Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement Project Phase III
Region: Southern
ID: 5674

Project Status: Completed

Project Details

In 2018 and 2020 the Dixie National Forest in cooperation with UDWR and UWRI completed Phases I and II of the Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement Project, treating more than 2,000 acres to reduce conifer succession and prepare over 450 additional acres for prescribed fire, building two riparian exclosures and rerouting an ATV trail out of a riparian area (see UWRI projects 3946 and 5229).  Phase III would expand on the acreages treated in 2018 and 2020 continuing to address conifer succession into mountain sagebrush, ponderosa pine, aspen and riparian communities. The Ranch Creek watershed has both upland and riparian management issues that contribute to the increased risk of uncharacteristically high severity fire. Data on vegetation community composition/condition and fuel loading have been collected in these subwatersheds and used to inform a need for change (Environmental Analysis in attachments).

Ranch Creek contains a core, conservation population of Bonneville cutthroat trout (BCT), which are the only trout native to southwestern Utah's Bonneville basin. Currently the Ranch Creek BCT population is lacking in redundancy and resiliency, which are critical components of native trout management in the Intermountain West (Haak, Williams, & Colyer, 2011; Haak & Williams, 2012) and the population has been found to be whirling disease positive so efforts to increase redundancy have been dramatically slowed. During the past 20 years wildfires in areas with high fuel loadings, disproportionate portions of vegetative communities in late successional stages have resulted in significant negative impacts to core and conservation populations of BCT and aquatic habitat in the Southern Geographic Management Unit (GMU) for the species. Populations that were most impacted lacked redundancy and resilience as defined by Haak, Williams, & Colyer (2011) and Haak & Williams (2012). In 2012 the BCT Range-wide Conservation team conducted a summer field tour to discuss wildfire impacts and possible ways to mitigate this threat. Recommendations from the Team were for Forest biologists to pursue proactive vegetation management projects that would both reduce the risk of uncharacteristically large, severe wildfires and improve the ability of riparian areas to buffer the effects of future disturbance impacts. In 2013 the Forest selected Ranch Creek as an area where those types of proactive treatments should begin.

Data from the Environmental Analysis (see attachments) shows pinyon, juniper and other conifer succession into mountain sagebrush communities. Higher than desired stockings of conifers has suppressed wildlife and livestock forage production in these areas, as conifers, especially juniper trees, often outcompete grasses and forbs in upland settings (Roundy & Vernon, 1999; Bates, Davies, & Sharp, 2011; Ross, Castle, & Barger, 2011).  The allelopathic nature of juniper can also reduce ground cover which can lead to elevated erosion of soils from juniper uplands (Roundy & Vernon, 1999; Pierson, Bates, Svejcar, & Hardegree, 2007a; Peterson & Stringham, 2008; Pierson, et al., 2010; Cline, Pierson, Kormos, & Williams, 2010). Suspended and deposited sediment can directly and indirectly impact aquatic organisms through clogging gills, smothering fish eggs and invertebrates, reducing water and oxygen flow through interstitial space, and reducing habitat (covering spawning gravels, reducing pool depth, etc.) (Waters, 1995). Pebble counts in Ranch Creek and Horse Creek have shown that 25-50% of the substrate consists of fine sediments less than 3 mm which exceeds Forest Plan standards.

The analysis also shows that while the dominant overstory in ponderosa pine stands is ponderosa pine, the understory composition is poorly developed and dominated by juniper spp.  Stand structure is predominantly even-aged with scattered uneven-aged pockets. In aspen stands the stand structure is predominantly even-aged. The dominant overstory is aspen with a developed understory consisting of alpine fir, juniper, and ponderosa pine.  Both climax and seral aspen stands are in decline. In both these scenarios wildlife and livestock forage are suppressed and fuel loadings and ladder fuels are increased.

Both the mule deer and elk herd plans for this Unit call for vegetation treatments in to remove Pinyon and juniper successing into sagebrush and to expand aspen communities by removing successing conifers (See Relationship to Plans Section). Phase III of the project lies within crucial winter range (73%) and substantial summer range for mule deer (27%). Almost 76% of this project rests in crucial winter range for Rocky Mountain elk and less than 1% of the area in substantial summer habitat for elk. Treatments should result in improved grasses and shrubs in crucial winter range, as well as improved grasses and aspen browse in substantial summer range. Riparian condition and extent of riparian hydric species and woody browse should also benefit from these treatments.  All of these habitat improvements which should help improve the condition of deer using these areas.

In general upland birds, including Forest Grouse and Turkeys, require open stands of conifer and aspen with an understory of berry producing shrubs, forbs and grasses. A healthy insect component in this matrix is critical for early brood rearing. Healthy mixed forests, early successional forests, and edges of aspen forests provide these kinds of environments. Our current habitat struggles to provide these requirements.

A small portion of the project is in the Parker-Emery PHMA for sage grouse. There are 5 active leks within 6 miles of project treatment, with the closest lek (Cottam Ranch) being about 3.2 miles away. Collared birds in John's Valley have not been seen using the project area. This project would improve riparian and mesic habitats around Horse Creek and remove PJ from sagebrush habitats, possibly providing expanded brood rearing, lekking, and/or wintering habitat for sage grouse.

To aid in protecting the genetic representation of the Ranch Creek BCT population, increase the resiliency of that population, follow the recommendations of the Range-wide Conservation Team for BCT, improve wildlife forage, maintain and improve watershed conditions and reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire the Dixie National Forest has identified the following needs in the Ranch Creek watershed (see EA and Decision Notice in attachments):

1)	Restore and enhance ecosystem health while promoting the overall sustainability and diversity of vegetative systems and hydrologic functioning of the Ranch Creek and Horse Creek subwatersheds.

2)	Restore forest stand resiliency and resistance to insects and disease by reducing competition-induced mortality.

3)	Reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe and stand replacing wildfires by reducing fuel loading, raising canopy base height, reducing ladder fuels and opening the canopy.

The treatments contained in this proposal were designed to meet these needs.

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.

The overall objective of the Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement project is to maintain and improve riparian areas, stream channel and watershed function, reduce the risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire and to benefit Bonneville cutthroat trout and other wildlife species. Phase III of the project focuses on all these aspects.
As outlined in the Need for the Project Phase I will improve big game habitat, possibly expand sage grouse habitat and protect BCT habitat supporting the WRI arm to enhance Utah's Wildlife and Biological Diversity. As discussed in the Water Quality and Quantity section the project should help raise the water table in Horse Creek, protect irrigation water sources, and reduce sedimentation to improve Utah's Water Quality and Yield for all Uses. Finally, as outlined in the Sustainable Uses section protecting irrigation water, improving future commercial timber stands, and increasing available livestock forage all support the WRI arm of Opportunities for Sustainable Uses.
The project has the following measurable objectives:
1)	Aspen -- Mature and old forest less than 150 years old. Conifer composition not more than 15% cover at stand level. Shrub and herbaceous layers well developed. Ground cover at least 85%. Move toward an FRCC of 1.
2)	Mountain sagebrush/shrublands -- Conifers to be absent or limited to a few scattered seedlings (< 10% of the total vegetative cover). Bare soil should average less than 20%. Native, late-seral species should dominate the herbaceous layer. Invasive plants should be less than 10 percent of relative frequency. A mosaic of age classes should be present. Move toward an FRCC of 1.
3)	Ponderosa pine -- More than 75% canopy cover is ponderosa pine. Dead and down fuel loading of and average of 5 tons/acre in the Ponderosa Pine stands. Canopy base height higher than the bottom 1/3rd of the tree in ponderosa pine. Move toward an FRCC of 1.
4)	Riparian areas -- Remove all juniper and have cover of pinyon trees be less than 10%. Improve hydric species composition and riparian woody browse composition.
5)	Horse Creek stream channel -- Trap sediment to move fine sediment percentage toward 25%. Expand active floodplain within incision to support improved hydric species (meeting forest plan objectives) and riparian woody browse.

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.

The current conditions of both vegetation and fuels within the project area and the areas proposed for treatment create an elevated threat for a fire of uncharacteristically high severity within the project area. The risks of an uncharacteristically severe wildfire include, but are not limited to:

1)	Increased erosion and sedimentation
2)	Stream channel incision and loss of fish habitat
3)	Increased risk of flooding and debris flows
4)	Loss of soil productivity
5)	Potential loss of the Ranch Creek core, remnant population of BCT
6)	Loss of later seral stage wildlife habitat
7)	Threat of noxious weed invasion and a change in plant community type
8)	Loss of future commercial timber stands
9)	Loss (at least temporarily) of wildlife and livestock forage

More specific to treatments of pinyon-juniper throughout the various vegetation types are the risks of continued loss of vegetation diversity and continued elevated erosion rates if left untreated. As further detailed in the "Need for the Project" the allelopathic qualities of pinyon and juniper tree suppress the growth of grass, forbs and shrubs and create larger areas of bare ground, that result in increased erosion.

Aspen has decreased throughout the Intermountain West during the 20th century, and aspen-dominated acreage within the five national forests of Utah has declined by 50% or more in recent decades (Kay and Bartos 2000, O'Brien et al 2010). Since aspen does not commonly reproduce from seed the loss of an aspen clone may be the loss of a long-standing aspen presence not easily recovered. Human intervention to reduce natural disturbance has resulted in conifer succession throughout aspen in the project area and across the Dixie National Forest. Not treating these aspen stands elevates that risk that they will be completely lost to conifer succession.

Mule deer on the Boulder Unit have seen a steady decline in population of over 1700 animals in the last five years. Population estimate models show a decline from 8373 deer in 2014 to 6600 deer in 2019. When populations are modeled for the 2020 year the population will show another decline. This unit overall is summer range limited by conifer expansion into former aspen stands and winter range limited by encroachment of pinyon and juniper into sage and mountain brush communities. These treatment phases in pinyon and juniper pave the way for treatments with prescribed fire in the encroaching spruce/fir to encourage aspen regeneration. For over 100 years encroaching tree management has been largely "hands off". If you stand in this treatment area you are surrounded by dark green for the 360-degree vista. There is no edge, there is no diversity, there is little food. This trend must be reversed in order to re-vitalize our struggling deer herds.

The biggest risks to project success are probably natural or human caused ignition in the project area prior to the project being completed, overutilization of treatments preventing desired vegetation establishment and maintaining a mosaic of successional stages into the future. As discussed under the future management section, the goal is to manage fire adapted ecosystems through a combination of natural fire ignitions (managed for Forest Plan benefits) and low intensity prescribed fire. The areas proposed for lop and scatter are primarily Phase II PJ succession. If these areas are not treated within the next 10 years, they will require more effort and probably a lop and pile prescription which could increase costs from 2-7 times currently estimated costs to complete. The bulk of the acres proposed for mastication are in Phase II PJ succession with a range from early Phase II - early Phase III.  Waiting to treat these acres increases the chance that they advance further into Phase III, increasing the cost of mastication by $50-$100/acre and increasing the chance that understory will be lost and acres would require seeding.  At a seed mix cost of $100/acre this Phase would require an additional $87,600 to complete. In terms of sagebrush treatments monitoring will determine the success of original treatments and maintenance will be conducted as necessary to remove whips and missed trees. We hope that this will increase the potential for maintaining project success. Similarly, the using of fencing and adaptive management outlined in the Future Management section should help avoid the risk of overutilization impeding success.

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.

Utah's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP):

The WAP identifies the following key habitats to be addressed by the Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement project Phase 1: Aquatic Forested, Mountain sagebrush and Aspen-Conifer. The WAP lists Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity a high level threat for BCT and Aspen-Conifer Ecosystems with the following as potential conservation actions.

2.3.14 Conduct upland vegetation treatments to restore characteristic upland vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings.

2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings.

2.3.17 Apply or allow more fire in habitats/locations where fire was historically more frequent or intense.
The Riparian and upland treatments proposed are designed to restore characteristic vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings with the end goal to be able to allow natural ignitions to be managed for resource benefits in the future.

The WAP lists Problematic Plant Species -- Native Upland as a Very High level threat to Mountain sagebrush communities with the following as potential conservation actions.
Promoting and funding restoration that reduces the Uncharacteristic and surpluses of older age class, including: Dixie/chain harrow, brush mowing or other treatments that reduce the older age class and stimulate the younger/mid age classes; herbicide or mechanical treatment of non-native invasive species such smooth brome; single tree mulching/cutting of invading conifer.

The treatments proposed in this vegetation type are designed to stimulate the younger/mid age classes through cutting or masticating invading conifer.

Dixie National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (as amended):

Goal 15 -- Maintain or enhance the terrestrial habitat for all wildlife species presently on the Forest (page IV-5). All the vegetation treatments proposed should increase browse and or forage for Forest MIS species, such as mule deer, elk and wild turkey.

Goal 17 -- Managed Classified Species habitat to maintain or enhance their status through direct habitat improvement and agency cooperation (Page IV-6). This project has the potential to benefit a core, remnant population of BCT, as well as two future conservation populations. BCT are an Intermountain Region Sensitive species and is managed under Conservation Agreement and Strategy that both DWR and the Forest Service are signatories or involved partners.

Deer Herd Unit # 25C (Plateau Boulder/Kaiparowits):

The Unit Plan has habitat management objective to "Maintain mule deer habitat throughout the unit by protecting and enhancing existing crucial habitats and mitigating for losses due to natural and human impacts," "Encourage vegetation manipulation projects and seeding to increase the availability, abundance and nutritional content of browse, grass, and forb species," and "Seek cooperative projects and programs to encourage and improve the quality and quantity of deer habitat, with public and private land managers to maintain a stable or upward trend in vegetative composition." The Plan notes that future habitat work should focus on:  increasing "browse species in critical winter range and burned areas." Increasing "critical winter range opportunities for mule deer," maintaining "summer fawning areas by increasing beneficial habitat work in summer and transitional habitat areas," Continuing "to reduce threats to catastrophic wildfires, by reducing fuel loads and creating firebreaks," and supporting "enhancement and restoration efforts in Quaking Aspen forests unit wide by reducing encroachment of Spruce-Fir forests." The plan specifically calls to "Reduce expansion of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinyon-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop & scatter, bullhog and chaining projects." Treatments proposed in this project are designed improve these habitats and achieve these objectives. Additionally, see "Other Sustainable Uses" for a discussion on depredation issues.

Elk Herd Unit # 25C/ (Plateau Boulder/Kaiparowits):

The Unit Plan has an objective to "maintain and/or enhance forage production and habitat quality (including aspen systems) through direct range improvements throughout the unit on winter and summer range to achieve population management objectives. Focus will be on high use areas especially where we can entice animals away from agricultural areas and crucial range areas receiving higher than desired use."  The plan acknowledges "Maintain and/or enhance forage production on elk summer and winter range throughout the units. Coordinate with the USFS, SITLA, BLM and private landowners to complete projects designed to improve forage production for both elk and livestock and to improve elk distribution across the unit. Identify higher elevation habitat projects that would encourage elk to winter higher and potentially away from traditional deer wintering areas." The plans also states" Encourage and support projects and management actions that will maintain and restore aspen ecosystems on the unit. Support federal land management agencies in managing vehicle access in order to provide and maintain refuge areas for elk." The plan specifically calls for "Summer range projects to stimulate aspen recruitment and reduce conifer encroachment will be identified and implemented."  Treatments proposed in this project are designed to do exactly those things. Additionally, see "Other Sustainable Uses" for a discussion on depredation issues.

Bonneville cutthroat trout Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy (UDWR 2018):
 
The BCT CAS identifies large wildfires as a factor that is a threat to the persistence of BCT, with the threat being highest for disjunct populations such as Ranch Creek. As outlined in the Project Need, Water Quality and Quantity and Threats and Risks sections of the proposal the treatments within this proposal will support the following objectives and actions from the BCT CAS:
Goal 2: Protect all critical BCT populations (in this case critical = genetically pure).
Goal 3, Objective 1: Work with landowners to maintain/improve land management activities.
Goal 8, Objective 1 Encourage and enable partners to perform restoration that benefits the BCT fisheries.

Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah - Feb 14, 2013. pp. 4 Objective 2.0.3 Habitat:

Enhance an average of 25,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat in Sage-grouse Management Areas annually.

Color Country Greater Sage-Grouse local conservation plan. Feb 9, 2008. pp. 53:

Action 9.1: Remove juniper and pinyon trees from brood-rearing habitat.

U.S. Forest Service Greater-Sage grouse Record of Decision, Alternative C:
 
GRSG-GRSGH-0-026- Objective-Every 10 years for the next 50 years, improve greater sage-grouse habitat by removing invading conifers and other undesirable species.

Conservation Plan for Greater Sage Grouse in Garfield County, Adopted January 27, 2014. pp. 6:

2.0.2 Objective 2 - Habitat: Enhance 500 acres of sage-grouse priority habitat on federal lands annually through conservation efforts evaluated by the NRCS Sage Grouse Habitat Evaluation criteria, with emphasis on areas of priority habitat.

2.0.3 Objective 3 - Habitat: Enhance an average of 1,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat on federal lands in Sage-grouse Management Areas annually.

2.0.4 Objective 4 - Habitat: Increase the total amount of sage-grouse habitat acreage within Sage-grouse Management Areas by an average of 500 acres per year, through management actions targeting opportunity areas

Garfield County Resource Management Plan:

The Garfield County RMP has copius objectives covering all of the vegetation types, as well as water quality, and fish and wildlife objectives that are consistent with the objectives for this project for example:

"Land managers prioritize eradication of noxious and invasive weeds, restoration of encroaching conifer woodlands to desirable vegetative communities and minimization of bare ground to maximize beneficial use and quality of scarce water resources over restrictive activities that do not maximize quantity, quality and beneficial use."

"Protect, restore and maintain the hydrologic regime (i.e., timing, magnitude, recharge, duration, stream network/groundwater connectivity, temperature, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows) of surface and groundwater, through management of vegetation in upland, riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats."

"Class II and Class III pinyon/juniper woodlands shall be reduced by 25% on a rolling 10 year average and replaced with desirable vegetative communities to reduce erosion and impacts to the County's rivers and streams."

"Restore and maintain the County's forests and woodlands to a properly functioning condition consistent with the historical range of variability and ecologic site descriptions, including but not limited to composition, age, size, and density."

Timber harvesting is increased to restore resilience and resistance to fire, insects, and other disturbances.

Return mixed conifer forests to earlier successional stages and have age and spatial diversity increased.

Land managers should focus treatment area prioritization on ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests types where fire regimes and vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range of variability. These areas require moderate to high levels of mechanical restoration treatments before fire can be reintroduced to restore the historical fire regime.

Aspen are regenerated and rejuvenated.

Invading conifers, especially pinyon/juniper associations, are recognized as the greatest threat to a desired and healthy sagebrush ecosystem in Garfield County. Treatments to arrest conifer invasion and restore sagebrush communities shall be given high priority.

Recovery of special status species and precluding listing of other at-risk species through active management, proactive habitat restoration and sound resource use is the central policy, goal and objective of Garfield County's special status species program.

We believe that our project supports these and many other objectives of the Garfield County RMP and that has been demonstrated throughout the rest of this proposal.

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.

Current conditions in the areas proposed for treatment are generally Fire Regime Condition Classes of 2-3, where the conditions are moderately to highly departed from historic vegetation conditions. Individual vegetation type conditions are detailed below.

1)	Aspen -- Fuel loading is 4-46 tons/acre with a FRCC 2 where the conditions are departed from historic vegetation conditions. Species composition is trending toward climax with conifer encroachment. Disturbance is necessary in aspen communities to provide for continued sprouting and the development of an uneven-aged structure of trees, including sprouts, saplings, and mature trees; and the control of other, potentially aspen-replacing species.

2)	Mountain sagebrush/shrublands -- Currently the stands within the proposed treatment area can be classified as an FRCC 2 or 3 where the conditions are moderately to highly departed from historic vegetation conditions. No evidence of recent fire disturbance can be observed in the proposed stands. Historical disturbance regimes affecting the shrubland community should be stand replacing fires with a mean fire interval of 30-50 years. The typical disturbance of wildland fire tends to reduce the composition of conifers within the shrubland community and promote the development of grasses ad forbs.  Mixed severity fires promote the creation of different age classes within the shrubland community. Fire adapted shrub species such as sage and bitterbrush typically exhibit variable age classes representing the occurrence of disturbance events. The current density of juniper spp. is an indication of the lack of disturbance along with a lack of younger age classes of shrub species.

3)	Ponderosa pine -- Existing ponderosa stands have an average FRCC of a 3 and are highly departed from historic fire return intervals. Their dead and down fuel loading is 8-14 tons/acre with some Ponderosa trees with canopy base height that extends onto the bottom 1/3 of the tree.  Additionally, there is a tall understory growth of invading conifers, and manzanita.

4)	Riparian Areas  - Currently the stands within the proposed treatment area can be classified as an FRCC 2 or 3 where the conditions are moderately to highly departed from historic vegetation conditions. Cottonwood sp. are represented by older age classes with few seedling/saplings present. Similar conditions of conifer encroachment on the west side of John's Valley resulted in riparian areas acting as corridors for fire movement during the 2002 Sanford fire on Mount Dutton, which has had long-lasting effects to fish habitat and native BCT communities. Conifers encroaching into riparian areas provide a drier, more continuous source of fuel that can burn more readily than deciduous riparian vegetation and provide ladder fuels into taller riparian canopies.

The goal of treatment is to improve health and vigor of stands by moving them toward a FRCC of 1 and away from 2 and 3, reduce fuel loading, fuel continuity and to reduce the risk of large scale fires of uncharacteristically high severity that could result in a degradation of watershed conditions. As discussed under Threats and Risks, large, high severity fires can have dire consequences to small, fragmented native trout populations and their habitats. 
In addition to potential impacts to vegetation communities and species, multiple residential structures exist on the private lands within and downstream from the project area. A wildfire in the project area would most certainly threaten these structures. Any post-fire flooding and debris flows would also have a major impact on the diversion and irrigation facilities of downstream water users in both Horse Creek and Ranch Creek. Range improvements in the project area would also be at risk.

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.

This project was initiated to improve watershed conditions. Phase I of the project included riparian exclosures, riparian conifer removal and a reroute of an ATV trail out of a riparian area.  Horse Creek has fine sediment levels exceeding Forest Plan standards. Phase III proposes stream work to trap sediment and begin to raise the water table in Horse Creek, as well as additional riparian conifer removal along Horse Creek and in the uplands immediately surrounding the creek.  Increased ground cover and additional aggradation of the stream bed should help reduce fine sediment loading in the remainder of the stream. Two of the units (aspen and ponderosa pine) proposed in Phase III are immediately adjacent to Ranch Creek and are underlain with junipers and other conifers, reducing ground cover and increasing fire risk (see photos in attachments). The hand treatments proposed in these units will allow for treatment in the riparian area up to the edge of the stream if necessary. Reducing high severity fire risk and restoring a mosaic of vegetation successional stages should improve ground cover, watershed health and watershed resiliency.

Streams within the project area drain into the East Fork Sevier River. The East Fork Sevier River in John's Valley is 303d listed for macroinvertebrate community composition. One of the main factors in the poor macroinvertebrate community is probably the variable irrigation flow regime in this area; however, sediment generation and other water quality issues could exacerbate this. Similarly, downstream from Antimony Creek the East Fork Sevier River is 303d listed for temperature and has a TMDL for Phosphorus. Aspen regeneration projects where conifers are removed and Pinyon Juniper removal projects have been shown to increase the ground cover of grasses and forbs, thereby reducing bare ground and erosion (Roundy & Vernon, 1999; Pierson, Bates, Svejcar, & Hardegree, 2007a; Peterson & Stringham, 2008; Stam et al. 2008; Pierson, et al., 2010; Cline, Pierson, Kormos, & Williams, 2010). Reduced erosion the watershed could reduce the amount of Total P reaching this portion of the East Fork Sevier.

The results of research on the volume and longevity of water yield increase following conifer removal from aspen communities, such as those proposed in this project, has been variable with some studies showing fairly substantial, relative long-term increases (Gottfried 1991) and others show little increase, or only short-term increases (Troendle et al. 2010).  Perhaps the most compelling local study shows that aspen stands had 34-44% higher snow water equivalents than adjacent conifer stands and a 42-83% greater potential water yield for runoff and groundwater recharge (LaMalfa and Ryle, 2008), indicating that removal of conifer and maintaining and improving aspen stands should result in higher water yield. Similarly, some research indicates that pinyon-juniper removal in mountain sagebrush can increase soil water availability (Roundy et al. 2014).  Phase III of the project has numerous wet meadows and small seeps throughout the proposed treatment areas, recent research in California indicates that removing conifers from wet meadows can elevate the water table and increase soil moisture (Fie 2018). This project proposes to remove pinyon and juniper from sagebrush grass lands and remove conifer succession from aspen and ponderosa pine communities and improve the amount and diversity of riparian hydric and hardwood species. The combination of these activities should have a net positive effect on increasing water yield/availability.

The treatments proposed in Phase III will connect with treatments conducted in Phases I and II to reduce the risk of an uncharacteristically high severity fire, the aftermath of which could result in lowering water tables through stream incision and cause short and long-term impacts to sediment and nutrient loading, negatively affecting water quality.

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.

Note: All polygons had a 3-4 m negative buffer applied to them because of overlap issues loading in the database. Polygons meet and are contiguous in most areas where space is shown between them and difference between acres claimed in the text and shown on the map are a result of this buffer.

1)	Maintain aspen stands (56 acres):
a.	Lop and pile all juniper. Juniper boles greater than 9 inches in diameter need not be piled. Lop and pile all other conifers < 8 inch DBH.

2)	Improve mountain sagebrush/shrublands (250 acres):
a.	Mastication (249 acres) - Masticate all Juniper. Masticate other conifers <= 12" DBH.
b.	Lop and scatter (1 acre) - Lop and scatter all Juniper. All other conifers <= 12" DBH.

3)	Maintain and improve riparian areas (50 acres): 
a.	Mastication/lop and scatter (46 acres) -- On the stream terrace all Juniper will be masticated, as well as all other conifers <= 12" DBH.  Within the inner gorge of the stream channel incision all juniper will be lopped and scattered and other conifers will be lopped and scatter (species and diameter class sill be specific to area). In these treatments mastication will be contracted first and allowed to remove as much material as possible before proceeding to lop and scatter.
b.	Lop and scatter (4 acres) - Lop and scatter all Juniper. All other conifers <= 12" DBH.

4)	Stream channel improvements (1.5 miles of stream and approximately 2 acres):
a.	Large Woody Debris additions -- DNF hydrologists and biologists will identify 4 large junipers along every 100 feet of stream to be uprooted with most of the root wad intact and placed into the incised stream channel. An excavator will be contracted to uproot and place junipers.

5)	Maintain and improve health and structure of ponderosa pine community (692 acres): 
a.	Mastication (584 acres) - Masticate all Juniper. Masticate other conifers <= 12" DBH, with the exception of Ponderosa pine, will be masticated.
b.	Lop and scatter (67 acres) - Lop and scatter all Juniper. All other conifers <= 12" DBH.
c.	Lop and pile (41 acres) - Lop and pile all juniper. Juniper boles greater than 15 inches in diameter need not be piled. Lop and pile all other conifers < 8 inch DBH.

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.

Fish -- UDWR has three monitoring stations on Ranch Creek that are visited every 5-7 years to monitor the status and trend of the remnant BCT population in this stream using density, standing crop and occupied stream miles (Hadley & Golden, 2016). Similarly, the Dixie National Forest has monitoring stations on Horse Creek to track the status and trend of nonnative brook trout, which are currently the Management Indicator Species (MIS) for those streams until they are restored with BCT. DNF attempts to monitor quantitative fish stations on a rotating 5-year interval to track status and trends in density and standing crop of MIS. UDWR and DNF both summarize results of their sampling efforts in reports that can be uploaded to the WRI web site (see attachments).

Upland vegetation -- Within the project area the Dixie National Forest has established three upland vegetation trend studies; however, none of these sites are located within Phase III treatments.  These studies are repeated every 5 years and are detailed in annual monitoring reports by the Dixie National Forest and can be uploaded to the WRI web site (see attachments).

Riparian Vegetation -- The DNF has three Riparian Level III Inventory locations established within or immediately adjacent to the Phase III proposed treatments. These studies are repeated every 5 years and are detailed in annual monitoring reports by the Dixie National Forest and can be uploaded to the WRI web site (see attachments).

Multiple Indicator Monitoring - The DNF has one area monitored for bank stability, bank cover and greenline to greenline width within the Horse Creek riparian treatments within or immediately adjacent to the Phase III proposed treatments. This study is repeated every 5 years and are detailed in annual monitoring reports by the Dixie National Forest and can be uploaded to the WRI web site (see attachments).

Aspen regeneration - Within aspen and conifer regeneration treatment areas, stocking surveys will be conducted following the first, third, and fifth growing seasons as directed in Forest Service Handbooks. Adaptive management actions will be defined within the project's Decision Notice to assure satisfactory stocking.

Wildlife monitoring - The Utah Division of Wildlife regularly conducts mule deer and elk population estimates in and surrounding the project area. Radio telemetry collars were deployed on Mule Deer in this area in December of 2019. Data from these collars is being used partially to determine if the encroaching conifers in this area also contribute to limiting factors for fawn survival and summering populations of Mule Deer.

Fuels monitoring -- Fifteen Brown's transects have been established to measure fuel loading throughout the project area, including two in Phase III mastication polygons. Reports (see attachments) can be uploaded to the WRI web site.

Additionally, photo points will be established before and after project treatments within the various project units.

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.

The planning for this project was a direct result of the Range-wide Bonneville/Colorado River Cutthroat trout Team 2012 summer field tour and adheres to the recommendations of that team to design proactive vegetation treatments to create fire resilient watersheds around core and conservation population of cutthroat trout. In October 2017 field tours were conducted with UDWR, National Wild Turkey Federation, Mule Deer Foundation and Trout Unlimited personnel, all of whom expressed support for the project. In 2019 an after-action review of Phase I actions was conducted with UDWR and USFS personnel. Some of the areas and treatments identified in Phase II were discussed during this review and fleshed out during subsequent ground truthing. Phase III treatments were discussed with UDWR biologists in December 2020.

Downstream landowners (Sweetwater Ranch/Flying V, Sandberg Ranch) have responded favorably to the Phase I and Phase II treatments. While much of their land is almost exclusively in production and not amenable to the types of treatments being proposed, NRCS has been approached to discuss potential treatments of private land. Flying V is also the permittee affected by the completed and proposed treatments. They are expecting and are preparing for possible changes to their grazing rotations on the Horse Creek Allotment. This would include but is not limited to resting part of a pasture, time of grazing, herding, temporary fencing, change of salting locations, and other possible ways to achieve our goals.

Additional private land parcels are present within the project area along Horse Creek.  These parcels have recently changed hands.  Conversations by USFS, NRCS, USFWS and TU personnel with the original landowners showed they did not have an interest in pursuing private lands treatment.  The new landowner was contacted by the DNF this fall and has shown some interest in treatment. The Forest working with NRCS to contact the landowner and develop a plan for private lands treatment. Additionally, Garfield County has been made aware of the project and support was expressed in discussions with one of their representatives.

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 treatments proposed in this project are Phase III of a larger effort to improve the function and resilience of the Ranch Creek, Birch Creek and Horse Creek subwatersheds. The Dixie National Forest has invested a considerable amount of time and money to put our management focus toward MIS and Sensitive wildlife species in this area, including motorized travel plan implementation, aquatic organism passage projects, forage production projects and monitoring.  The larger Ranch Creek Watershed Improvement project proposes vegetation treatments on more than 9,000 acres.  Phases I and II completed more than 2,000 acres of treatments in riparian, sagebrush, ponderosa pine, PJ woodland, aspen, mixed conifer and spruce-fir habitats.  Future Phases will treat over 6,000 additional acres across all vegetation types in the Ranch Creek, Birch Creek and Horse Creek subwatersheds.

As mentioned elsewhere in the proposal, Ranch Creek holds a remnant, core BCT population and the UDWR and Forest Service have plans to expand this BCT population into historic habitat in both Horse and Birch Creeks. Ensuring that representation of the Ranch Creek BCT population is maintained and expanded is a UDWR and FS priority. Both UDWR and the Forest Service are signatories to the Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout which will continue to direct management toward maintaining and improving watershed function, through road and trail, instream habitat and riparian and upland vegetation projects, such as those contained in this proposal.

Once treatments in the entire project area are completed the goal is to manage fire adapted ecosystems through a combination wildfire (managed for Forest Plan benefits) and low intensity prescribed fire. In terms of treatments overlapping riparian areas, and sagebrush treatments, monitoring will determine the success of original treatments and maintenance will be conducted as necessary to remove whips and missed trees.

The Horse Creek cattle allotment is partially overlain by all of the proposed treatments (see Sustainable Uses Section). No seeding is proposed in Phase III so the pastures affected won't be immediately rested; however, the Forest will work with permittees to adjust timing and reduce duration on treated pastures. Livestock use of upland treatment areas will be adaptively managed using a combination of long-term vegetation monitoring coupled with annual use and utilization compliance monitoring to determine if any adjustment to Annual Operating Instructions are necessary to achieve the goals of the project. Herding, salt placement, timing of grazing, fencing, and rest are tools that will be used to achieve upland treatment objectives should they be necessary.

On other areas of the Escalante Ranger District aspen regeneration projects have been successful without fencing (e.g. Sawmill Aspen -- UWRI 1691).  Aspen related treatments will be monitored for regeneration and recruitment with the goal being of at least 500 recruitment stems/acre (Kitchen et al. 2019).  Higher elevation aspen treatments are planned for prescribed fire and monitoring of regeneration and recruitment will occur post-fire. Rest and or temporary fencing will be used if browsing thresholds are exceeded. Ponderosa pine harvest and underburning will be used to maintain ponderosa pine stands into the future.

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.

The treatments within this proposal all fall on the active Horse Creek cattle allotment. The Horse Creek allotment is managed on a three pasture, deferred rotation with a permitted use of 245 cow/calf pairs. Phases I and II completed over 2,000 acres of conifer removal treatments that have already begun to increase grasses and forbs, and more palatable browse species. The vegetation treatments outlined in the proposed Phase III above all involve removing overstocked conifers. Within the targeted vegetation types, following treatment early successional species will be grass, forbs and browse species more palatable as forage to both wild and domestic ungulates. Additionally, these preliminary treatments will help facilitate larger treatments throughout the more than 14,000 acre project area which encompasses over half of the more than 24,000 acre Horse Creek allotment.

These treatments should pave the way to increase pasture flexibility and allow for additional prescribed fire and other treatments in the spruce-fir and mixed conifer vegetation types in the Grass Lakes pasture. Additionally, similar treatments are slated for future phases in the neighboring Horse Creek pasture and forage increases from Phase I, II, and III treatments should provide additional flexibility for rest of those treatments. With an increase in available forage, these treatments should help with alleviating current utilization issues on the allotment by improving livestock distribution and providing areas of high-quality forage away from riparian areas that are being overused.

Phase III also protects and improves ponderosa pine stands for future commercial sales.  
Depredation has been a major issue on agricultural land immediately adjacent to the project area.  Between reimbursements for crop damage and the value of big game (bull elk) lethally removed, the cost of depredation issues to UDWR is around $150,000 annually.  Increasing forage on forested lands immediately adjacent to these private agricultural lands should reduce UDWR's time, effort and budget spent on depredation issues.

Other major sustainable uses occurring in the project area are firewood gathering, shed hunting and hunting.  Phase I and Phase II lop and scatter treatments have been heavily used for personal firewood gathering and it is assumed that Phase III lop and scatter treatments, as well as non-commercial conifers cut and piled during commercial timber operations, will be used as heavily for firewood. As outlined in the purpose and need and relationship to plans sections Phase III treatments should improve forage for mule deer and elk winter range and mule deer summer range. Hopefully this leads to higher use by big game which should translate into additional hunting pressure/success. A 2017 report by the Outdoor Industry Association showed that nationally, outdoor recreation generates $887 billion in consumer spending annually, supports 7.6 million jobs and generates $59.2 billion in state and local tax revenue. Hunting along generated $27.1 billion I revenue in 2016.  According to 2018 data from Southwick and associates hunting in the Intermountain West contributed to more than 16,200 jobs, $214,100,000 in retail sales and $25,300,000 in State and local tax revenue in the Intermountain West.

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.