Upper Duchesne Restoration Phase 1
Project ID: 4547
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Ryan Mower
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Ashley National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Northeastern
Description:
The western side of the Duchesne River Watershed is experiencing large scale conifer mortality. Objective 1: Reduce fuel loading and improve fire management in the event of wildfire through vegetation management. Objective 2: Prevent potential severe damage to the Duchesne River water quality caused by severe fire. Objective 3: Protect and restore habitat for wildlife including but not limited to: Rocky Mountain Elk, Mule Deer, and Wild Turkey. The project will include other watershed treatments
Location:
This project is a large scale landscape restoration project (56,000 acre project area, 9000 treated acres). Beginning at the westernmost end of the Ashley National Forest in the Wolf Creek Watershed, proceeding east to the North Fork of the Duchesne River Watershed, Blind Stream Watershed, and South Fork Rock Creek Watershed.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The general project area includes all or portions of 8 subwatersheds. The total project area is approximately 56,000 acres with approximately 9,000 acres receiving treatment. The area has, and continues to, experience a significant level of tree mortality. A mountain pine beetle epidemic killed many lodgepole pine throughout the area. A spruce beetle epidemic followed, and killed additional trees. There has been a minor amount of Douglas-fir killed by Douglas-fir beetles. The concern of a large, destructive wildfire that could cause irreparable damage to the watershed, wildlife, aquatic and terrestrial habitats, and vegetation. The major goal of the project is to maintain, restore, and prevent large scale damage to the watershed condition and functions. Most of the project area is considered a municipal watershed. The Ashley National Forest recognizes that this area is at an ecological threshold and would like to begin the NEPA process and add this area as a UWRI Focus Area. Due to the Ashley National Forest undergoing Forest Plan Revision a Silviculturist is needed to for the the NEPA process. Time is considered critical, right now the timber has value and has not completly dried out.
Objectives:
Objective 1: Reduce fuel loading and improve fire management in the event of wildfire through vegetation management. Objective 2: Prevent potential severe damage to Duchesne River water quality caused by severe fire and/or lack of treatments. Objective 3:The project will also include various other watershed improvements projects (road relocations, meadow enhancements, and gulley repair) that will benefit long term water quality. Objective 4: Reduce conifer encroachment into area of established aspen. Objective 5: Pre-commercially thin area of dense (dog-hair) conifer.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Over time dead conifers will dominate the vegetative community leading to high fuel loads and the potential for an ecologically devastating wildfire. The loss of the conifer and aspen communities would have negative impacts to numerous components of the existing watershed and habitat, and may drastically alter ecological function of the area. The widespread mortality of conifer will also leave the area without a productive seed source leading to a complete vegetative community change. Failure to complete any action will impact duration and timing of surface water runoff and sedimentation patterns(which causes soil erosion and poor water quality). Removing impacted conifers will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and increase the likelihood of fire suppression if a fire occurs and shelter other ecological functions.
Relation To Management Plan:
Ashley National Forest Management Plan: Timber Objective 3: Accomplish timber stand improvement consistent with silvicultural needs and management prescriptions. Soil, Water, and Air Objective 2: Maintain or improve soil stability, site productivity, and repair or stabilize damaged watersheds. The Utah Division of Wildlife plans for Elk and Mule Deer: Elk Habitat Management Goal: Conserve and improve elk habitat throughout the state. Habitat Objective 1: Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. This project area is fully encompassed by Elk habitat. Habitat Goal: Conserve, improve, and restore mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges. Habitat Objective 1: Maintain mule deer habitat throughout the state by protecting and enhancing existing crucial habitats and mitigating for losses due to natural and human impacts. The project area occurs completely within Mule Deer habitat and borders crucial habitat for restoration according the the State plan for Mule Deer.
Fire / Fuels:
The dead and dying conifer located throughout the project area is quickly becoming a major fuel/fire hazard. The project aims to reduce, sometimes drastically, widespread fuels that would lead to a catastrophic wildfire across approximately 9000 acres and create fuel breaks. Beetle infested conifer has proven to be a devastating fuel source if left untreated throughout the west and the State of Utah.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Conifer stands prevent snow and moisture from reaching the forest floor which then can be lost through evaporation and sublimation. Minor increases in water quantity may be seen when reducing the amount of conifer in an ecosystem, but must be balanced with water quality concerns. These concerns are mitigated through proper planning and will almost always be better than influences from wildfire. The Duchesne River is already listed on the 303(d) list as an impaired water body. As conifer continue to die due to insect epidemics the risks to water quality increase. It is proven that dead conifer stands lead to high risk fire conditions that can lead to devastating wildfires with equally devastating effects on water quality. This projects aims to reduce risk of such an event.
Compliance:
Due to the heavy workload at the Ashley National Forest on Forest Plan Revision a silviculturist is needed for the NEPA process. Assistance is also needed to complete the archeological survey. The Ashley National Forest is requesting assistance in these two respects to meet NEPA requirements and comply with applicable laws and regulations.
Methods:
The project includes the hand and mechanical treatments of various conifer stands to increase long-term forest health and improve wildlife habitat of the area. Implementation of the treatments will be varied across a wide project area, but will mainly consist of traditional skidder logging. After the logging is completed seedling trees will be planted where it has been determined that tree mortality is high enough that no viable seed source exists. Also, part of this project includes smaller watershed restoration projects including trail and road re-routes out of sensitive areas, meadow restoration, and gulley repair.
Monitoring:
The Forest Service has vegetative study sites throughout the project area and will create new sites. Each of these sites will be reviewed every 3-5 years to assess the vegetative cover and species abundance. Photo points will also be placed in the treatment areas to monitor changes over time. Project implementation will be monitored to ensure project is completed and implemented appropriately.
Partners:
At the early onset of planning a Duchesne County Commissioner was contacted regarding county support for the project he voiced strong support and the forest will continue to involve the commission as the project moves forward. The Mule Deer Foundation has been contacted about being a potential partner when the implementation phase begins. As always public outreach and chance for comment will be conducted in accordance to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Future Management:
The widespread mortality of conifer in this area may lead to future management changes that may be detrimental. The forest service would like to prevent negative future issues by beginning the NEPA process and implementing positive action before the loss of conifer and a potential wildfire dictate future management.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The whole project area is open to livestock grazing. As timber is harvested it will open up areas for larger amounts of forage. The goal of the project is also to prevent wildfire that could potentially lead to widespread soil erosion severely inhibiting the soils ability to produce forage.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$97,800.00 $0.00 $97,800.00 $129,600.00 $227,400.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
NEPA Forest Service Cost needed for the Planning and NEPA process $0.00 $0.00 $129,600.00 2019
Contractual Services Forest Service Teams Silviculturist $54,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Archaeological Clearance Archeological Survey for 2000 acres $43,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$97,800.00 $0.00 $97,800.00 $191,600.00 $289,400.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) Seedlings for planting $0.00 $0.00 $62,000.00 2020
UWRI-NEPA Fund Forest Service Enterprise team Silviculturist $54,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) Contract for archaeological services $43,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
United States Forest Service (USFS) $0.00 $0.00 $129,600.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion/Loss Low
Canada Lynx N4
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes High
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Habitats
Habitat
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Riverine
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Unknown
Riverine
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
This proposal might score better during the ranking if you are able to tie this project to more management plans. The UDWR has management plans for big game species that could relate to this project. Big game management plans can be found at: https://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting-in-utah/hunting-information/big-game.html
Comment 01/25/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
Would you recommend putting that information in the Management Plan section?
Comment 01/25/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Yes
Comment 01/26/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I have added brief portions with information from the Elk and Mule Deer Management plans. Thanks for the input.
Comment 01/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Is there any way to add a map to this proposal, either on the mapping portion of the website or as an attachment on the "Images/Documents" tab? It would be much easier for reviewers to understand what is going to happen with this project if there were a map included.
Comment 01/11/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
This comment has been deleted by author or admin.
Comment 01/26/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
This comment has been deleted by author or admin.
Comment 01/26/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I have mapped the project by adding a shapefile.
Comment 01/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I'm curious as to how this project will address the threat of "Data Gaps" in relation to Canada Lynx. I didn't see anything regarding lynx in the Project Details. Are you implementing some monitoring as a part of this project? How will this be accomplished?
Comment 01/11/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I made a mistake. Much of this area is Canada Lynx habitat, that is what is threatened. I will correct the error. Thanks for the input.
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Natasha Hadden
Is the USFS going to do the thinning part of the project, if so I would suggest putting that as an in-kind contribution in the finance section.
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I do not know the answer at this stage, so I would hate to commit to that. Thank You very much for the input.
Comment 01/08/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
Ryan - Got your message on how to designate a funding request for the WRI-NEPA funding. It looks like you've figured it out. Everything looks good here. Thx.
Comment 01/11/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Ryan Mower
Thank you for following up.
Comment 02/28/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Just a quick reminder to update your map features with what you are planning to accomplish in this phase of the project. If only NEPA type activities will be taking place this year upload the shapefile as an affected area and remove your terrestrial treatment features. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Second question/comment is about in-kind for the conifer seedlings. If this is part of a future phase go ahead and remove it from your budget for this proposal. I am assuming you will be coming back next year to request funding for implementation and that the conifer seedlings will will be part of that proposal. We just don't want to count things twice. Thanks!
Comment 03/12/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I believe that I fixed the mapping issue. If you don't mind could you check it and make sure I did it properly. Thanks
Comment 03/12/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Looks like you made the correct changes to the map. Did you see my other question/comment about your budget in my previous comment?
Comment 03/13/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I also fixed the financial page. Thanks for your help
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
6893 Affected Area
7005 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map