity to enhance or sustain viable wildlife populations in the Last Chance and upper Clear Creek watershed areas.  Management plans that would be considered in association with this proposal would consist of:
1. Fishlake Land Resource Management Plan--The project falls within the guidelines for wildlife habitat improvement found within the LRMP. The area chosen to install the guzzlers is a managed as a wildlife emphasis area. Installation of 6 guzzlers across the landscape will restore water in the area enabling wildlife to utilize the diverse cover and forage found in the unique ecosystem.  
Relationship to the Forest Plan
This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Fishlake National Forest LRMP, as amended, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions. The proposed action is a project level analysis that is not intended to re-examine the basic land use allocations made in the LRMP, nor propose broad changes in land use allocations. Instead, planning at the project level involves the development, analysis, and disclosure of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of specific actions designed to achieve the overall goals and objectives of the LRMPs. The project area falls within the LRMP management areas (Figure 2) included in the following table:
Table 1. Last Chance Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project LRMP Management Areas.
Management Area and Acres
4B -- Habitat for Management Indicator Species	2,617
9F -- Improved Watershed	89
6B -- Intensive Livestock Management	9,634

2. UDWR Elk Management Plan. Habitat improvements such as water improvements in areas that have become water limited due to drought or climate change are encouraged by the statewide elk plan. Water sources developed across the landscape in the project area are necessary to maintain and improve wildlife population viability including upland game, small game, big game, avian groups, and insect populations.
3. UDWR Mule Deer Management Plan Habitat improvements such as water improvements in areas that have become water limited due to drought or climate change are encouraged by the statewide Mule Deer plan. 
4.Utah Wildlife Action Plan. Installing guzzlers in areas needing water to facilitate wildlife needs is part of the WAP as well as the Fishlake LRMP.  Phase 2 of the project will address more complex concerns found within the Utah WAP.

Sage Grouse Management
The Parker Mountain-Emery Sage Grouse Management Area is part of the project area.
This project aligns with the Parker Mountain Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan, October 1, 2006. Specifically, the project corresponds with section 2.5. in the plan, which states as follows: "Action: Treat areas where undesirable vegetation has become, or is at risk of becoming a factor in sage-grouse habitat loss or fragmentation." It also follows the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah, February 14, 2013. Specifically section 5.4.1: "Aggressively remove encroaching conifers and other plant species to expand greater sage-grouse habitat where possible."

Bald Eagle Management Bald Eagles: Bald eagles are protected by the Utah Wildlife Code, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Although the bald eagle is no longer listed on the Endangered Species List, the species remains listed as a Species of Concern in Utah, a subset of the State Sensitive Species List. State and federal laws prohibit harassing, injuring or killing eagles, or damaging their nests. Midwinter surveys of bald eagles within the lower 48 states were initiated by the National Wildlife Federation in 1979. Wintering Bald Eagles utilize the project area and treatments would improve life cycle opportunities for them.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d) is a United States federal statute that protects two species of eagle. The bald eagle was chosen as a national emblem of the United States by the Continental Congress of 1782 and was given legal protection by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act was expanded to include the golden eagle in 1962.[1] Since the original Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has been amended several times. It currently prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles. Taking is described to include their parts, nests, or eggs, molesting or disturbing the birds. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof."[2]

The purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection act is to not agitate the bald and golden eagle to the extent of not 1.) Abusing an eagle, 2.) Interfering with its substantial lifestyle, including shelter, breeding, feeding, or 3.) Nest abandonment.[3] The eagle feathers have been collected and incorporated into clothing, art, jewelry, etc. In addition, having the possession, exchange, or sale of bald eagle feathers violates the act if no permit is obtained. The basic structure of the act resembles the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

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.

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.

We intend to purchase a "Boss Tanks" brand wildlife guzzler kit. The kit includes a 22x100 foot apron that gathers rain water and/or snow. The water then passes through a filter and a 2" black plastic pipe into the catchment tank. The catchment tank is capable of holding 1800 gal. The tank is made of a cross-linked poly material that is UV resistant.
The installation site is chosen by the local district wildlife biologist. After the materials are delivered to the installation site the area for the apron and tank are brushed to bare soil with a Bobcat and six-way blade. The apron site is prepared and the tank site is dug with a mini excavator. Plumbing connections are completed as well as back fill and compaction around the tank. The apron edges are back filled and the entire site is seeded where soil was disturbed. The entire area is fenced with a net wire/1-barb wire fence combination with a 30 ft.
lodge pole game crossing section to facilitate movement in and out of the drinker area.

Plans for vegetation treatments for upcoming years as separate phases is as follows:

Proposed Action
To move towards desired conditions and meet the purpose and need as described above we are proposing to reduce conifers that are encroaching into sage-grouse priority habitat, consistent with the Forest LRMP and GRSG ROD. Treatment methods (approximately 6,650 acres of hand treatment and approximately 1,804 acres of ground based mechanical treatment) would include cutting conifers (primarily pinyon pine and juniper) with handsaws or chainsaws, lopping with pruning shears, and using tracked or wheeled machinery fitted with a grinding implement (masticator) or shearing implement (large, powerful pruning shears). Material would be scattered and remain on site. Trees would be cut as close to the ground as practical. No live branches would remain on the stump. Within 1.86 miles of identified Lek locations, branches would be lopped from felled conifer and scattered below sagebrush height. Seeding would occur as needed in treatment areas where a lack of existing understory is present. As needed, these areas would continue to be maintained via hand and/or ground based mechanical equipment as described above.

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.

The Richfield Ranger District has installed 14 guzzlers in the last 5 years. We are constantly searching and learning where habitat improvements need to be made to enhance ecosystems to ensure healthy and viable wildlife populations. We will continue to look for opportunities to install guzzlers in areas where drought conditions and climate change have minimized water opportunities for wildlife.

This project has plans for extensive vegetation management to improve habitat quality.

Future Proposed Action-Phase 2
To move towards desired conditions and meet the purpose and need as described above we are proposing to reduce conifers that are encroaching into sage-grouse priority habitat, consistent with the Forest LRMP and GRSG ROD. Treatment methods (approximately 6,650 acres of hand treatment and approximately 1,804 acres of ground based mechanical treatment) would include cutting conifers (primarily pinyon pine and juniper) with handsaws or chainsaws, lopping with pruning shears, and using tracked or wheeled machinery fitted with a grinding implement (masticator) or shearing implement (large, powerful pruning shears). Material would be scattered and remain on site. Trees would be cut as close to the ground as practical. No live branches would remain on the stump. Within 1.86 miles of identified Lek locations, branches would be lopped from felled conifer and scattered below sagebrush height. Seeding would occur as needed in treatment areas where a lack of existing understory is present. As needed, these areas would continue to be maintained via hand and/or ground based mechanical equipment as described above.

Broadcast burning (approximately 3,886 acres) would also occur in areas of conifer encroachment (primarily subalpine fir mixed with aspen) adjacent to sagebrush steppe. Burning would be done in mosaic patterns and burning would not target sagebrush areas. Seeding would occur as needed in treatment areas where a lack of existing understory and/or a high severity burn occurs. These areas proposed for burning would continue to be maintained with use of prescribed fire or as appropriate, allowing naturally caused ignitions to burn.
Up to six wildlife guzzlers would also be installed; guzzlers would be designed for rainwater collection for large wildlife and upland game. Each guzzler site would be less than .5/acre footprint. See map for proposed treatment areas and proposed guzzler sites.

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.

As conifer encroachment accelerates on the low land and upland portions of the Last Chance-Clear Creek watershed areas water capacities are greatly diminished in the "natural setting" or desired condition.  Wildlife and understory vegetation across the landscape have suffered for free water due to conifer encroachment at these different levels.  Increase of PJ since the 1939 aerial photos have shown development and a transition of Phase 1 to Phase 2 PJ occur at a rapid rate.  Vegetation projects at a large scale will improve watershed integrity for a variety of plants and animals.  The addition in this Phase 1 request for guzzlers will add available drinking water for insects, avian species, rodents, small game, non-game, big game, and upland game.  As vegetation projects move forward a dispersion of ungulate use will become widespread across the landscape allowing an overall improvement in health of this ecosystem.

When all phases of this landscape scale project are complete opportunities will be plentiful for wildlife, livestock, recreation, camping, hunting, hiking, etc.

Timber stand improvement will be realized within PJ-Spruce-Fir and Aspen forest types.

Livestock operators will realize an increase in AUM values across the landscape thus improving grazing and watering opportunities for permitted cattle.

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.