Upper Valley Vegetation Treatment
Project ID: 5195
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2021
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Shane Woolsey
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Escalante Ranger District
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Upper Valley Phase 2 project (WRI ID # 5195), is a continuation of the Upper Valley Project (WRI ID # 4711).Improve habitat for wildlife species, including elk, deer, and small mammals. Improve watershed health, wildlife habitat and reduce fuel loading by managing conifer succession through the use of hand and mechanical techniques on 1,611 acres of Pinyon and Juniper and 661 acres of Ponderosa Pine. Improve water quality within the proposed treatment area through multiple efforts.
Location:
The project is located within the Dixie National Forest in Garfield County, UT approximately 15 miles southwest of Escalante, UT, and is within the Escalante River watershed. The area covered by the Upper Valley Landscape Improvement Project Environmental Assessment (UVEA). Main access is along Utah Highway 12 which bisects the UVEA area.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Reduce wildfire hazard and to improve forest health and resiliency within the 16,855 acre Upper Valley EA area through the use of mechanical, hand and prescribed fire vegetation treatments. Project includes stream channel stabilization/restoration and water source improvements for wildlife and range resources within the Escalante River watershed. Project Needs: * To improve and maintain a balance of VSS classes within forested stands. * To thin excess vegetation and to improve and maintain desirable forest and woodland conditions such as growth rates, vigor, stocking, structure, species and age diversity. * To provide forest products to dependent forest industries and for personal use. * To lessen risk of stand replacing fire by reducing ground and ladder fuels. * To improve and maintain stream channel and riparian area functioning. * To lessen risk of fires on the Forest moving to private lands and damaging private structures and facilities, and conversely, to lessen the risk of fires on private land moving to the Forest. * To improve and maintain wildlife habitat and range resources. The data that have been collected indicate that upland vegetation communities are not meeting Forest Plan objectives.. Similarly the data show pinyon and juniper succession into mountain sagebrush communities. Higher than desired stockings of junipers in wooded areas has increased the risk for crown fires and suppressed wildlife and livestock forage production. Conifers, especially juniper trees, often outcompete grasses and forbs in upland settings. In riparian areas, encroaching upland conifers have caused reductions in riparian vegetation density and diversity similar to those seen in upland settings. Increased rates of erosion typically follow any loss of stabilizing ground cover within the riparian areas and meadows until trees mature enough to produce litter and reestablish effective ground cover. Until such time, suspended and deposited sediment may have contributed directly and indirectly to impacts to aquatic organisms by smothering invertebrates, reducing water and oxygen flow through interstitial space, and reducing habitat. Reduction of riparian vegetation led to channel incision and bank erosion because loss of appropriate vegetation decreased stream channel stability, and likely produced larger, more erosive peak flows. Removing pinyon and juniper that are encroaching and overtaking riparian vegetation would help to address riparian fire risk and channel stability issues. Riparian species that would benefit include cottonwood, aspen, willow, water birch, and riparian sedges and grasses. The use of strategically hand felled trees into channels can aid in bank stabilization, as well as trap naturally transported sediment that can help restore channel base levels and begin reversing the effects of past incision, thereby helping maintain, or adjust stream channel morphology to its appropriate configuration. There is likely not going to be an increase in peak flows due to vegetation treatments because less than 20% decrease in canopy in 7th field equivalent drainage (fed) subwatersheds are planned. The most potent effect on riparian areas that will result is the reduction of risk of large wildfire that comes with increased risks of erosion and total loss of all riparian vegetation. With high severity, stand replacing fires, there would be a high risk of increased peak flows and surface erosion creating a far greater impact to streams and riparian areas than the existing condition or proposed treatments would cause. Treatment around springs will lead to improved water quality because exclusion of cattle by fencing will reduce pollution, trampling and degradation of these groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). Currently, the two spring areas proposed for fencing exhibit excessive compaction, hummocked vegetation, and evidence of livestock congregating near the springs. Exclusion fencing will also improve water quantity due to reduction of compaction, and regeneration of vegetation that will retain water volume. In ponderosa pine stands the dominant over story is ponderosa pine withjuniper, some pinyon, oak, manzanita and some mountain mahogany as the predominant understory species and serving as ladder fuels that could result in a stand replacing fire. Treatments within the stands would reduce the amount of ladder fuels and reduce the dead and down fuel loading to 5-10 tons per acre and be more representative of FRCC 1. Pinyon/ Juniper stands have tighter crown spacing and would support large fire growth more so than the desired condition. Encroachment into shrublands has created ladder fuels through recruitment and a sagebrush understory which would support large fire growth. Patches of old growth would likely not support a crown fire independently but with current overstocked conditions of surrounding stands and encroachment into shrublands these old growth patches are susceptible to crown fire originating in younger trees. The desired condition would be stands with a mosaic of age classes that breaks up the continuity of the stand enough to limit fire growth and promote a mix of fire severities and intensity if fires were left to naturally spread in the stand. Dead and down fuel loading would be 5-10 tons per acre and the overall stand would be more representative of an FRCC 1.
Objectives:
Create a disturbance resilient, sustainable ecosystem through reducing surface fuels, ladder fuels and forest density using a variety of treatments to reduce fire risk to firefighters, forest users, communities, natural resources and watersheds. Reduce risk of high intensity large scale unwanted fire and unwanted fire effects. The project will maintain and improve riparian areas as well as increase forage and cover in crucial winter range for deer and elk (as well as some substantial summer range for deer) which supports the WRI arm to enhance Utah's Wildlife and Biological Diversity. The proposed project should improve riparian vegetation composition and vigor, improved water quality by reducing directs impacts of cattle to springs, increase channel stability, and reduce the risk of high severity fire which should support the WRI arm to enhance Utah's Water Quality and Yield for all Uses. Finally, treatments in ponderosa pine will improve stand health for future commercial timber harvest and treatments in all vegetation treatments should increase ungulate forage in the project area which will benefit producers permitted to graze the active Upper Valley East Cattle allotment that shares the project area. Improving future commercial timber stands and available livestock forage supports the WRI arm of Opportunities for Sustainable Uses. The project has the following measurable objectives: 1.) 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. Competition from juniper is reducing grass/forb and shrub composition. Similar conditions of conifer encroachment have resulted in riparian areas acting as corridors for fire movement during the 2002 Sanford and 2017 Brian Head fires. 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 measurable objectives in these stands would be to completely remove encroaching conifers except where they a contributing disproportionately to bank stability as well as have greenline riparian vegetation, fine sediment deposition and bank stability moving toward objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, or Best Available Scientific Information. 2.) Springs -- Currently, the two spring areas proposed for fencing exhibit excessive compaction, hummocked vegetation, and evidence of livestock congregating near the springs. 3.) 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 and 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. The measurable objective in these stands is for conifers to be absent or limited to a few scattered seedlings (< 10% of the total vegetative cover). 4.) Pinyon-juniper wooded shrublands -- Currently these woodlands have more than 50% of their cover in juniper spp., whereas desired conditions for these communities would have less than 25% of the overstory composition in juniper spp. The current composition of pinyon-juniper stands that are largely made up of mature trees with little variation in age classes have resulted in a continuous crown distribution. Fuel loading is 10-12 tons/acre. Juniper regeneration is expanding into adjacent grassland/shrubland areas. FRCC is 2 trending toward 3. The measurable objectives for these stands are to have stand structure move toward the more balanced overstory range outlined in the attached Scoping Notice, with no more than 25% of stands composition in juniper species and fuel loadings of 5-10 tons/ac. 5.) Ponderosa pine -- Existing ponderosa stands have a dead and down fuel loading of 8-14 tons/acre with some Ponderosa trees having canopy base heights that extending onto the bottom 1/3 of the tree. Additionally, there is a tall understory growth of invading conifers and manzanita. The measurable objectives for these stands are to have stand structure move toward the more balanced canopy composition outlined in the attached Scoping Notice, with more than 75% canopy cover as ponderosa pine and dead and downed fuel loading averaging 5-10tons/acre.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
This project area is adjacent to private land with structures as well as Utah Highway 12. The area includes the Upper Valley community and buildings with other associated infrastructure for Citation Oil, creating a wildland urban interface (WUI) setting that decreases fire management discretion in fire management decisions. Stands within the project area are continuous offering potential for uncharacteristic large scale high intensity fire spread. As witnessed from recent past wildfire events on this mountain range (Toad fire 2007, Corn Creek fire 2008) fire effects to the watersheds, infrastructure, communities, and tributaries were high. Moderate to high degrees of sedimentation and erosion occurred on the steeper slopes and drainage bottoms resulting in negative effects to streams and aquatic life found in those streams. As a result of these fires, debris flows occurred in some watersheds impacting agricultural water resources, water infrastructure, and transportation infrastructure negatively. As highlighted under the "Need for the Project" and "Objectives" sections 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. In areas that are currently overstocked, climate change is likely to further exacerbate the potential threat of uncharacteristically intense and severe wildfires. The risks of an uncharacteristically severe wildfire include, but are not limited to: 1.) Increased erosion and sedimentation 2.) Stream channel incision 3.) Increased risk of flooding and debris flows 4.) Loss of soil productivity 5.) Loss of later seral stage wildlife habitat 6.) Threat of noxious weed invasion and a change in plant community type 7.) Loss of future commercial timber stands 8.) 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. The biggest risks to project success are probably fire 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, "Once treatments in the entire project area are completed the goal is to manage fire adapted ecosystems through a combination managed fire (managed for Forest Plan benefits) and prescribed fire. In terms of riparian and 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 herding and adaptive management outlined in the Future Management section should help avoid the risk of overutilization impeding success.
Relation To Management Plan:
1) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer. Section IV Statewide management goals and objectives, Strategy C. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of unwanted conifers into sagebrush, and ponderosa pine stands. 2) Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits Deer Herd Unit Management Plan, Deer Herd Unit # 25C/26 Habitat management strategies: Reduce expansion of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinyon-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop and scatter, bullhog, and chaining. 3) North American Mule Deer Conservation Plan (Mule Deer Working Group 2004). A) Mule deer habitat Objectives and Strategies-Develop and implement habitat treatment protocols that reduce the impacts of cheatgrass or other invasive plants. B) Manage mule deer habitat in a fashion to control type conversions (i. e., conversion of rangeland to croplands, and shrublands to monotypic pinyon-juniper stands) (Pg. 7). 4) National Fire Plan (NFP) - Primary Goals: 1) Improve fire prevention and suppression; 2) Restore fire adapted ecosystem. 5) Accompanying (NFP) 10 year Comprehensive Strategy - Guiding Principles: 3) Prevent invasive species and restore watershed function and biological communities through short-term stabilization and long-term rehabilitation; 4) restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological system to minimize uncharacteristically severe fires on a priority watershed basis through long-term restoration. 6) State of Utah-Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy-Protecting the health and welfare of Utahns and our lands. Priority Action Areas- Southwest Region 6, Garfield and Kane Counties. 7) Strategic Management Plan for Wild Turkey-Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR 2000, Publication 00-25). Grasses provide food for adults and are especially important to poults as an environment where they can effectively forage for insects. Poults need an environment that produces insects and in which they can efficiently forage. Poults need an area that provides enough cover to hide them, but allows the adult hen unobstructed vision for protection from predators. 8) Land and Resource Management Plan-Dixie National Forest (LRMP 1986). A) Management Area 4C and 6A-Provide adequate forage to sustain big game population levels agree to in approved wildlife management plans on NFS lands. Maintain habitat capability at 70 percent of potential. 9) Utah Support Area Fire Management Plan (2005). Protection of critical deer habitat and watershed protection (p196). 10) Upper Valley Allotment Management Plan- Desired Conditions in the Upland: Improve plant diversity and revert areas that have conifer encroachment issues (pinyon, juniper, spruce and fir). 11) Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan. This project helps to meet Population Objective 2 - Foster support among stakeholders for Utah's elk management program. Specifically the project helps increase tolerance of public land grazers not enrolled in a CWMU or LOA by conducting habitat projects that will benefit livestock and wildlife. The proposed treatments will also assist with meeting Habitat Objectives 1 - Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. Specifically the proposed treatment will contribute toward increasing forage production by treating elk habitat. Finally implementation of this and future portions of the project will help to promote let-burn policies in appropriate areas that will benefit elk.
Fire / Fuels:
Project area averages 10-14 tons per acre of surface fuel loading, combined with tight crown canopy closure and a abundant ladder fuels. Fire behavior modeling indicates high potential for stand replacing crown fire, uncharacteristic flame lengths and potential for large fire growth. Fires of this nature would result in negative ecological post fire effects concerning soil erosion, sedimentation, and increase the potential for invasive and noxious weeds. High intensity fires are difficult to suppress and increase risk to: firefighters, public, communities, infrastructure, natural resources and watersheds. Fire Regime Condition Class Definitions: * Condition Class 1; Within the natural (historical) range of variability of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. * Condition Class 2; Moderate departure from the natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. * Condition Class 3; High departure from the natural (historical) regime of vegetation characteristics; fuel composition; fire frequency, severity and pattern; and other associated disturbances. * 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) 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. Competition from juniper is reducing riparian tree, shrub, and grass/forb composition. 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. 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) Pinyon-juniper wooded shrublands -- Currently these woodlands have more than 50% of their cover in juniper spp., whereas desired conditions for these communities would have less than 25% of the overstory composition in juniper spp. The current composition of pinyon-juniper stands that are largely made up of mature trees with little variation in age classes has resulted in a continuous crown distribution. Fuel loading is 10-12 tons/acre. Juniper regeneration is expanding into adjacent grassland/shrubland areas. FRCC is 2 trending toward 3. 4) Ponderosa pine -- Existing ponderosa stands have an average FRCC of a 3 and are highly departed from historic fire return intervals. The dead and down fuel loading averages 8-14 tons/acre with some Ponderosa trees 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 adding ladder fuels increasing the risk of fire transitioning from the surface to the crowns. The goal of treatment is to improve health and vigor of stands by moving them toward a FRCC of 1 and away from FRCC 2 and 3, through reducing fuel loading, disrupting fuel continuity to reduce the risk of large scale fires of uncharacteristically high severity that could result in a degradation of watershed conditions, while maintaining down woody debris requirements for wildlife and soils (Forest Plan as Amended, and PFC). The treatments in this proposal would lay the ground work for future mechanical and prescribed fire treatments in Pinyon/Juniper and Ponderosa Pine. These vegetative communities have heavy fuel loadings that increase the risk of uncharacteristically high severity fire. In addition to potential impacts to vegetation communities and species, multiple residential structures exist on the private land along Highway 12 and the private lands 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.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The majority of the proposed treatment areas are located within the Upper Valley Creek, with minor portions in the Willow Creek and Henrieville Creek 6th field subwatersheds. Upper Valley Creek flows into the Headwaters Escalante River 5th field watershed, and supplies flow to the New Escalante Irrigation District's Wide Hollow Reservoir that provides water to irrigated lands in Escalante, UT. The Willow Creek subwatershed flows into the Harris Wash 5th field watershed and to the Escalante River. Henrieville Creek is tributary to the Upper Paria Watershed. Treatments will occur in and adjacent to the Stream Management Zones (SMZ) to reduce the risk of high intensity stand replacing fires and treatments are designed to maintain natural SMZ function. The benefits of healthy riparian vegetation and connected floodplains and wetlands to water quality, as well as water storage and release are well documented. Riparian vegetation buffers can trap sediment during overbank flow events and prevent sediment from overland runoff from reaching stream channels. Fine sediment input to streams can lead to an associated increase in nutrient loading, decreased dissolved oxygen and an increase in waterborne diseases. Stream bank stability is instrumental in preventing excessive erosion. Willow-sedge communities are among the best for maintaining stream bank stability. Additionally, vegetation treatments reduce the risk of severe wildfire and all of the associated undesirable water quality effects. Streams within the project area drain into the Escalante River. Similarly, some research indicates that pinyon-juniper removal in mountain sagebrush can increase soil water availability (Roundy et al. 2014, Deboodt et al. 2008). The effectiveness of healthy riparian vegetation in enabling precipitation and runoff to infiltrate the soil and pass through to the water table is also well documented. This project proposes to remove pinyon and juniper from sagebrush grass lands 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.
Compliance:
The NEPA is complete and the decision has been loaded in the documents portion of this proposal. Cultural clearances have been completed.
Methods:
Mechanical and/or hand treatments will be used to thin, prune and/or pile the live and dead vegetation. Where determined necessary, retained trees will be limbed up to 6 ft high and surface materials (slash) less than 8 inches diameter will be hand or machine piled. Burning will be used to remove generated piles. Broadcast underburning will be used to achieve the desired 5-10 tons per acre fuel loading in areas identified post pile burning having fuel loads greater than fuels management objectives. Springs will be fenced in a way to prevent livestock use.
Monitoring:
Fuel reduction and future fuel loads will be monitored/measured using browns transects as well as photo series monitoring tools. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources will continue to perform counts on the deer, elk and pronghorn populations on the Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits Unit # 25C/26. Elk number objectives on this unit were recently changed in 2016 with an emphasis on monitoring habitat suitability and effectiveness to sustain this objective long-term. Timber Regeneration monitoring will be conducted if there is a need to plant more trees post proposed treatments. Upland vegetation -- Within the project area the Dixie National Forest has established four upland vegetation trend studies. One of the units proposed for conifer removal in a sagebrush meadow has a DNF long-term upland vegetation monitoring plot. Similar to the riparian inventories these studies are repeated every 5 years and are detailed in annual monitoring reports by the Dixie National Forest. Adaptive management actions will be defined within the project's Decision Notice to assure satisfactory stocking. Springs will be monitored to determine if there is increase flows after treatments are completed.
Partners:
Federal, State, And Local Agencies that have been consulted with: Escalante Town Mayor, Five County Association Of Governments, Garfield County Commissioner's, Congressman Chris Stewart, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Senator Mike Lee, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation District, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee, Representative Mike Noel, Senator Evan Vickers, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Garkane Energy, Grand Canyon Trust, PacifiCorp, South Central Telephone Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Tushar Mountain ATV Club, Tri-State OHV Club, Utah Shared Access Alliance, Western Watersheds Project, Escalante River Watershed Partnership, and Dixie National Forest. Discussions have occurred with grazing permit holders that has expressed support for the vegetation treatment portion of this project. They are expecting and are preparing for possible changes to their grazing rotations on the Upper Valley West and East Allotments. 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.
Future Management:
Prescribed fire, management of naturally ignited wildfires, timber harvest, thinning, and grazing will continue to be used when prescribed to maintain or increase the health, resilience and sustainability of this fire adapted ecosystem. Once treatments in the entire project area are completed the goal is to manage fire adapted ecosystems through a combination natural fire ignitions (managed for Forest Plan benefits) and low intensity prescribed fire. In terms of riparian 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 Upper Valley East and Upper Valley West cattle allotments are partially overlain by all of the proposed projects. The allotments are both run as a three pasture, deferred rotation with a permitted use of 366 cow/calf pairs on the Upper Valley East allotment and 215 cow/calf pairs on the Upper Valley West allotment. 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.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The proposed project will result in increased plant diversity and forage production for livestock, small game, big game, multiple species of birds, and insects across the landscape. In addition, thinning and opening of these dense shrub and forested lands would allow all animals to move more freely across the landscape. In the short-term some management changes may have to be made in order to reach the optimal vegetative potential of the project. This will need to be done through coordination with the grazing permittee's and documented in the Annual Operating Instructions. The treatments within this proposal all fall on the active Upper Valley East and Upper Valley West cattle allotments. Both allotments are managed on a three pasture, deferred rotation with a permitted use of 366 cow/calf pairs on the Upper Valley East allotment and 215 cow/calf pairs on the Upper Valley West allotment. The vegetation treatments outlined in the proposed action all involve remove overstocked conifers. Within the targeted vegetation types, early successional species following treatment will be grass, forbs and browse species more palatable as forage to both wild and domestic ungulates. Additionally these preliminary treatments will help pave the way for larger treatments throughout the almost 17,000 acre project area which encompasses over half of the more than 33,000 acre Upper Valley East and Upper Valley West allotments. This project proposes conifer removal treatments in mountain sagebrush/shrubland, wooded shrubland and PJ woodland habitats that have a high potential for increases grasses and forbs, as well as more palatable browse species. Given the close vicinity of this project area to the town of Escalante, it is a highly used recreation and hunting area. This area also has a long history of firewood cutting and Christmas tree selection. Once this treatment phase is completed, another proposal is being planned for timber sales.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$1,716,450.00 $0.00 $1,716,450.00 $320,851.50 $2,037,301.50
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services State issued contract for Mastication of 1611 acres @ 450 per acre. $724,950.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services State issued contract for Cut, Pile and Prune of 661 acres @ $1500 per acre. $991,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Personal Services (permanent employee) FS contract admin for mastication project layout and inspection $0.00 $0.00 $117,589.50 2021
Personal Services (permanent employee) FS Contract admin for project layout, cut, pile and prune $0.00 $0.00 $52,262.00 2021
Personal Services (permanent employee) State Admin and Contracting for Mastication $0.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 2021
Personal Services (permanent employee) State Admin and Contracting for Cut, Pile, Prune $0.00 $0.00 $10,500.00 2021
Personal Services (seasonal employee) Mastication by FS personnel and equipment $0.00 $0.00 $80,000.00 2021
NEPA Decision document $0.00 $0.00 $50,000.00 2013
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$1,716,450.00 $0.00 $1,716,450.00 $320,851.50 $2,037,301.50
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Service funds for project: contract development, administration, Force account work and NEPA $0.00 $0.00 $299,851.50 2021
USFS-WRI USFS funds obligated to WRI through GNA 18GN11040700019. These funds were obligated to DWR-WRI in GNA for WRI project 4711, where project #4711 did not use full amount of authorized funding. $42,741.50 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) Funds to contract mastication and cut, pile, prune activities less FS funds already in WRI agreement. $1,673,708.50 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) DWR funds for contract development, administration and project collaboration. $0.00 $0.00 $21,000.00 2021
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat 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
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Medium
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Low
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/21/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Carrie Howard
Can you clarify how all the partners you listed are involved in the planning, implementation, and monitoring. You mention amphibians and fish species in other areas of the project- are any of these species listed as Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN)?
Comment 01/23/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Lisa Young
The amphibian and fish species mentioned in the project analysis are not a SGCN species, which are listed in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. All species of concern were analyzed in the NEPA document and it was determined there would not be significant effects.
Comment 01/27/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Shane Woolsey
During the NEPA process the following parties were notified of the project: Escalante Town Mayor, Five County Association Of Governments, Garfield County Commissioner's, Congressman Chris Stewart, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Senator Mike Lee, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation District, Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah Department of Transportation, Utah Division of Forestry Fire and State Lands, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Resource Development Coordinating Committee, Representative Mike Noel, Senator Evan Vickers, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Garkane Energy, Grand Canyon Trust, PacifiCorp, South Central Telephone Association, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, Tushar Mountain ATV Club, Tri-State OHV Club, Utah Shared Access Alliance, Western Watersheds Project, Escalante River Watershed Partnership. UDWR was involved with the planning and contracting of Phase I implementation and will also be involved in this capacity during Phase II implementation and are supportive of the project. The Forest Service funded all of Phase I of the project through UWRI, totaling $157,258.50 and will be contributing $42,741.50 toward this Phase of the project. Discussions have occurred with grazing permit holders and they expressed support for the vegetation treatment portion of this project. They are expecting and are preparing for possible changes to their grazing rotations on the Upper Valley West and East Allotments. 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. During planning of the project discussion were had with GSENM who were not interested in pursuing treatment on their adjacent lands at this time. Private land owners were made aware but were not interested in treatment at this time.
Comment 01/29/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Shane, I am not sure I understand exactly the end result. Is this primarily a forest thinning project rather than habitat conversion (i.e. P/J removal and conversion to shrub steppe)? Will this result in even-age climax pinyon, ponderosa and shrub communities? Keith
Comment 02/11/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jessie Warner
Hi Keith, There will be uneven age stands because of the rocky terrain and ridges in the area will be left. In addition, no matter how hard we try we won't be able to remove 100% so there will be some pinyon juniper left in the area. We will basically be resetting most of the treatment areas to an earlier seral stage than is present. See you later today!
Comment 02/06/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Great proposal, I totally get it. Couple suggestions/questions - do you think adding Aquatic-Emergent would be appropriate as a targeted habitat? For Mtn Sagebrush you could add the threat Problematic Species - Native Plants (which is largely referring to juniper encroachment, which you are directly addressing). And for Aquatic-Forested, isn't the threat "Channel Downcutting - Inadvertent" an option in the drop-down? Rip a hot fire through there and that's what would happen. So you're working to prevent that, right? Anyway - again, great proposal, I'm really gld to see it. Good luck!
Comment 02/11/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jessie Warner
Thanks Jimi! Yes, we are working to prevent a large fire that would lead to channel cutting. We have not really considered Aquatic-Emergent Species since the area was seeded to crested wheat back in the chaining days. It would be hard for the native species to compete with the crested wheat. As much as we would all love to see more native species in this area the amount of work and herbicides it would possibly take to remove the crested wheat does not justify the returns. Thanks for the suggestions!
Comment 02/10/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jonathan Paklaian
Shane, will different thinning methods be used in the riparian area of the project area?
Comment 02/11/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jessie Warner
Hi Jonathan! The riparian areas will have a buffer around them that is to be determined by the Escalante hydrologist if mechanical treatment will be nearby. The actual size of the buffer zone will vary between each location based on slope, soil, etc. Actual thinning will be done by hand within the buffer area. Some of the vegetation may be used as fill to slow runoff and erosion if there are cuts in the drainages. Great question! See you later today!
Comment 02/11/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Shane, Curtis Roundy was asking what the reason for the lop and pile treatments was versus lop and scatter because of the cost. What are the values/resources concerns driving the lop and pile treatments?
Comment 02/11/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Shane Woolsey
Lop and Pile was chosen because of the visual impact along Highway 12 as well as terrain too steep for machinery. We did not want the same result as Ranch Creek lop an scatter due to the amount and depth of fuel left on the ground, the fuel loading in a lop and scatter would be detrimental to residual vegetation in the event of a wildfire and make a prescribed fire difficult to achieve desired effects.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
9179 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9191 Terrestrial Treatment Area Bullhog Full size
Project Map
Project Map