The Cold Springs WMA has become a late serial plant community with conifer encroaching into the aspen stands. As conifer encroaches into the aspen stands there is a loss of herbaceous vegetation which equates to a loss of forage for wildlife. There has been rx burns on the east side of the WMA and more rx burns are planned. There is private property on the west boundary of the WMA with a cabin in close proximity so, rx burns on the west side of the WMA are not realistic. The private land owner has been doing small acre clearcuts within the conifer encroached aspen stands and has seen great results. We would like to team up with the private landowner and clearcut areas. The adjacent private landowner owns his own dozer and would be willing to push the trees into piles. Since the landowner has the bulldozer at his property there is no mobilization cost for equipment. As the conifer encroaches within the aspen stands and dominates the area there is loss of herbaceous vegetation which is used by mule deer, elk and blue grouse. The drainage that the Cold Spring WMA is located in has been approved as a Turkey release site. By creating patches of early seral plant communities this will slow water run-off and increase infiltration into the soils. By allowing the water to slowly run off there would be a increase in the amount of water into the system over the summer. In a paper from the Rangeland Journal in 1998 Bartos et al. quantified that by every 1,000 acres of conifer that encroached into aspen there is loss of 250-500 acre-feet of water that is transpired into the atmosphere. They estimate there is a loss of 500-1,000 tons of biomass that is lost due to encroachment. This project is designed to reverse the trend of losing water and biomass. A study in northern Utah (Burke and Kasahara 2011 in Hydrol. Process. 25:1407-1417) found conifer canopy reduced the snowwater equivalent on a site by 10-40% compared to aspen. Aspen forests also protect the watershed by being resilient to wildfire, often acting as a buffer to slow fire and reduce adverse impacts to the watershed from catastrophic fires. After mechanical treatments have occurred it has been shown that 2 to 3 years post treatment there is a decrease in bare ground on the site. This increase was from grasses, forbs and litter left on site from mechanical treatment (Miller et al. 2014).

To create patches of early seral plant communities on the WMA and adjacent land. With the area cleared it should allow for grasses, forbs and shrubs to re-establish along with the aspen to regenerate creating food for deer, elk and forest grouse. This has been done for the past 4 summers on private and on the DWR WMA and has been successful. In the summer of 2012 and 2013 the private landowner dozed on the Cold Springs WMA and there was aspen regeneration by the end of the summer. In the 2012, 2013 and 2014 treatment areas we are seeing a increase in forbs and higher number of game and grouse use in the area. The increase in forbs creates additional foraging opportunity for wildlife. During the summer forbs have the most nutritional value for big game and upland game. We are creating more forage as well as a higher nutritional plane for wildlife by removing the conifer. We hope to continue with the improvements that have been made on the WMA. Any harvest-able conifers above 14" DBH will be removed from the property.

Regenerating aspen being over browsed. There have been rx burns on and around the WMA as well as the private land owner to the west of the WMA has been doing clearcuts creating more aspen regeneration. This project could disperse the herbivory pressure and allow the aspen to regenerate. If this project were to be delayed then the aspen regeneration projects that are near, could see increased herbivory. Dispersing herbivory pressure could allow for aspen to become mature and not become shrubs. This project is important to allow for successful aspen regeneration and needs to happen soon.

Cold Spring WMA Habitat Management Plan- The priority objective will be to maximize its use and carrying capacity by the largest number and diversity of wildlife possible. Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) -Key Habitat- Aspen Conifer- Increase disturbance to promote aspen regeneration. -Key Habitat-Aspen Conifer- Apply mechanical disturbance such as Timber harvest. -Key Habitat-Aspen Conifer-Statewide 2,988,620 acres which is 5.50% of Utah's land area -Key Habitat-Aspen Conifer-Deficit of young and mid age class A and B, such that replenishment of aspen-dominated stands is being inhibited -Key Habitat-Aspen Conifer-Surpluses of older and/or conifer-encroached classes C, D, and E, which if left unaddressed, can lead to widespread permanent loss of aspen clones. -Species of Greatest Conservation Need-Lewis's Woodpecker and Olive-sided Flycatcher- Project will increase habitat diversity for WAP species. Utah Partners in Flight- Lewis's Woodpecker-encourage open under-story of Ponderosa Pine and Mixed Conifer habitats. Statewide Management Goals for Mule Deer- Population Management Goal, Population Objective, Strategy b. Support all habitat objectives and strategies in this plan to protect and improve deer habitat including energy development mitigation in crucial mule deer habitat. 2, Strategy b. Work with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private land owners, and local leaders through the regional WRI working groups to identify and prioritize mule deer habitat that are in need of enhancement or restoration. c. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought of fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being encroached by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitat. d. Continue to support and provide leadership for UWRI, which emphasizes improving sagebrush-steppe, aspen and riparian habitats across all landownership. Statewide Management Goals for Elk- Population Management Goal, Population Objective 1, Strategy d. Support habitat improvement projects that increase forage for both big game and livestock. d. Mitigate for losses of crucial habitat due to human impacts and energy development. 2, Strategy d. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve elk habitat with emphasis on calving habitat and winter ranges. Improving the quality and quantity of forage and cover on 250,000 acres of elk habitat with emphasis upper elevation elk winter range. Cold springs Forest Stewardship Plan Small clear-cut are recommended in the cold springs forest stewardship plan prepared by FFSL. Selective harvest of Douglas-fir to improve forest health. Selective harvest of Subalpine fir to reduce susceptibility to insect and disease outbreak and large scale fires. Hazardous Fuel reduction by reducing the basal area of Douglas-fir stands. Range Valley Ranch Forest Stewardship Plan, (1) timber harvesting in areas of declining aspen to reduce encroaching conifer and to stimulate aspen regeneration (2) improve forest health (3) decrease fuel loading on property. Deer Herd Management Plan Unit #11 Nine Mile Limiting Factors (Habitat)- Summer range is likely more a factor to population growth than winter range. Cooperate with federal land management agencies and private landowners in carrying out habitat improvements such as reseedings, controlled burns, water developments etc. on public and private lands. Goal of improving 20,000 acres per year per region. UPCD priority areas should coincide with management priorities for this unit (ie. Summer and winter ranges). Work with private and federal agencies to maintain and protect critical and existing summer and winter ranges from future losses. Elk Herd Management Plan Unit #11 Nine Mile Improve forage and cover values on elk summer ranges. Practices will include prescribed fire, selective logging, and mechanical treatments that promote a diverse age structure in aspen communities. Over 300 acres per year will be targeted. Improve wet meadow habitats through shrub treatments in high elevation habitats. Minimize conflicts between elk and wild horses through habitat improvement and encouraging wild horse gathers when horse numbers exceed population objectives. Utah Wild Turkey Management Plan Objective 2. Increase wild turkey habitat, quality and quantity, by 40,000 acres statewide by 2020 Objective 3. Establish wild turkey populations at 80 new sites by 2020. Utah's Wild Turkey Management Plan Objectives 1. The plans objective is to maintain and improve wild turkey populations. One of the strategies identified to reach this objective is to do habitat projects. This project will help to achieve this objective. 2. The plan also identifies as an objective increasing habitat quantity and quality for turkeys by 40,000 acres statewide by 2020. This project will help to achieve this by increase herbaceous foraging habitat for turkeys. 3. Another objective in the turkey management plan is to increase hunting opportunity. This project will help to accomplish this because the project is located on the WMA where hunters have access. 4. Enhance appreciation for wild turkeys in Utah. This project will help to allow easier access to turkeys by the public and greater opportunity to observe these animals. This will help to achieve this objective.

There are private lands adjacent to the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) that have cabins and other structures that are within less than a mile of the property boundary and the project will continue the fire break on the private lands. This project creates different age classes of vegetation as well as promotes pure aspen stands that act like fire break. Treatments would be implemented to effectively restore resilient, fire-adapted aspen ecosystems on a landscape-scale by moving the stands toward properly functioning condition in terms of composition (species diversity) and density (crown spacing and fuel loading). In addition the treatments would improve structural diversity, promote aspen regeneration and recruitment, reduce the hazardous fuel loading, and reduce the continuity of fuels The project will also promote a diverse herbaceous plant community that will also prevent fire movement. The Forestry Fire and State Lands Wildfire Risk Assessment Portal rates the project area as high to moderate wildfire risk, moderate threat, high to very high effects and a production rate of 56-74%.

In a paper from the Rangeland Journal in 1998 Bartos et al. quantified that by every 1,000 acres of conifer that encroached into aspen there is loss of 250-500 acre-feet of water that is transpired into the atmosphere. Project treatments will result in short to moderate term impacts to water quality, but project design featureswill prevent long-term degradation. Project treatments will considerably lessen the risk of devastating large scale high severity fires that could result in long-term watershed degradation. By maintaining watershed function, long-term water quality will be maintained or enhanced. By removing conifer it is anticipated that water quantity will be enhanced (seeps, springs, bogs--improved). Due to concerns for high value/sensitive aquatic species, aquatic monitoring is incorporated into the project design. This will document baseline conditions and help assess project effects and watershed recovery, ensuring aquatic species are maintained and enhancing the ability to plan future large-scale watershed restoration programs. Besides their productivity and diversity, aspen forests are a valuable watershed component with a beneficial relationship to surface water and groundwater sources, providing a sustained, high-quality water yield and watershed protection. A study in northern Utah (Burke and Kasahara 2011 in Hydrol. Process. 25:1407-1417) found that conifer canopy reduced the snow-water equivalent on a site by 10-40% compared to aspen. Numerous other studies have documented the wide-ranging benefits of aspen communities to watershed health (USFS Gen Tech Report RMRS-GTR-178, 2006). Due to leaf litter, soils under aspen tend to have high amounts of organic matter, ground cover and water-holding capacity. Soils under aspen are less susceptible to erosion due to the high percentages of ground and herbaceous vegetation cover and high rates of infiltration. With lower rates of evapo-transpiration, there is a significant improvement in water yield from aspen forests compared to conifer types. Aspen forests also protect the watershed by being resilient to wildfire, often acting as a buffer to slow fire and reduce adverse impacts to the watershed from catastrophic fire. Therefore, actions to sustain aspen forests on the landscape have a beneficial effect on water quality and quantity.

Archaeological clearance and SHPO consultation will be completed before any project activities begin. The project is on private and DWR administered lands and will not need any further compliance activities.

Use the dozer that is owned by the land owner to the west. The private land owner will operate the dozer. Small clearcuts in the aspen/conifer (1-3 acres) will be created by using the dozer to knock over the trees and pushthem into piles. The piles will be burned after they have dried out (approx. 1 to 2 years). This will be done on approx. 103 acres on DWR. The landowner can remove any wood products that have a commercial value as long as it is documented. The landowner will determine the cost of removing the wood product versus the actual market price at that time to determine if there will be any possibility of reducing the overall project cost. This will be presented to the DWR for review prior to removing any wood products. Online form will be created for each sampling method, this way as soon as monitoring is completed it can be uploaded to the database from the users smartphone or internet connected device. In areas with no cell service form will be upload at the end of the day when back in cell coverage.

Photo Points put in before project activities begin and monitored for 3 years post treatment. Pellet groups transects will be monitored to determine how much wildlife use has occurred on aspen regeneration. Aspen stems per/acre monitoring See attachments for detailed methods

DWR has been partnering with the adjacent private landowner to implement Rx burns and to do other habitat treatments. This project is a continuation of the partnership with the adjacent landowner by doing treatment on the Wildlife Management Area (WMA) as well as the private lands. FFSL has agreed to implement the pile burning after treatments. The National Wild Turkey Federation has visited previous treatments and supports and encourages treatments. I have received a letter from sportsman that use the WMA and have expressed support of the treatments and continuation of this type of treatment.

This area is under objective for elk. Success is very low for cow elk harvest since there is a lot of private property and the terrain is very rugged. DWR is actively trying to manage the elk population to reach objective. Mule deer are under objective on the range creek unit. This project could help improve fawn recruitment and contribute to a increase in the population objective. According to the cold springs forest stewardship plan as part of the Cold Springs Conservation Easement 2 acre patches of clear-cuts is recommended. By mechanically removing aspen and conifer in small patches it will add to the 500 acres of prescribed burn in the area. This will reduce the herbivory pressure on this 500 acres and allow for better regeneration of aspen.

The project would increase herbaceous vegetation that would benefit livestock by increasing the amount of forbs and grasses on the landscape. Grasses provide a prolonged protein source during the growing season while forbs provide a spike of protein during the flowering stage. Having a good diversity of grasses and forbs during the growing seasons benefit livestock as well as wildlife. The Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is not formally grazed by domestic livestock, under certain circumstances the WMA may be used as a grass bank and livestock grazing would be allowed. There is no plan to graze the WMA at this time.

12/04/2018

12/04/2018

2019

FFSL staff burned piles across 71 acres of past phases to reduce the amount of debris piles on site. They burned during the winter months while there was snow on the ground and the fire couldn't escape and create a wildfire.

Piles have been burned the same year that bulldozing occurred and the amount of moisture left in the trees did not allow the piles to burn. Burning the piles a few years after project implementation has occurred allows for better consumption of materials in the piles.

In the fall of 2019 additional aspen regeneration treatments will occur. This will provide more habitat for wildlife on the WMA. Additional treatments will provide more foraging opportunities for wildlife and disperse ungulate pressure on past treatments. The areas will continue to be managed by DWR for wildlife opportunities.