Project Details

The Upper Provo Watershed is in need of vegetation management in order to maintain and improve watershed conditions. The primary focus is terrestrial and aquatic wildlife habitat improvement and hazardous fuels reduction. We are on our 5th phase of Upper Provo and hope to continue habitat restoration from the head waters to the valley bottoms of the Upper Provo Watershed. This watershed is critical to Utah as it supplies over 70% of the Central Utah Water Conservancy capacity to meet demand along the Wasatch Front.  
There are over 21,000 acres of hazardous fuels reduction, TSI, and habitat improvement projects that need treatment within the 91,000 acre project area, We have successfully treated over 8,000 acres of the project to date. Our goal with Phase 5 is to treat 1,747 acres under a partnership with National Wild Turkey Federation.  This partnership would jointly fund a shared position to help increase and maintain capacity for the multiple contracts being implemented at the same time in order to increase the pace and scale of restoration.
1) Mastication: Juniper is encroaching into sagebrush communities limiting the diversity of plant and animal species and increasing the risk of unwanted fire effects when a fire occurs. The invasion of junipers excludes other plant species by limiting water, light, and nutrients available to the understory vegetation. As other plant species are excluded, ground cover is decreased and the juniper out competes the understory and reduces the amount of browse available. Also the juniper acts as a ladder fuel, increasing fire spread and intensity potential. The stage of encroachment is not particularly severe at this time but conditions will continue to degrade if no action is taken.  The ideal understory is still established and present, making restoration easier and less costly to treat at this time.
Removal of juniper within oak communities and treatment of the oak on the WMA will restore vigor to the oak and provide valuable winter forage for wintering wildlife.  This is an effective method when fire is not a viable option. New growth oak is a high quality food source for wintering deer.

2) Small Wood Thinning: Treatment will occur on portions of 790 acres of lodgepole pine, primarily in the Iron Mine and Alexander Lake areas. These stands were logged in the 1950s and have grown back too densely in portions to grow well into larger mature trees. Thinning will be from below removing the smaller trees and favoring the more dominant trees.
This could include some limited commercial use for firewood and post or pole material within 500 feet of the existing roads, totaling approximately 330 acres. No new roads will be constructed to remove this wood. Machinery could include farm tractors or skid steer loader type equipment to remove wood to nearby roads. Trees will be hand felled. More than 500 feet from the roads, only chainsaws will be used with material either scattered or piled and burned.

3)Create Openings-Conifer Regeneration: These openings would also break up the continuity of the fuels profile should wildfire occur in the area. These stands were harvested about 60 years ago and creating openings to establish early seral lodgepole pine would add age and structural diversity on about 75 acres under group selection. 
Groups would be in the 10 acre range and be created using combinations of hand falling the trees and mechanized equipment such as farm tractors or skid steer loaders for piling or removing stems to nearby roadsides. No roads would be constructed. Similar to the aspen based treatments near Hoyt's Peak, these would be open to both commercial and public firewood / post and pole gathering, under permit. No sawtimber would be removed since the trees are generally less than 8 inches diameter.  This treatment would contribute towards the purpose and need by creating early seral structure within the matrix of mature structure.

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) Mastication: Mastication of juniper would occur in the yellowpine/upper setting area along Highway 150 for a total of 665 acres. Mastication would be accomplished with tracked or wheeled equipment and employ either a drum or disk machine head. This would result in the reduction of canopy fuels in the event of wildfire and also encourage early seral stage vegetation development favoring sagebrush and grasses.  Within the section east of YellowPine and near theUpper Setting Rd area there are valley bottoms suffering from juniper encroachment.  Juniper removal will benefit sage brush by increasing available water and sunlight.  This treatment would contribute towards the purpose and need by removing potential fuels and returning the units to the sage/grass communities that would traditional dominate under a natural fire regime which suppressed juniper.
Mastication of the WMA will get the oak back below the foraging line so that it is available to wildlife.

2) Small Wood Thinning: Treat approx 790 acres to improve stand vigor and health of over-stocked lodgepole pine stands by thinning. Thin from below removing smaller and weaker trees, favoring dominant trees. Trees with at least 35% live crown or more available. Remove trees between 1 to 9" DBH targeting sub alpine fir.

3) Create Openings -- Conifer Regeneration: On 292 acres of the lodgepole pine stands to the south and west of Alexander Lake openings would be created using a group selection technique and relying on natural regeneration on about 25%  of the stands acres These openings would also break up the continuity of the fuels profile should wildfire occur in the area. These stands were harvested about 60 years ago and creating openings to establish early seral lodgepole pine would add age and structural diversity on about 75 acres in groups. 
Groups would be in the 10 acre range and be created using combinations of hand falling the trees and mechanized equipment such as farm tractors or skid steer loaders for piling or removing stems to nearby roadsides. No roads would be constructed. Similar to the aspen based treatments near Hoyt's Peak these would be open to both commercial and public firewood / post and pole gathering, under permit. No sawtimber would be removed since the trees are generally less than 8 inches diameter. This treatment would contribute towards the purpose and need by creating early seral structure within the matrix of mature structure.

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.

1) Mastication- The sage-steppe eco type is at risk due to juniper encroachment. If no action is taken, then watershed conditions and wildlife habitat will continue to degrade.  Also encroachment from juniper into sage habitat as well as conifer encroachment into wetlands is already happening and conditions will only degrade further with time, making the process of removal more difficult. Vegetation age class and species diversity will continue to degrade.  Encroachment and homogeneity will continue to negatively impact watershed conditions. The juniper trees are creating ladder fuels and increasing the risk of a high intensity/severity wildfire occurring.
On the WMA the oak is not at risk of crossing a threshold but it is currently providing minimal forage value and treating it will restore that value.

2) Small Wood Thinning- Mechanical treatment of these over stocked previously harvested stands will alter the fuel type from a TL3 to TL1. Opening up these stands is expected to improve residual tree growth and stand health. Because of high density stand growth, thinning may increase risk to wind throw and damage. Firefighting operational engagement and proper management will be enhanced if an event occurs in this area post treatment.

3) Create Openings-Conifer Regeneration: Stand Structure is primarily composed of even-aged lodgepole approx 60 years in age. Height is generally 40-70 feet for the lodgepole. Remnant Engelmann spruce left after timber harvest are mostly dead from spruce beetle. There is a large cohort of sub alpine fir that has released from competition after harvest located throughout the stand. It is expected that mountain pine beetle over time will continue at endemic levels, with epidemic potential increasing as much of the lodgepole in the area matures. As well, the remaining larger diameter lodgepole that have already died will eventually fall and contribute to an increase in fuel loading. It is critical to treat these stands to create a younger mosaic/patch work within these areas.

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.

UDWR. 2006. CONSERVATION AGREEMENT AND STRATEGY FOR COLUMBIA SPOTTED FROG (RANA LUTEIVENTRIS) IN THE STATE OF UTAH. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 06-01, Salt Lake City, UT.

Cites that: "Habitat loss and degradation have been indicated as major causes of the declines in spotted frog populations and distribution" pp.22.

-UDWR. 2005. BOREAL TOAD (BUFO BOREAS BOREAS) CONSERVATION PLAN. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Publication Number 05-37, Salt Lake City, UT.

Indicates that habitat loss, habitat fragmentation and fire intensity/effect are threatening BT populations. pp.12-17.

-The Upper Provo Restoration Project falls within the Western Uintas Management Area. Vegetation management activities in the project area center on trying to improve soil, water, and vegetation conditions within the Upper Provo Watershed to restore the overall watershed health; the proper functioning of physical, biological and chemical conditions.
-Biodiversity/Viability Desired future conditions for Vegetation and Disturbance Processes for the Western Uintas Management Area (USDA Forest Service, 2003; 4-179) include:
-Beaver Creek Area:  Mechanical thinning of invading species (such as Juniper and Gambel Oak) followed by prescribed fire or mastication will be employed to maintain the unique Ponderosa pine component of the landscape.  Gambel oak and mountain brush will be managed to increase age class diversity and reduce fuel loading adjacent to private property. Sagebrush will be managed to increase the diversity of age classes and decrease canopy cover of juniper, as a consequence increase grass-forb cover.
Social (non-recreation) Desired Future Conditions for the Western Uintas Management Area include (USDA Forest Service, 2003; 4-190):
-Risks to private property from unwanted fire will be reduced through close coordination with local communities. In the Soapstone and Weber River summer home areas, permit holders, The State of Utah Department of Natural Resources and private homeowners will work Cooperatively to provide fuel breaks and defensible space.
-Forest-wide Subgoals (USDA Forest Service, 2003) that are applicable to this project and fuels/fire ecology are: -2h. Maintain and/or restore diversity, productivity, vigor, and regenerative capacity of native and desired nonnative riparian and wetland plant communities to provide an amount and distribution of large woody debris characteristic of natural aquatic & riparian ecosystems; provide adequate summer & winter thermal regulation; and to help achieve rates of surface erosion and channel migration characteristic of those under which desired communities develop.
-3d. Restore or maintain fire-adapted ecosystems (consistent with land uses, historic fire regimes, and other Forest Plan direction) through wildland fire use, prescribed fire, timber harvest or mechanical treatments. -3f. Maintain or restore species composition, such that the species that occupy any given site are predominantly native species in the kind and amount that were historically distributed across the landscapes.
4d. Reduce hazardous fuels (prescribed fire, silvicultural and mechanical treatments) with emphasis on interface communities (wildland/urban) and increase proactive participation of communities at risk.
-Forest Guidelines and Desired Conditions applicable to this project and fuels/fire ecology include: -Minimize the amount and impact of smoke from "fire use" activities by identifying smoke-sensitive areas, using "best available control measures," monitoring smoke impacts, and following guidance in State smoke management plans.
-Manage vegetation for properly functioning condition at the landscape scale. Desired structure and pattern for cover types of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest are as follows except in the Wildland Urban Interface, where vegetation structure and pattern should be managed to reduce threat of sever fire to property and human safety.
-(G3.1A-1) Timber harvest, vegetation/fuel treatments, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use are allowed only for the purposes of maintaining, improving or restoring riparian and aquatic habitat to desired conditions or to protect property in the wildland urban interface
-(G3.1W-1) Vegetation/fuel treatment, prescribed fire, and wildland fire use are allowed for the purposes of maintaining, improving or restoring watersheds to desired conditions, and to protect property in the wildland urban interface.
-(G3.2U-1) Vegetation/fuel treatment, prescribed fire and wildland fire use are allowed for the purposes of maintaining, improving or restoring terrestrial habitat, for hazardous fuel reduction, and to protect property in the wildland urban interface.

-Deer Herd Unit Management Plan- Deer Herd Unit #7 (Kamas)
The limiting factor for big game in this management unit is the lack of adequate amounts of good quality winter range.  There are areas that are experiencing juniper encroachment and are in need of treatments to address this problem.
Issues: juniper encroachment and annual grass competition reducing the amount of browse species available to wintering wildlife.

-Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan 2014
The project is designated crucial summer range for Mule Deer.  Section IV Statewide management goals and objectives. This project will address Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2013 (p11-12). Strategy F. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages. https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan.pdf

Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan (2015)
Habitat Objective 1: Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives
and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock.
Strategies:
B. Habitat Management
a) Coordinate with land management agencies and private landowners to properly
manage and improve elk habitat, especially calving and wintering areas.
C. Watershed Restoration Initiative
a) Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk
habitat.
b) Coordinate with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private
landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative
working groups to identify and prioritize elk habitats that are in need of enhancement
or restoration.
    i) Identify habitat projects on summer ranges (aspen communities) to improve
calving habitat.
    ii) Encourage land managers to manage portions of forests in early succession stages
through the use controlled burning and logging. Controlled burning should only
be used in areas with minimal invasive weed and/or safety concerns.

Habitat Objective 2: Reduce adverse impacts to elk herds and elk habitat.
Strategies: 
C. Noxious Weed Control
a) Work with land management agencies and county weed boards to control the spread
of noxious and invasive weeds throughout the range of elk in Utah.

This project will remove fuels and yet not likely reduce fire risk as moisture content in treated areas would probable prevent wildfire.

Elk Herd Unit Management Plan #7 Kamas
UNIT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES 
Habitat
-Maintain and improve forage production on all winter range within this
unit for the planning period.
-Continue working with private landowners and United States Forest
Service (USFS) to protect winter range from future losses.

Utah Moose Statewide Management Plan: 
-Initiate prescribed burns and other vegetative treatment projects to improve moose habitat lost to ecological succession or human impacts.

Utah Black Bear Management Plan: 
-Successional replacement of aspen stands by conifers can significantly reduce bear-food production in aspen communities. Both fire and selective logging of conifers can be used to maintain aspen vigor.

State of Utah - Resource Management Plan (pg 236)
- Expand Wildlife Populations
- Protect existing habitat and improve 500,000 acres of habitat
- Produce and maintain the desired vegetation for wildlife and livestock.

Summit County Resource Management Plan
- Work with jurisdictional agencies to provide for and enhance the health of wildlife habitats in Summit County.

State of Utah - Forest Service Shared Stewardship Agreement
-This project falls within priority watersheds identified by the State of Utah and the Forest Service for treatment under the signed Stewardship Agreement of May 2019 between Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Purdue.

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.

In 2018, two somewhat large fires occurred in the Upper Provo/Hwy 150 area. Slate and Murdock, these two being the most well known in the Kamas area. The two most prominent differences between these fires were the standing dead component of the Murdock Fire and the more functioning/diverse ecosystem of the Slate Fire and how they burned.  the Slate fire had a more functioning ecosystem and less standing dead trees. Murdock burned close to 6,000 acres and with high severity. Slate burned at a more moderate fire severity with more of a patchwork across the landscape. By mechanically treating throughout the Upper Provo watershed, we hope to mimic the conditions of the Slate Fire with any natural start or RX.

The Upper Provo project is located near the community of Samak, which has been identified by the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands as a Community at Risk. The project is located along Highway 150, a heavily used recreation corridor and designated scenic byway. Numerous campgrounds and recreation access points dot the highway. The current fuel conditions pose a risk to public safety due to ingress/egress issues, as identified in a 2005 Fireshed Assessment. The 2013 Northern Utah Regional Wildfire Protection Plan identifies this area as a moderate - high risk area for wildfire.

Mastication along the highway corridor will directly impact fire conditions by altering fire behavior, allowing resources to respond faster and utilize suppression tactics more effectively. In addition, the change fire condition class will reduce the risk of unwanted fire effects and increase public and firefighter safety.

This watershed ranks among the highest throughout the state for the new shared stewardship risk to value resources. The priority ranking map developed cooperatively between the State of Utah and the Forest Service looks at drinking water, hazardous fuels and strategic protection. This watershed supplies two primary Central Utah Water Conservancy reservoirs (deer creek & jordanelle) and Utah lake.

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.

These vegetation treatments are expected to result in an overall improvement in Riparian Habitat Conservation Area wildfire resiliency and will contribute to the attainment of the Riparian Management Objectives that have been established for the Upper Provo Project (Upper Provo Watershed Restoration Project Environmental Assessment, 2015), including:
* Maintain or improve water quality and attainment of established beneficial uses of surface waters within the project area.
* Maintain or improve instream habitat features and characteristics.
* Maintain or improve stream channel stability and floodplain function.
* Maintain or improve non-point source pollutant filtering capacity of RHCAs.
* Maintain or improve timing and variability of water tables in meadows, wetlands, and riparian corridors. All of which will benefit Deer Creek Reservoir (a receiving body for Provo River Watershed) which has a current TMDL for TDS - which this project will mitigate. Additionally, the treatment will result in an increase in ground cover and a subsequent reduction in erosion potential. Water Quality will not decrease as BMP's will be utilized to remove potential impacts during treatment.
Wetland Encroachment- Removal of conifers may increase water quantity. Water Quality will not change as BMP's will be utilized to remove potential impacts.

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.