Skip to Content
Main Menu
Search
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative
Projects
Maps
About Us
Register
Login
Search
Saving...
Thank you for requesting access to WRI.
An administrator will contact you with further details.
South Slope Vegetation Restoration Phase 2
Region: Northeastern
ID: 4856
Project Status: Completed
Map This Project
Export Project Data
Project Details
*
Need for Project
In 2018 a herbicide treatment (WRI Project ID 4545) was completed as well as cultural clearances associated with NEPA. SHPO concurrence is complete and the NEPA decision will be signed by March 15. This project is needed to follow up with the herbicide treatment by seeding areas vulnerable to cheatgrass invasion. To take advantage of the herbicide treatment implementation needs to occur fall of 2019.
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.
*
Objectives
The objective is to take an aggressive, proactive role to minimize or reduce the spread of cheatgrass to restore, or at least maintain, the current range condition and critical habitat by establishing competitive, perennial species. Additional objectives include a greater fire return interval, an increase in soil stability, an increase in forage for livestock and wildlife, and maintenance of species diversity. It is anticipated that this project will be a test for treatment success to assist in future vegetation management projects.
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.
*
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?)
If seed is not established within the chemically treated areas, cheatgrass is likely to re-establish the open niches and possibly completely convert to cheatgrass in the near future. If left untreated, our monitoring shows that disturbances, especially drought, may cause the vegetation composition to cross the threshold from vegetation dominated by perennial grass with some infestations of cheatgrass, to a landscape dominated by cheatgrass and other annual weeds. A conversion to an annual dominated understory also threatens the current grazing management of the Mosby Mountain Allotment by potentially reducing the grazing season, cattle numbers and season of use flexibility because of the lack of perennial vegetation. Historically, the project area was not managed appropriately and when combined with wildfire, this area has become susceptible for invasion. Grazing practices are currently being adapted to improve conditions (see Sustainable Uses section below).
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.
*
Relation to Management Plans
This proposal is in compliance with the Ashley National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of 1986, as well as the Greater Sage Grouse Amendment to the Forest Plan. The proposal is also in alignment with the directions and objectives of the Range Management Handbook, the Mosby Mountain Allotment Management Plan and the Ashley National Forest Noxious Weed Management Plan. The proposed project is within crucial mule deer habitat and is identified in the UDWR Mule Deer Management Plan as a priority area for vegetation restoration projects (see also Habitat Objectives #2 b, d). This proposal addresses issues regarding habitat loss, invasive species and improper livestock grazing as outlined in the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah (2013). This plan also addresses improving quality forage and important winter habitat for elk in the Mosby Mountain area (see Habitat Objective 1 b, c and Habitat Objective 2 c in the UDWR Elk Management Plan). This proposal supports fire management, noxious weed, riparian/wetlands and livestock/grazing objectives and policies in the 2017 Uintah County plan. Some of these objectives include: 17.4.1 "Reduce or eliminate noxious weed infestations and minimize the establishment of new weed species across jurisdictional boundaries using adaptive management and integrated weed management approaches." 15.4.3 "Manage lands to maintain or increase forage allocation for livestock grazing. Require annual checking and verification that lands are still up to standard." 20.4.11 "Modify grazing use to avoid overgrazing if appropriate." By reducing cheatgrass composition and improving the perennial plant composition this proposal also is supported by the 2018 State of Utah Resource Management Plan (RMP). The plans noxious weed objectives on pages 171-172 stress to "increase emphasis on prevention as a strategy to manage noxious weeds in the state." And that "post-treatment, areas that have been invaded by noxious weeds must be revegetated and rehabilitated. The goal after treatment is to return the area to a desirable species composition if possible. As native vegetation is reestablished, the risk of future invasions of noxious weeds decreases." Livestock objectives in the RMP also suggests to "improve vegetative health on public and private lands through range improvements, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments, and active management of invasive plants and noxious weeds."
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.
*
Fire/Fuels
The primary focus of Secretarial Order 3336, signed in 2015 in response to the USFWS status review, was to reduce threats to greater sage-grouse habitat by reducing the frequency and severity of rangeland fire. The objective is to create a situation where fire frequency is decreased to a point where sagebrush and perennial vegetation can get established, maintain habitat, cover and forage and resist the infestation of cheatgrass. The fire wise seed mix proposed is designed to out compete cheatgrass, provide habitat, cover and forage that remains greener longer in an attempt to break the cycle of conversion seen throughout the West.
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.
*
Water Quality/Quantity
With the establishment of perennial vegetation, water quality is expected to increase as soil is stabilized, infiltration increases and run-off is decreased. Water quantity is expected to increase in meadows as water is held by perennial vegetation. As part of this project, grazing practices have been adapted to improve rangeland conditions and allow for maintenance and recovery of key perennial species. As the project is implemented, grazing will continue to be adapted based on monitoring, to maintain the treatment, thus indirectly improving the overall water quality and quantity long-term. The Lyman Springs Pasture will be rested for at least the 2020 grazing season, to allow the seeding to become established. This will be documented in the Annual Operating Instructions. This project falls within the Tridell-LaPoint municipal watershed.
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.
*
Compliance
The NEPA process is near completion and waiting for a Decision to be signed once SHPO concurrence is complete. A draft report from the cultural clearance WRI contract has been submitted to the Forest Service for review. Once the final report is submitted and SHPO concurrence is complete, the decision memo can be signed and the project can be implemented. Expected decision is March 2019.
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.
*
Methods
1. Drill seed 265 acres with rangeland drill in semi-wet to mesic meadows and roadside. 177 acres of this drill seeding will be contracted using a 10 ft rangeland drill. 88 acres will be reserved to be completed by the Forest Service (permittee or other in kind method) using a smaller drill in less accessible areas. 2. Broadcast 824 acres with either fixed wing or helicopter in rocky terrain to improve upland, perennial vegetation.
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.
*
Monitoring
Approximately 230 permanent study plots are established within the project area, including two wildlife/cattle exclosures. Data, including repeat photography, will be collected immediately before and after treatments. The project will be monitored for three years intensively, and long-term monitoring will continue following the Ashley National Forest protocol. Photos and data will be input into the WRI completion report and stored at the Ashley National Forest.
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.
*
Partners
WRI has funded the first stage of this project including herbicide treatment and cultural clearances to complete NEPA (WRI Project ID 4545). This funding has expedited the NEPA process and supported the Forest Service with funding otherwise not available. Partners and funding associated with this first grant included: RMEF, Safari Club, SFW, Utah Bowman's Assoc., USFS, MDF, DNR watershed. As part of this project, several water systems and other range improvements are currently being reconstructed by the permittee with help from the Utah Grazing Improvement Program and NRCS. The following partners have been consulted for planning and coordination purposes. They have added valuable input and will continue to shape the details of the project. -Forest Service resource staff and NEPA ID Team including Don Jaques, Ryan Mower, Nate Shinkle, Jeff Rust, Allen Huber, Dustin Bambrough -Utah Grazing Improvement Program-Terrell Thayne (assisted with UGIP grants on the Mosby Mountain Allotment and helped with drill seeding planning). -NRCS-Mark Ewell (planning and help with NRCS grant) -Pheasants Forever/NRCS-Charlie Holtz (worked with the permittee to develop water and helped fund 5-year NRCS grant to replace several water systems) -Grazing Permittee Nelson Farms, Inc.-Kent Nelson -Utah Division of Wildlife-Miles Hanberg, Tory Mathis (Planning, Mapping) -Utah State University-Eric Thacker (Consulted for seeding success and methods) -BIA-Gary Dean (discussed tribal lands that could possibly be treated adjacent to the Forest) This project occurs only on U.S. Forest Service administered land.
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.
*
Future Management
The Forest Service is committed to improving rangeland and this project is a high priority. Grazing management has been adapted to assist in the maintenance and, hopefully, improvement of the rangeland. Cattle numbers have been reduced, grazing rotation has been changed and reconstruction of water projects have been ongoing for the last few years in an attempt to maintain the perennial vegetation. Nevertheless, cheatgrass will continue to spread now that it has been established and the landscape is in need of drastic, aggressive treatment. It is anticipated that this project will be a test for treatment success to assist in future vegetation management projects. Additional seeding or other treatment may be necessary if this phase does not meeting desired conditions based on the monitoring results.
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.
*
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources
It is anticipated that vegetation rehabilitation will allow more flexibility in the grazing season of use, numbers and other management practices. Treatment will also provide improved cover, habitat and forage for wildlife and livestock. Improved habitat will potentially increase deer and elk in the area increasing positive hunting experiences as well as opportunities for viewing wildlife for campers and those recreating in the area.
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.
Title Page
Project Details
Finance
Species
Habitats
Seed
Comments
Images/Documents
Completion Form
Project Summary Report
Saving...