Project Details

Spruce beetle outbreaks from the early 2000s to present have killed nearly all of the mature overstory spruce in forested areas of the basin. Additionally, the invasive insect, balsam wooly Adelgid (BWA) has been conclusively identified in the basin as of 2019. BWA attacks and kills all age classes of subalpine fir and white fir. The combined effect in conifer stands from the insect activity has and will continue to produce stands full of standing dead trees. There is an approximate window of 10-30 years where the large dead trees will stay standing. However, once they fall to the forest floor, the addition of large, 1,000 hour fuels greatly increases the risk of high severity fire. It is expected that BWA will infest and kill much of the subapline fir in the coming years, further adding to the fuel loading. On the other hand, in seral aspen stands, the conifer component (spruce, fir, and lodgepole pine) has been slowly increasing, reducing aspen health and cover. This conifer encroachment into seral aspen stands has been offset by some logging since European settlement. However, fire constitutes the main check on conifer in aspen, and has been mostly suppressed in the last 150 years.

The current conditions outlined above are occurring at the watershed scale. If left unchecked, the potential for high severity fire and pervasive poor forest health conditions will be the most common condition in these watersheds. High severity fire, if it occurs at a large enough scale, would be very detrimental to the Strawberry Basin water supply, fisheries, and local recreation economy. Furthermore, in 2018, the Dollar Ridge, which was on the far east side of Strawberry Reservoir affected the water quality and fisheries where the Strawberry River exits Strawberry Reservoir to the south. This water supplies many communities in the Uinta Basin and Wasatch Front.

Future treatments to improve stand health condition and the fire and fuels outlook will consist of hand, mechanical, and prescribed fire methods. The right tool for the job would be used, consistent with the forest plans, law, and regulations.

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 - Improve wildlife habitat

Improve habitat and watershed health by enhancing, improving, or restoring conditions that allow for natural process (fire, insect, and disease) to occur in the future. Improve stand structure, species composition and age class diversity in conifer, conifer/aspen, and aspen stands.

This would be accomplished by enhancing conditions that enable aspen to thrive, diversify, and persist. Conifer removal from seral aspen stands would occur in the mid to northern half of the Strawberry Ridge project area. In other areas, thinning to improve stand vigor in aspen and conifer stands would occur. Other potential treatments would be opening up aspen stands by group selection treatments to diversify forest structure and age-class.

Monoculture aspen and conifer encroachment of aspen are decreasing habitats' benefit to big game, small game and woodland bird species and livestock. There are 3 typical treatments used to encourage aspen regeneration, with the goal being a multi-aged aspen stand, diverse structure, and removal of encroaching conifer and a variety of understory species. These treatments are typically: RxB, cut-pile-burn, and mechanical (mastication, cut-masticate, and other variations).

2 - Reduce potential for large-scale high severity fire

Address future concerns in the downed woody component across the landscape in stands not generally associated with higher frequency or intensity stand replacing fires.  Reduce the potential for large-scale high severity fire in the Engelman spruce/fir vegetation type.  Nearly all Engelmann spruce in this area have died due spruce beetle activity beginning in the early 2000s. These large dead trees are approaching the point where they will fall to the forest floor and contribute to very high fuel loads in the 100 to 1,000-hour fuel category. Once this occurs, the potential for high severity fire increases significantly. Commercial logging and service contracts would be used to remove standing dead trees and thin overly dense green stands in the northern part of the project area to reduce fuel loading and increase stand vigor.

3 - Obtain baseline dataset for current conditions

This proposed action will provide us with the stand exam plots and data needed to identify specifies composition, stand structure, shrub, grass, and potential habitat type. The data collected can then be leveraged via Forest Service developed FSVeg Spatial and Data Analyzer software to model all other areas without stand exam data stand to create a 'wall-to-wall' dataset of the entire project area. This Baseline data is needed to identify treatment locations and priorities. We then can move forward in an informed manner at the landscape scale for the various habitat improvements for fish and wildlife species in the 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.

As standing, dead conifer and aspen habitats continue to age, two risks are approaching: larger fires and decreased wildlife/livestock carrying capacity within aspen ecotypes.

Strawberry Ridge is an ecotone change from the brushy mixed oak/aspen/conifer stringer of Diamond Fork and Hobble Creek to the aspen/aspen-conifer/conifer stands on Strawberry Ridge. Increased fuel loading has lead to increased probability of catastrophic wildfire, as demonstrated by recent larger and more frequent small wildfires in these areas. With changing conditions there is an increased likelihood that a large fire, which runs into the aspen stands of Strawberry Ridge would now push through, where in the past it would have likely stopped. This risk is a concern for all species that use this area throughout the year.  Ungulates use the area in the spring to give birth to fawns/calves, and spend the summer/fall raising their young, building up their fat reserves to prepare for the coming winter, and breeding. Many sensitive and migratory birds, such as the Northern Goshawk, return every year to this area to nest and raise their young. Numerous birds need specific habitat requirements to successfully fledge their young. A catastrophic fire would wipe out the forage and cover (for security, movement and thermoregulation) that species need to complete their lifecycles. By increasing the health of these stands, it should push the balance back to where this area would act as a fire break or defensible line to fire coming from the south and west. Further, if aspen stands continue to age, stems will start dying and add to fuel loading.

Total canopy/late seral aspen clones reduce the understory veg community to few, often unpalatable, lower light plant species, reducing the available forage for wildlife and livestock. Further aspen replacement growth often occurs only on the fringes of a stand. Reductions in interior forage and regrowth reduces forage. By opening up stands, more area is realized for grass, forb, palatable brush and aspen shoots. Increasing carrying capacity for ungulates and other aspen wildlife species, esp. various birds. Current demand by deer, elk, sheep and cattle may be approaching a threshold and additional loss of forage could cause a conflict. Additionally, opening up dense stands in a thin from below method in both aspen and conifer would improve nesting habitat for the flammulated owl, a migratory bird that may be in slight decline.

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.

Uinta Forest Plan - 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan, Uinta National Forest: https://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/uwcnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5076960&width=full
- Plan sites management of wildlife (pg 2.5), fuels/fire (pgs3-14), Timber and Livestock (pg 2-16) and vegetation (pg 2.5).

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 (2010)
The project is designated crucial summer range / calving habitat for Elk.  It will address Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of forage and cover on 250,000 acres of elk habitat with emphasis on calving habitat and upper elevation elk winter range by the end of this plan. Under this objective, strategies D and F apply.  Strategy D. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve elk habitat with emphasis on calving habitat and winter ranges. Strategy F. Encourage land managers to manage portions of forests in early succession stages through the use of controlled burning and logging. Controlled burning should only be used in areas where there are minimal invasive weed and/or safety concerns. This project area is of minimal weed concern. https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf

Wasatch County Resource Management Plan:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Cn80Wzst8eoa0o_BqoTBHOPfPm8M6MIe

Pgs: 300, 314, 315, 320 address the County's desire for road access, wildlife, fisheries, Timber and fire prevention.

Utah County RMP:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Cn80Wzst8eoa0o_BqoTBHOPfPm8M6MIe
Document cites need and County support for: Fire Management (p31)  Recreation and Tourism (p72)  Threatened, Endangered, & Sensitive Species (p78)

https://deq.utah.gov/legacy/programs/water-quality/watersheds/docs/2015/08Aug/StrawberryRiver.pdf 
Document cites that protection of the headwater areas for the Strawberry watershed is a priority for US Forest Service, Utah Division of Water Quality, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and the Friends of Strawberry Valley and their partners. (p44)

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.

Water Quantity: Mosaic aspen stands gather more snow in openings and that snow melts more slowly than in full canopy stands. Compared to conifer forests, more snow reaches the ground in aspen stands. Leading to increased snowpack that last longer, providing greater water quantity.

"Small openings within these stands were effective snow traps and accumulating one-third more snow than elsewhere in the stand. They found that snow ablated 30% more slowly in these openings, extending the snowmelt runoff or groundwater recharge later into the spring."

"Aspen forests (canopy) intercept only minimal amounts of snow, especially compared to coniferous forests, where much of the snow may never reach the ground. In central Utah, Harper found 5% to 70% less water in the snowpack under mixed aspen-conifer stands than under pure aspen. Dunford and Niederhof (1944) found 12% more snow under aspen than in the open. Nearby lodgepole pine contained 12% less snow than the open area, which was approximately 75% of the amount found under aspen. Intercepted snow may evaporate more readily than snow on the ground because of greater surface area exposure to radiation and wind."

Additionally, due to warming climatic conditions, increased stress to forests has the potential to cause large-scale die-offs from insect, disease, and fire interactions. Locally we have seen massive forest die-offs due to mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine and spruce beetle in Engelmann spruce in the last 20 years. Large-scale die-offs have potential to negatively effect water quality (Mikkelson et al. 2012). Treatments would help to reduce likelihood of such large scale loss of forest cover and habitat. Treatment types planned are thinning, conifer encroachment removal in aspen, stand structure and age-class treatments, and dry/wet meadow restoration.

Excerpts from:
https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr119/rm_gtr119_153_160.pdf
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7753&context=aspen_bib
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1724

Example of potential contracts specs:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3848918.pdf

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.