Project Details

Introduction
Habitats near water -- streamsides, 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.  In the West, riparian habitat covers less than 1% of the land, yet the role of riparian habitat in the landscape is substantial. Within Utah, 66-75% of all bird species use riparian habitats during some portion of their life history. Typically, diversity and abundance of birds dramatically increases in western riparian habitat compared with other habitat types, and numerous avian species are now considered as riparian obligates (Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy 2.0, 2002).  PLEASE SEE ATTACHED BIRD SURVEY DATA CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.

These private mesic lands are critically important to the health of wildlife populations.  Research shows that 60--80% of wildlife are dependent on mesic habitats (e.g., wetlands and riparian areas; Thomas et al. 1979, Patten 1998, Belsky et al. 1999, Peck and Lovvorn 2001).  This pattern of highly productive privately owned habitat is no different in Utah.  If true wildlife conservation is to take place on a sustainable level, public wildlife managers must engage private landowners.  This project includes private landowners and public lands cooperatively to address watershed restoration and enhancement.

BACKGROUND:
Private lands are critical to wildlife conservation and although much of the landscape in Utah is public, these private lands hold some of our most productive wildlife habitat and are critically important to sustain healthy wildlife populations.  For this and other reasons wildlife managers need to work with private landowners to ensure healthy wildlife populations across the landscape, especially around wet habitat because these water resources are often privately owned.

Russian olive and tamarisk is serious threat to native vegetation and wildlife.  These woody invasives can alter water availability, choke out native vegetation wildlife need, change soil characteristics, increase fire hazard, and research shows that animal diversity and abundance is significantly lower in the invaded sites.  In one study it was found a 75% decrease in overall macroinvertebrate richness in tamarisk leaf litter versus cottonwood leaf litter.  These macroinvertebrates are important a food source for birds, amphibians, fish and other wildlife.

NEED FOR PROJECT:

Muddy Creek is one of these critically important wet arteries that flows through an arid landscape.  Currently on the Castle Valley property there's a very good native vegetative component made up of grasses, flowering plants, shrubs and trees with R. olive and tamarisk mixed in along the River (see attached photos).  Although some wildlife use species like R. olive when mixed in with other native vegetation the problem lies in the ability of R. olive and tamarisk to compete and take over a site creating a monoculture of woody invasive species.  Often in habitat management we see the worst case scenario where a site is completely invaded and lacks native vegetation.  These types of projects are extremely costly and require a lot of work to get them back to functioning as healthy wildlife habitat.  In the case of Castle Valley the R. olive and tamarisk removal is more of a pro-active project where removing these non-native species will prevent a worst case scenario in the future.  With an intact native vegetative community on Muddy Creek there will be little to no need for seeding, planting, or other labor intensive and costly restoration efforts.  It's a low risk high reward project!  I repeat; THIS IS LOW RISK HIGH REWARD (AND LOW COST).

Two years ago a project was completed to remove these woody invasives and there is a need for follow-up treatments to look for and treat re-growth.  Not completing this maintenance project jeopardizes the financial and ecological success of the initial project.

We feel this project should be elevated due to the need to maintain the original investment.  It ranked in the high category last year but due to our friend the COVID, was not funded.

POLLINATORS
What I most like to do (in a perfect world) is protect the best before I try to fix the broke.  This is one of those projects.  The riparian is predominately native, diverse in both species and age classes of veg.  You have everything from your old cottonwood overstory to your understory woodies to grasses and down to diverse forb community.  With all that said there is a small component of R. olive and tamarisk, but the native community is in tact and doing very well.  I attached a couple pics.  I've walked around and been shocked at the insect life.  I've recorded and observed several monarch butterflies too.  Lots of milkweed on the edge of the ag/riparian area.  One thing we don't think of or talk about as conservationists is the need for monarch roosting sites.  This site has it all.  Early/mid/late season nectar sources, egg laying sites, and roosting/resting.  I know when people think pollinator projects their mind automatically goes to funding being used to purchase forb seed and plants.  My argument and point with this project has always been pollinators have what they need here, the plant community is intact, lets keep it that way.  What we need to do is keep it intact by doing some woody invasive removal and re-treatment to prevent woody invasive from becoming a problem.

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

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

Because this is a maintenance project we need to do this project NOW!  We've put off the re-treatment for a couple years now.  It is prudent we complete this maintenance project now and wait now longer.  Not completing this maintenance project jeopardizes the financial and ecological success of the initial project.  We are at the point where initial investments may diminish if not completed now.  Phase one happened 3 years ago.

This project is a low risk/high reward outcome.  Last year a project was completed to remove these woody invasives and there is a need for follow-up treatments to look for and treat re-growth.  Not completing this maintenance project jeopardizes the financial and ecological success of the initial project.

There is also a social threshold risk to consider with the private lands.  Right now we have and absentee landowner working with his land manager willing to work with agencies to do the project.  This has required several individuals coming to a consensus, and several meetings.  Not taking advantage of this while everyone is willing may mean a lost opportunity in the future.

In the last decade or so global climate change has come to the forefront as a global threat to humans and wildlife alike.  Although models vary on future impacts of global climate change one thing stands out is that water may become more scarce in the West.  Preserving and restoring wet areas like this has been identified as a key way to mitigate impacts like drought, increasing temperatures, and other impacts that a changing climate will have on humans and wildlife.

The project site borders an identified Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) with riparian habitat listed as priority habitats types for conservation.  Several listed priority species of birds would be expected to use the project site as habitat at some point in their life history and will benefit from the project.

Being the project is proactive and treats invasive at a low density, the site hasn't crossed that financial threshold where cost becomes a prohibitive factor.  If we don't do the project soon we run the risk of the site becoming much more dense with woody invasives in the future where cost will increase exponentially.

Yellow-billed cuckoo (YBCU) are a federally protected species under the endangered species act because of declining population.  The project site has been mapped by UDWR as potential YBCU habitat for species conservation.  YBCU prefer large overstory cottonwood galleries with diverse native understory.  This project site has suitable habitat and doing the project will address the threat of degrading and losing valuable habitat to a declining species.

Colorado pikeminnow, roundtail chub, flannelmouth sucker, and bluehead sucker
need special protection from factors which threaten their existence.
Populations of other native, non-sport fish species occurring downstream should also be
maintained. Maintaining populations of native fish species is biologically important for
preserving sensitive and endangered fish populations here and downstream in some of the larger river systems.

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)  Price River, San Rafael River, and Muddy Creek TMDLS for Total Dissolved Solids West Colorado Watershed Management Unit Utah Study
     *Increase filtering capacity through implementation of riparian buffers.
2) USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Strategic Plan
     *Project addresses habitat threats for a priority species (YBCU) within a PFW priority 
area (Plateau Focus Area) for restoration work.
3)  Utah Weed Control Association Noxious Weed Plan
     *Tamarisk is listed as a class C weed.  
     *Class C weeds are found extensively in the State and are thought to be beyond control. Statewide efforts would generally be towards containment of smaller infestations (which this project is).     
4) 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
     *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.
5) DEER HERD UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN
Deer Herd Unit # 16BC/12 - Central Mountains, Manti/San Rafael
    *Manage riparian areas in critical fawning habitat to furnish water, cover and succulent forage
    *Cooperate with federal land management agencies and private landowners in carrying out habitat improvement projects. 
     *Continue to use the Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI) to identify,
implement, and fund critical habitat projects throughout the unit, while partnering
with federal, state, and private landowners.  
6) The Utah Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds
     *The plan list strategies for managing non-native plants with Early Detection and Rapid Response of new or low density infestations being a key strategy for reducing the spread of a non-native plant community  
7) Utah Wildlife Action Plan
     *Lowland Riparian habitat is a key habitat identified in the WAP
     *WAP identifies invasive species as a threat to lowland riparian habitat.  
8) Intermountain West Joint Venture Habitat Conservation Strategy
     *Support existing public-private partnerships to implement riparian ecosystem habitat conservation, at regional, state, and local scales.
9)  Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan
     *The value of private lands to the elk population cannot be overstated. Many crucial elk habitats throughout the state are privately owned. As such, programs that provide incentives for private landowners to manage their properties to benefit elk and other wildlife species are essential to the success of the state's elk management program.
     *Coordinate with land management agencies and private landowners to properly
manage and improve elk habitat, especially calving and wintering areas. 
10) Utah Partners in Flight Avian Conservation Strategy Version 2.0
     *For YBCU, maintain and increase multi-layered riparian habitats, with dense sub-canopies (< 10 m [33 ft]) at low to middle elevations (750-1820 m [2500-6000 ft]); habitats should consist mainly of native plant species identified in the lowland and/or Mountain Riparian habitat descriptions, particularly cottonwoods and willows.
     *Lowland riparian habitat conservation is identified as being critical for several species of songbirds for breeding habitat.

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

The current fire regime condition class for the project site and surrounding area is moderate (2) to low (1).  Reducing the threat of wildfire is important because of the critical nature of this habitat to upland game, big game, birds, and fish.

At first glance the project doesn't seem to have the large benefits of reducing catastrophic fire because most of the restoration activities will be in the valley bottom near or not far from riparian habitat.  To that, I say think again ;).  Areas like these rivers, floodplains, wetlands, and meadows serve as buffers, greenstrips, and/or firebreaks that can be critically important in defending landscapes against large fires and protecting adjacent habitat.  Allowing them to become monotypic stands of woody invasives prevents them from being a fire buffer and increases the risk of fire starting in the riparian area.

Also wet areas like these can themselves become at greater risk of fire due to degradation like channel downcutting and decrease in water table elevation which leads to changes in vegetation and drier conditions.  This project will protect, restore, and enhance these wet areas and decrease fire risk from moderate (2) to low (1).  Also if left and woody invasives became the dominant species the fire risk could increase from moderate (2) to high (3).  So by removing woody invasives we are maintaining a low risk fire regime and reducing the future increase in fire risk.

Also by reducing the fire risk (and maintaining the low risk) on the project site and surrounding area we are protecting extremely valuable land types (riparian and wetland) that are critically important to both wildlife and the communities that surround them.

Riparian, wetlands, and stream habitat is also very important for filtering heavy sediment, ash, and other compounds from post-fire areas in adjacent upland and up stream habitat.  Protecting wetland and riparian habitat protects the watershed from off-site negative impacts to both rural communities and wildlife.

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.

A Utah Division of Water Quality study identified total dissolved solids as a reason for impairment on Muddy Creek.  Recommendations in the study identified the need to increase filtering capacity through implementation of riparian buffers.  Doing this project will maintain a good riparian buffer and prevent further degradation of water quality.

This project will help directly with water quantity and storage.  It is universal knowledge through many years of research that healthy, properly functioning stream and adjacent floodplain habitat has the capacity to store more water in the soil, aquifer, and in streams and wetlands.  This storage capacity becomes even more apparent during the driest parts of the season or during drought when these areas put more water back into the aquatic system because of the "sponge effect" they have the ability to store larger capacities of water.

Beavers also occupy the site and by preserving quality habitat for beavers comes all the water quality and quantity benefits along with them including water storage, erosion control, and filtration.

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.

UDWR:
The non-game, native fish, and Farmbill biologist have all been contacted given input during the initial planning, and some have toured the project site.  All of them support the project are contributors to the proposal.

NRCS:
The NRCS was the agency that gave me the contact info for the landowner as a potential habitat project.  The NRCS has worked with the landowner in the past to improve irrigation (that we will be utilizing for the seeding) systems.  I have also worked and discussed the project with the partners NRCS/UDWR Farmbill biologist.

NWTF
I have contacted the regional biologist with NWTF and discussed the project and how we might benefit the turkey population on the property.  They also support the project and the new regional biologist wants to tour the project this year.

UTAH DIVISION NATURAL RESOURCES, Mindy Wheeler Native Plant Conservation Lead
Have discussed this project with Mindy for the high value to pollinators.  Have the project area on the list to survey for monarch and bumblebees.

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Contacted Jim Bowcutt, Director Conservation Division, and put the project on his list for their pollinator grant program for 2023.

PRIVATE LANDOWNER
The project is on private land and the landowner and land manager both support the project and primarily mange the land for wildlife.  The owner is an absentee landowner and the land manager is local.  Both are willing to work with agencies and provide in-kind contributions to the project.

LAND MANGER:
The project is on private land and the landowner and land manager both support the project and primarily mange the land for wildlife.  The owner is an absentee landowner and the land manager is local.  Both are willing to work with agencies and provide in-kind contributions to the project.

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.

This project has a huge potential to maintain and increase available forage to livestock in the future.  The project area is part of a timed grazing rotation on a limited basis.

Removing the woody invasive species will maintain the excellent forage production that is common in lowland riparian sites.

Hunting is another sustainable use here.  The property is a CWMU for deer which provides paid hunting opportunity and opportunity for public draw hunts.  The landowner has also provided limited access for turkey hunting and donated depredation tags to wheelchair bound sportsmen.

The road through the project area is a county road providing access to forest service lands for several recreational opportunities.  This project area is highly visible to the public.

Because of the county road through the property wildlife viewing opportunities for birds, big game, etc.. exist for the public from the road.

The landowner also runs a lodge vacationing.  Part of the business also includes fishing in ponds and upland game hunting.  The lodge provides income and economic opportunities to a very limited economy in Emery.

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.