Little Pond Restoration NEPA phase
Project ID: 5020
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2020
Submitted By: 939
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 Wolf Creek Watershed is experiencing large scale conifer mortality. Leading to increased fuel loading. This phase of the project will employ a teams siliviculturist to identify vegetation treatment needs. These treatments include, commercial timber harvest, aspen regeneration treatments, and potential fuel treatments. Along with wetland treatments previously identified.
Location:
This project is a watershed scale landscape restoration project. Beginning at the westernmost end of the Ashley National Forest in the Wolf Creek Watershed approximately 8 miles northwest of Hanna, Utah. This watershed has been designated by the U.S. Farm Bill as an area of need.
Project Need
Need For Project:
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 goalof the project is to maintain, restore, and prevent large scale damage to the watershed condition and functions. The 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, but silvicultural prescriptions are essential. Aspen stands in this area are experiencing conifer encroachment choking out the Aspen. The teams silviculturist will identify areas and treatments to enhance these stands. Areas not suitable for these other treatments will be surveyed to identify any potential fuel treatments.
Objectives:
Objective 1: Reduce fuel loading and improve fire management in the event of wildfire through vegetation management while providing a benefit of commercial timber to the local economy. 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 (e.g.,meadow enhancements, and gulley repair) that will benefit long term water quality. Objective 4. Identify Aspen stands in need of management to encourage regeneration and expansion. Objective 5. Identify treatments (i.e. fuels) for areas in the watershed not suitable for timber harvest, but which would improve condition.
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. Aspen stands in this area are experiencing conifer encroachment choking out the Aspen. Aspen stands will be identified and recommendations presented for regeneration and enhancement treatments. The wet meadow in this watershed is being severely degraded by improper motorized access. Continued abuse of this area will lead to decreased water availability for the wetland.
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. BOREAL TOAD CONSERVATION PLAN 3.9.3 Create, restore, and maintain new habitats through water management. 3.9.3.b Deepen impoundments to maintain sufficient water levels through metamorphosis. State of Utah Resource Management Plan Forest Encourage timber harvesting to prevent fuel load and biomass buildup. Fire The State will advocate for forest management practices that promote species diversity and overall ecosystem health. Wetlands The State supports using a combination of active water management where necessary (e.g., Great Salt Lake) and maintaining or restoring natural hydrology when possible to support wildlife habitat and healthy functioning of aquatic ecosystems. Duchesne Resource Management Plan Objective: Reverse the negative fire trends in forest health by actively managing the forest.
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 by decreasing heavy fuel loading, breaking up continuous fuels, and encouraging Aspen regeneration and growth.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Conifer stands prevent snow and moisture from reaching the forest floor which then can be lost through evaporation and sublimation. The project would reduce canopy with out completely opening up the forest floor for energy. 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 andcomply 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 reroutes out of sensitive areas, meadow restoration, and gulley repair. Silviculture prescriptions will be given on Aspen stands and other potential fuel reduction treatments.
Monitoring:
The Forest Service has vegetative study sites throughout the project area and will create new sites. Each ofthese 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 bemonitored to ensure project is completed and implemented appropriately. A completion report with photos will be uploaded to the WRI database.
Partners:
At the early onset of planning a Duchesne County Commissioner was contacted regarding county support forthe project he voiced strong support and the forest will continue to involve the commission as the projectmoves forward. The Mule Deer Foundation has been contacted about being a potential partner when the implementation phase begins. This watershed is designated by the farm bill for special CE authority. The Forest Service would like the UWRI, if willing, to be a collaborative group, to help formulate some of the treatments in this area. As always public outreach and chance for comment will be conducted in accordance to the National Environmental Policy Act.
Future Management:
This project will identify projects including timber harvest, aspen regeneration, and wetland restoration. The areas will be managed differently in the future to ensure sustainable uses. Timber harvest areas will be managed for future harvest. Aspen stands will be monitored and retreated to ensure viability and expansion of the stands. The wetland areas will be monitored to ensure recovery, but should not need future treatments after OHV access has been rerouted to proper routes.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The whole project area is open to livestock grazing. As timber is harvested it will open up areas for largeramounts 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. This area is essential and is required by the forest plan to be managed for timber resources, so area will be used in the future for vegetation operations. The protection of this area will also ensure continued recreational opportunities.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$108,000.00 $0.00 $108,000.00 $96,000.00 $204,000.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Teams Silviculturist $62,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Archaeological Clearance 2000 Acres @23$ and acre $46,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Personal Services (permanent employee) NEPA process, timber marking, and other personnel costs. $0.00 $0.00 $96,000.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$114,342.50 $0.00 $114,342.50 $96,000.00 $210,342.50
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
UWRI-NEPA Fund U013 $62,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
United States Forest Service (USFS) $0.00 $0.00 $96,000.00 2020
UWRI-NEPA Fund U013 $52,342.50 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
American Pika N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Snowshoe Hare R4
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Droughts Very High
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
OHV Motorized Recreation Low
Dusky Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Dusky Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Problematic Insects – Native High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss High
Open Water
Threat Impact
OHV Motorized Recreation Low
Open Water
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Project Comments
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Brian Maxfield
The talus slopes in and around this project have pika. The pika habitat should be protected during the project including the timber sale. The pika in this area are isolated from larger populations.
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
What is the best way to protect Pika? Do we need to buffer away the Talus Slopes? Or can we work up to the rocky portions as long as we do not disturb them?
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Brian Maxfield
I believe just not disturbing the talus by using machinery on the rocks. Not sure if this really happens during timber sales but wanted to let you know they were in this area. In theory, timber harvest around the talus slopes could benefit pika because it will promote and increase forbs and grasses the pika eat.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
Ok, Thanks
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Monson Shaver
This shape file overlaps onto private property.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I imported a shapefile from Arc GIS so I imagine it is a coordinate system problem. Do you have any pointers? Right now since it is the NEPA we are asking for I do not want to include private. Once we are beginning to understand what our treatments will be we will reach out to private land owners.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I'm pretty sure the state and county resource management plans have objectives and strategies that are compatible with this project and should be included.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I included some at the bottom of my resource management plan section. If you think it is lacking let me know and I will attempt to input more information.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
You could probably claim benefits to Dusky grouse, Ruffed grouse, and snowshoe hare.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
Are there management plans for these species or are they just included in the WAP?
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I looked briefly and didn't find any management plans for these species. They are not in the WAP but they are all game species. Including them could help attract additional funding sources.
Comment 08/12/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This is just a reminder that completion reports are due August 31st. I have entered the expenses in the Through WRI/DWR column on the finance page. Please do not make any changes to numbers in the Through WRI/DWR column. Any "Through Other" or "In-kind" expenses will need to be entered by the PM or contributors. Update your map features and fill out the completion form. Be sure to click on the finalize button on the completion report when you have your completion report ready to be reviewed by WRI Admin. Don't forget to upload any pictures of the project you have of before, during and after completion. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Comment 09/02/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. I have moved this project to completed.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 3 Commenter: Monson Shaver
The shape files contain 4,135 acres and Finance tab has 2,000 acres for cultural inventory? In the NE 2,000 acres will run $19.50/acre. Please indicate what acreage needs cultural survey.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 3 Commenter: Ryan Mower
That is great to know the cost. I will revise that after meeting with our archeologist to narrow down or broaden the survey area.
Completion
Start Date:
03/01/2020
End Date:
06/29/2021
FY Implemented:
2021
Final Methods:
An Archaeological firm was contracted to survey the entire project area and that was completed and received SHPO concurrence. A Forest Service Silviculturist was contracted to complete prescription and NEPA work. The FONSI and Decision have been signed
Project Narrative:
The project requested NEPA funding to assist in the Little Pond NEPA project by providing cultural and specialist support.
Future Management:
The area will continue to be managed in a multiple use manner.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
8065 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map