Pockets Aspen Stewardship Project - Phase II
Project ID: 4648
Status: Pending Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: 892
Project Manager: Jamie Nogle
PM Agency: National Wild Turkey Federation
PM Office: Utah Chapter
Lead: National Wild Turkey Federation
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Improve summer habitat for deer, turkey, and elk by restoring aspen from an over-mature stand to a uneven aged regenerated healthy stand. Thin spruce/fir stands to improve forest growing conditions, species composition, and reduce fire incidence and hazards associated with insect and disease. This is an on-going project that is being implemented through a stewardship agreement between the NWTF and the US Forest Service. This proposal is a continuation of WRI Project #2111.
Location:
22 miles northwest of Escalante on the Griffin Top. Within the Antimony Creek, Coyote Hollow-Antimony Creek, Pacer Lake watersheds on the Escalante Ranger District. The project area is within a UWRI Focal Area.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Pockets Stewardship Agreement was designed to address vegetation management objectives outlined in the Pockets Resource Management Project EIS/SEIS/ROD that was approved by the Dixie National Forest in September 2009. This project was designed to address impacts to spruce-fir stands in the area from high levels of beetle infestations, and to maintain and restore aspen where it is being succeeded by conifers. An analysis of the existing condition in the project area a Forest Service interdisciplinary team shows an imbalance in aspen age classes with very little representation in the regeneration (seedlings/saplings) class. Most of the aspen clones are succeeding to spruce/fir; therefore, there is a need to regenerate aspen in mature and over-mature aspen stands that are succeeding to conifer. There is a need to reduce conifer competition within aspen stands to maintain aspen stands with a minimum of 70% aspen. There is a need to perform conifer removal on the project area which will improve existing conifer stand species composition and reduce the risk of insects and disease throughout the project area. For this phase of the project, a total of 202 of the proposed 568 acres will be treated in FY19. This proposal is a continuation of WRI #2111 - Pockets Aspen Stewardship Phase I. The proposed treatment area that was presented in that proposal has limited or no access to a majority of the unit. When it went out to bid there were no bids received for the work and it was quickly realized that the original estimated cost of $218/acre was too low. Since the original proposal, there have been project staff changes for both partners, and the project has been re-evaluated and treatment units have been re-prioritized based multiple factors including the feasibility of completion. Unit 6 which included the original 433 acres proposed in WRI #2111 has been dropped from the schedule of items and funds were subsequently focused on other units with the same prescribed treatment and wildlife and forest health benefits. In addition, this project will result in a reduction in the current fuel loading in existing aspen and spruce/fir stands to reduce the risk of stand replacing fire while maintaining sufficient down woody debris to accomplish other wildlife objectives. There is a need to reduce current snag densities following spruce beetle induced mortality to levels needed to support wildlife objectives. If snag densities are left at current levels then future fuel loading will exceed Dixie National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) objectives. The restoration of aspen habitat will improve key habitat identified in the CWCS and summer range for deer, turkey, elk, and other wildlife species.
Objectives:
The purpose of the aspen treatments is to restore both the distribution and balance of age-classes. Also, treatments will prevent unacceptable browsing damage and allow for establishment of aspen regeneration as required by the Dixie National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The proposed thinning of spruce/fir stands will improve forest growing conditions, species composition, and reduce incidence and hazards associated with insect and disease. In addition, it will address two condition issues for the aspen-conifer habitat type which includes 1) correcting the deficit of young and middle age classes of aspen and 2) removing surpluses of older and conifer-encroached classes.
Threats / Risks:
Aspen clones will covert to conifer forests, and the loss of this important habitat type will result in the decreased use of the area by turkey, elk, and deer. If this project is delayed, it could create conditions wherein future habitat work would be more difficult and cost prohibitive. Currently, density levels are so high in some treatment areas that accessing them to conduct habitat treatments in a safe manner is difficult. If snag densities are left at current levels, then future fuel loading will exceed Dixie National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) objectives which poses a greater catastrophic fire risk. Based on current forest stand conditions and known fire suppression team response times to the area, a fire would likely result in a stand replacing high intensity wild fire across the entire project area and effect adjacent forest stands. This would greatly impact the headwaters of Antimony Creek which is the drinking water supply for the town of Antimony. In addition, cutthroat trout and other fish species in Antimony Creek would be negatively impacted by a fire in the headwaters that would result in a heavy sediment load being released into the stream. This habitat type is identified as a key habitat in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. A listed threat to this habitat type is "Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity". The treatments outlined in this project proposal are identified as a good strategy for improving condition and mitigating threats to this habitat type in the Utah WAP. This project will utilize strategies for improving the condition of aspen-conifer habitat as outlined in the Utah WAP by applying mechanical disturbance agents such as timber harvest to stimulate aspen regeneration and avoid or reduce resource losses to conifer beetles.
Relation To Management Plan:
Dixie National Forest LRMP: This project was designed to address the concerns and objectives outlined in the forest plan: 1) vegetation treatments will provide for a full range of seral stages, 2) treatments will manage for aspen retention, 3) project has been designed in the aspen to accomplish wildlife management goals, 4) management actions designed to meet Regional Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment, 5) project provides for wildlife habitat diversity, 6) treatments will improve habitat capability of wildlife, 7) maintain fuel fuel conditions that permit fire suppression forces to meet fire protection objectives for the area, 8) provide forage to sustain local dependent livestock industry. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: This project will restore aspen-conifer forest condition which is a Terrestrial Key Habitat under the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. Specifically, this project will address two condition issues for the aspen-conifer habitat type which includes 1) correcting the deficit of young and middle age classes of aspen and 2) removing surpluses of older and conifer-encroached classes. This project will utilize strategies for improving the condition of aspen-conifer habitat as outlined in the Utah WAP by applying mechanical disturbance agents such as timber harvest to stimulate aspen regeneration and avoid or reduce resource losses to conifer beetles. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan: This project will address conifer encroachment in aspen stands which is a listed habitat concern within this management plan. Treatments will increase carrying capacity by improving available habitat. The quality and quantity of forage within the project area will improve as a result of proposed vegetation treatments and re-seeding that will occur at the completion of the project. Unit 25 Deer Management Plan: This project will address three key issues identified in this management plan and include 1) project will manipulate vegetation to increase availability and abundance of forage species, 2) project will reduce threats of catastrophic wildfires by reducing fuel loads created by dead, beetle-kill trees, and 3) will support enhancement and restoration efforts in aspen forests by reducing spruce-fir encroachment. Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan: This project addresses the quality and quantity of forage within the project area which will improve as a result of the proposed vegetation treatments. Aspen stands are identified in this plan as high priority habitat for elk as it provides both forage and cover in the summer months and calving ares in the spring. Utah Wild Turkey Management Plan: This project will address objectives and concerns outlined in this plan by increasing wild turkey habitat, quality and quantity, by 40,000 acres statewide by 2020. Treatments will increase early successional habitat which will provide food via new understory plants and insects. Forest Service Region 4 PFC Assessment: 1) project will restore the distribution of aspen, 2) project will restore the balance of age-classes.
Fire / Fuels:
Current surface fuel loading is in excess of 60 tons per acre with an average of 100 snags per acre. Fire Regime is Class IV and Fire Regime Condition Class is 2-3. Fuel Model 10. Given the remote location of the project area initial attack response time for fire exceeds 1.5 hours. Fire line construction will be difficult due to heavy amounts of large diameter down logs and dense conifer understory. Reducing the current fuel loading and distributing patch clearcuts throughout the project area will slow the rate of fire spread and reduce fire intensity. Under current conditions which are very similar to the conditions at Brian Head prior to the June 2017 fire, stand replacing high intensity wild fire will result across the entire project area and effect adjacent forest stands. This would greatly impact the headwaters of Antimony Creek which is the drinking water supply for the town of Antimony. In addition, cutthroat trout and other fish species in Antimony Creek would be negatively impacted by a fire in the headwaters that would result in a heavy sediment load being released into the stream.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Some studies have shown that water yield can decrease (by ~5%) as areas succeed from aspen communities to conifer communities (Jaynes 1978, Bartos 2007). This project proposes to remove conifer succession from aspen communities which would have a net positive effect on increasing water yield/availability. In addition, this project is designed to reduce the risk of a large-scale, catastrophic, stand-replacing wildfire. If this type of event were to occur within the project area, there would be long-term negative watershed impacts including stream degradation (e.g., incision and down cutting), increased sediments loads, and impaired water quality.
Compliance:
The project area has received Archeological and NEPA clearances. Archeological clearance was granted on January 11, 2011. NEPA clearance was granted under the Pockets Resource Management Project EIS on January 6, 2012.
Methods:
Per the Pockets Stewardship Agreement, a total of 568 acres will be pre-commercially thinned by cutting the understory conifer trees following commercial harvest during the life of this project. For this phase of the project, there is a proposed 202 of the 568 acres that will be completed in FY19. Commercial harvest has been completed on approximately 75% of the proposed phase II project area, and the remainder will be completed in summer 2018 with sufficient time for the pre-commercial treatments to be completed in FY19. As part of the pre-commercial treatments, existing aspen will not be cut and all subalpine fir and spruce less than 8 inches DBH will be removed. Enough spruce will be retained to create a stocked stand condition in case the aspen fails to dominate the site. Snag densities will be reduced to three snags per acre which will still provide an adequate number of snags for cavity nesters in the area. Once all treatments are completed, all landings and staging areas will be re-seeded per US Forest Service specifications. The overall forested condition within the project area is to create an aspen dominated overstory with scattered spruce snags and to reduce the overall fuel loading to below 30 tons per acre.
Monitoring:
Monitoring of aspen regeneration will be completed by the Forest Service within the treatment areas. Monitoring protocols require a first, third and fifth year regeneration surveys. If surveys indicate greater than 30% of seedlings are being browsed within the first three years then game fencing will be installed. Based on the Dixie National Forest Plan, monitoring will be completed once there are a total of 5,000 stems per acre with a dominant height of 6 feet over 70% of the treatment area. Monitoring will also include stocking exams for thinned spruce stands. The Fire/Fuels section will conduct post-treatment fuels monitoring to document the fuels reduction objectives. If there are areas with post treatment fuel loads which exceed targets, then additional fuel reduction treatments will be scheduled. This additional fuels work is currently outside of the scope of this stewardship agreement. Post treatment wildlife surveys are not planned by the Forest Service at this time. Project Design Features were developed for this project during the EIS process which should minimize negative impacts to wildlife species on the project area. The operation timing restrictions (generally May 1 through June 15) will limit disturbance during the nesting season and the elk calving season.
Partners:
This project will be managed under an existing Stewardship Agreement with the National Wild Turkey Federation and the US Forest Service (SPA #09-SA-11046000-23). NWTF staff will be responsible for project management and implementation with assistance from USFS staff. NWTF and USFS will work together as partners to ensure the project is completed to USFS standards.
Future Management:
Some areas may experience strong wildlife browsing pressure. If browsing pressure is recorded at 30% of seedlings are being browsed within the first three years, wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed to reduce pressure and promote aspen regeneration. Based on the Dixie National Forest Plan, monitoring will be completed once there are a total of 5,000 stems per acre with a dominant height of 6 feet over 70% of the treatment area. This proposal is for phase II of this long-term project and an additional 335 acres of pre-commercial thinning will be completed in the following fiscal year in other units across the project area. Currently, access to these areas is either limited or non-existent. Temporary road construction will be completed in summer 2018 with Forest Service funds which will allow for better access to complete treatments.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Currently, there is an active grazing permit on the project area which is located within the Coyote livestock grazing allotment. The current grazing period is from mid-July through mid-October. The proposed treatments would create domestic livestock benefits. The thinning treatments and future patch cuts will result in an increase in forage production which will improve the quality and quantity of forage available to wildlife and livestock. By reducing conifer encroachment through mechanical thinning, the amount of aspen habitat in the project area will increase. Aspen stands typically have higher understory species diversity compared to conifer stands which provide more grasses and forbs that can be used as forage. In addition, temporary road construction and the re-seeding of temporary roads and landings will provide forage production for domestic livestock within the project area.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$30,183.62 $111,150.38 $141,334.00 $0.00 $141,334.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Pre-commercial thinning of 153 acres at average cost of $923.75/acre. $30,183.62 $111,150.38 $0.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$30,183.62 $111,150.38 $141,334.00 $0.00 $141,334.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) NS6524 $13,183.62 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Safari Club International NS6526 $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) NS6527 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) NS6523 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) $0.00 $109,394.00 $0.00 2019
United States Forest Service (USFS) $0.00 $1,756.38 $0.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Habitats
Habitat
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Project Comments
Comment 02/02/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Jamie, I'm a bit confused. Is this a project to remove beetle-killed spruce or an aspen regeneration project? Though opening the forest may improve habitat for flammulated owl, removing beetle-kill may negatively impact woodpeckers, creepers, nuthatches, etc. I also do not understand how pre-commercial thinning can happen after commercial harvest (perhaps I just read that incorrectly). Keith
Comment 02/04/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Buddie Carroll
Keith, Yes, the project includes both salvage of dead Engelmann spruce and aspen regeneration harvests. The salvage logging of spruce is necessary to reduce fuel loading as well as to promote natural regeneration. The treatment stands are marked to incorporate at least three snags per acre of the largest diameter spruce for wildlife tree retention. The commercial thinning component is needed to reduce the percentage of subalpine fire in the overstory and thus shape the species composition of the future stands to be dominated by spruce. The pre-commercial thinning objective is also to promote an understory condition which is dominated by aspen but contains a conifer component dominated by spruce. Seral aspen is co-mingled and intermixed throughout the project area.
Comment 02/02/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Jamie I am a bit confused as well. I think you need to use the "methods" section to discuss step by step what you are doing. I am confused as to whether you are treating all aspen/conifer that is not good timber, in all the 568 acres, or whether you are just treating ~200 acres within the 568 acre area. Also, monitoring. What exactly are you or the FS monitoring. This is not clear. If the USFS is involved in this project, can you list a contributor on the front page, from the USFS. Has UDWR been involved in the development of this project?
Comment 02/04/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Buddie Carroll
Vicki, All 568 acres are being salvage logged to remove dead Engelmann spruce to manage current and future fuel loading. Approximately 200 acres will be harvested using patch clearcuts to remove all dead spruce and all aspen. Non merchantable material is to be piled and burned to promote natural regeneration conditions which favor aspen. Within the remaining 368 acres, existing aspen is not cut and a pre-commercial thinning is prescribed to remove all subalpine fir and most of the spruce. Enough spruce will be retained to create a stocked stand condition in case the aspen fails to dominate the site. The overall forested condition within the project area is to create an aspen dominated overstoy with scattered spruce snags and to reduce the overall fuel loading to below 30 tons per acre.
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hello Jamie! I can't believe you chose to miss out on all the fun of ranking these projects;-). This area certainly does need some treatment to promote aspen regeneration. A few questions/comments 1) Knowing the conditions up there, I am guessing that you are addressing the Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity threat for more species than wild turkey and for the aspen-conifer habitat in question. 2) Is there wildlife monitoring for any of the species listed as benefitting? 3) You may want to talk with Jessie Warner on the District as my recollection was that this allotment had issues with upland vegetation in terms of downward trend, so treatments like this may not just increase forage but help to alleviate compliance and trend issues on the allotment. 4) Are there any values at risk besides wildlife habitat from an uncharacteristically high severity fire? 5) In terms of future management how will grazing be managed to achieve success? Will the project help future natural ignitions be managed for Forest Plan benefits? 5) No other partners involved in the process? Permittees, UDWR, other Sportsmans groups, local government?
Comment 02/19/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Thank you for the questions and sorry I wasn't able to help with ranking. I think one region for my first time on a ranking committee is probably enough. Please see the answers to your questions below: 1) Yes, you are correct and I have added that threat for mule deer and elk in addition to turkey. 2) I spoke with Buddie Carroll and Lisa Young on the Dixie NF and in regards to monitoring there are not surveys planned for monitoring the wildlife species listed as benefitted. There was some discussion about adding wildlife surveys for bird species that were not listed as benefitted, but Project Design Features were developed for this project during the EIS process which should limit any negative impacts. The timing restrictions will limit disturbance during the nesting season and the elk calving season (generally May 1 through June 15). The Fire/Fuels section will conduct post-treatment fuels monitoring to document the fuels reduction objectives. If there are areas with post treatment fuel loadings which exceed targets, then additional fuel reduction treatments will be scheduled. This additional fuels work is currently outside of the scope of this stewardship agreement. 3) Thank you for this suggestion. I have reached out to Jessie about the history of this allotment and any compliance issues add this information to the comments and proposal text when it comes in. 4) Yes, there are other values at risk besides wildlife habitat from an uncharacteristically high severity fire. I mentioned in detail in the "Fire/Fuels" section and the "Water Quality/Quantity" section about the water quality and watershed impacts that would result from a high severity fire. The project area is part of the headwaters of Antimony Creek and a large fire would pose water quality issues for the drinking water supply of the town of Antimony. Please let me know if you have additional questions about this one. 5) I have reached out to Jessie Warner about the grazing portion of this question and will add it to the comments and proposal text once I receive more information. This project would help with the management of future natural ignitions by opening up the stand canopy, reducing understory stocking levels, reducing ladder fuel heights and creating fuel breaks. 6) No other partners at this time.
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Jamie, Seeing how flammulated owl is listed as a benefiting species and could add a considerable amount of points to the proposal I know rankers will be looking for what objectives, needs, risks, and threats the project might be addressing for this species somewhere in the body of the proposal. I didn't see that. Might help to elaborate, especially since I don't know a damn thing about flammulated owls. hahahahah
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Thank you Clint for the the feedback. Honestly, my knowledge of flammulated owls is lacking as well but I based adding them as a benefited based on the EIS that was conducted for this project. It mentions that flammulated owls have been documented in the area although in low numbers, and the proposed treatments (i.e. openings) would increase foraging habitat and prey availability. I will add more information to the proposal text. Thanks!
Comment 02/19/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
I went back and deleted flammulated owls from the species list. Originally, we were planning on including 5-acre patch cuts as part of this proposal which would be the treatment that be most beneficial to flammulated owls. However, we decided to include those in the next phase of this project and they are no longer a potentially benefiting species.
Comment 01/11/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
What kind of NWTF funds are we looking at? Permit Funds or National money?
Comment 01/15/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Thank you for the question Tyler and I know realize that I may have categorized those funds incorrectly. Those are the remaining funds from the previous WRI grant for Pockets (#2111). I have been working with Daniel on how we can get those funds potentially "moved over". Should I change how it is categorized in the Finance section? Also, NWTF is willing to apply Permit Funds to this project if needed.
Comment 08/20/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Jamie - So is this phase of the project completed? I had it listed as a carry over project with no funding. Let me know if I need to leave it as current or if I can move it to completed. Thanks!
Comment 08/31/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Alison - yes this phase of the project is completed. It is the most recent phase of East Pockets that needs to be carried over. I think Eric Taylor mixed them up when he was submitting the carryover request.
Comment 10/22/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Please enter the missing expenses that are highlighted in a rust color on the Finance page. Once you have done this go back to the completion report and click the finalize button so I know that this has been completed. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
07/02/2018
End Date:
09/19/2019
FY Implemented:
2020
Final Methods:
This treatment was designed to improve growing conditions and species composition within the residual stand and promote aspen regeneration. Trees were felled and scattered to a depth of less than 24 inches. No trees greater than 4 inches DBH were cut. Aspen was not cut, as well as any species of tree marked with orange paint for reserve. Biomass generated from this activity in these units was salvaged by the subcontractor. The end result of this treatment was to produce a thinned spruce/fir stand to approximately 435 trees per acre (approximately 10 X 10) dominated by Engelmann spruce with a low incidence/hazard of insects and diseases. The following thinning prescription was used for this treatment: 1) The target spacing guideline of 435 trees per acre includes trees equal to and greater than 4 inches as well as all aspen over 4 feet in height. 2) Thinning should proceed from the smallest diameter trees and trees below DBH. Thin "Up To" the thinning target of 435 tpa. This should equate to a final spacing of approxinately 10 feet by 10 feet on average for Leave Trees. Live trees greater than 4 inches are to be used in determining spacing. 3) In the event that a patch of trees exceeds 435 tpa of trees greater than 4 inches DBH, then focus and thinning sublapine-fir up to 8 inches DBH. If stocking is still too high, then focus on thinning Engelmann spruce up to 8 inches DBH to achieve final stocking. 4) A 25 percent spacing variance (7x7 to 12x12) will be applied to allow the sawyer to select the best, most vigorus trees exhibiting good crowns and leaders. This variance will not be applied over areas greater than 0.25 acres. 5) Cut live trees up to 4 inches DBH, do not cut any trees greater than 4 inches DBH, aspen, or trees marked with orange paint for reserve. 6) Leave tree preference order: Aspen, Englemann spruce, other conifers. 7) Leave trees should be of the healthiest and most vigorous. Desirable characteristics include: straight stem, good coloration, well-formed crown, free of insect and disease, crown class is dominant or co-dominant, and crown ratio greater than 50%. 8) Do not cut any aspen. 9) Cut trees shall be completely severed at a maximum stump height of 12 inches 10) All live branches below stump height must be completely severed from the stump. 11) Trees less than 1 foot in height do not need to be felled and are not part of spacing. 12) Cut trees shall be felled to angle in a direction to protect residual trees. 13) Buck all felled tree material to lengths of no more than 8 feet and scatter to a depth of no greater than 24 inches.
Project Narrative:
Completed 153 acres of pre-commercial thinning in conifer stands to promote aspen regeneration across three treatment units within the project area. The average cost per acre was $923.75. Subcontractor interest for this work was limited with multiple no-bids in the past. NWTF has worked to increase the potential subcontractor pool for these treatments and has secured an operator to work on future treatment phases for closer to $400 per acre. Mastication was proposed as a treatment alternative for pre-commercial thinning within these treatment units. However, due to the project location, high mobilization cost, and dangerous stand conditions due to standing, dead trees and snags the cost per acre for mastication (~$1300/acre) was higher than pre-commercial thinning. This cost savings resulted in the Forest Service and NWTF deciding to use the pre-commercial thinning methodology versus mastication. There were some delays in getting these treatments completed because commercial timber removal had to be completed first. Different operators were being used for commercial timber removal versus the pre-commercial thinning which required coordination within a very limited operating season (May/June to October/November depending on weather conditions).
Future Management:
Some areas may experience strong wildlife browsing pressure. If browsing pressure is recorded at 30% of seedlings are being browsed within the first three years, wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed to reduce pressure and promote aspen regeneration. Browse pressure has been minimal in adjacent units and it is anticipated that fencing will not be needed to meet the browsing requirement. Based on the Dixie National Forest Plan, monitoring will be completed once there are a total of 5,000 stems per acre with a dominant height of 6 feet over 70% of the treatment area. This proposal is for phase II of this long-term project and an additional 182 acres of pre-commercial thinning will be completed in 2020 in other units across the project area.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
9130 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
9131 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
Project Map
Project Map