East Park Timber Stand Improvement and Stream Restoration
Project ID: 5236
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2022
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Samuel Nielsen
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Ashley National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Northeastern
Description:
This project includes a variety of vegetation and other terrestrial treatments. The treatment includes pre-commercial thinning of 570 acres of lodgepole pine and restoration of stream channels and meadows. This multipart project was proposed, but did not receive funding in 2020. The Ashley National Forest has funded and accomplished portions of the project in the last year, and hopes to continue restoring the area.
Location:
The proposed area is in the Vernal Ranger District on the Ashley National Forest approximately 22 miles north of Vernal, UT.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The East Park Timber Stand Improvement and Stream Restoration project will improve forest ecosystems health, including vegetation and wildlife habitat improvement, and result in reducing the risk of catastrophic fire. The project is located within watersheds of UPCD primary focus areas and in an area of high restoration interest for multiple resource uses. The project is also in the Little Brush Ck. watershed that supplies water to Red Fleet Reservoir, a backup water supply for the City of Vernal. The intent of the project is to improve the resilience and adaptive capacity of lodgepole pine stands, reducing high stand densities and remove dwarf mistletoe infected trees where possible. The thinning will provide additional passage and forage for wildlife, as well as reduce the risk of potentially destructive wildfire by breaking up fuel continuity. In Dyer Creek, grade control structures were placed to reduce active head cutting in the channel, reducing the generation of fine sediments.. East of Round Park in an area known as Dyer Park, unpermitted access roads have led to extensive erosion within the meadow. Lack of proper drainage and overland motor vehicle abuse is causing abandoned and active tire treads to become deep gullies that cause fine sediments to deposit into Dyer Creek and eventually the West Fork of Little Brush Creek. Two stream crossings located in the Round Park needed an upgraded in order to stop the degradation of fish habitat in the vicinity of the crossings. The stream crossings were low water fords consisting of native rock held in place by a plastic geo-grid material. Overtime the plastic had degraded or torn and was no longer properly functioning. The crossings were upgrade to a more stable hardened crossing using modern and engineered construction practices. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources actively plants trout in the West Fork of Little Brush Creek and the area is a popular sport fishery. The project was completed in July of 2020. The new fords were constructed of prefabricated articulating concrete block. In 2019 an unpermitted stream side road was decommissioned along the West Fork of Little Brush Creek, about a quarter mile upstream of the new crossings.
Objectives:
1.Maintain or promote tree vigor and form in young stands to minimize the future impacts of biotic (e.g.,mistletoe and bark beetles) and abiotic damage (e.g., snow damage and windthrow) by managing stand densities. 2.Improve the resilience and adaptive capacity of the project area by managing stand densities. 3.Promote the development of large trees. 4.Reduce the risk of large scale, stand replacing, catastrophic wildfires. 5.Protect Little Brush Ck. municipal watershed values. 6.Reduce overall fuel loading in the project area to promote firefighter and public safety 7.Improve summer range habitat for mule deer. 8.Increase ground cover and foraging habitat for small mammals 9.Improve wildlife habitat across the treatment area 10. Reduce the generation of fine sediment thereby improving fisheries habitat.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
If left untreated, the trees in the young lodgepole stands will continue the self-pruning process, growth rates of trees will gradually become decrease, and the understory vegetation will decline. This would make the area less desirable to most wildlife species. If left untreated, these trees will develop structurally weak form and their resiliency and adaptive capacity will decline. At the present time, many of these trees are at an ideal stage for thinning. If treatment is delayed, stands may become more stagnant and less likely to produce the desired response. Many thousands of acres on the Ashley National Forest have been impacted by mountain pine beetle in recent years. Most or all of the large lodgepole pines have been killed in these areas. Large tree development in the project area will be delayed, and may even be impossible without incorporating some form of density management treatment into the overall management strategy of these areas. Without intervention, the area will continue to decline in value for most wildlife species. Overall forage values will remain minimal, and the density of the stands will not allow for most wildlife passage and use. The current state of the treatment area posses a high risk for high intensity stand replacing fires. The areas where group selection (clear-cuts) will occur are areas overrun with dwarf mistletoe. The treatment will hopefully eliminate, but definitely inhibit spread of the disease. Dyer Creek is actively head cutting and causing inputs of fine sediments into a fish bearing stream. Dyer Park meadow is also contributing fine sediments.
Relation To Management Plan:
This project will assist in accomplishing the following goals, objectives, and strategies as outlined in the following management plans and assessments. Note: mule deer, elk, and northern goshawk are all Forest management indicator species and the northern goshawk is listed as a Forest sensitive species. ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST PLAN (pg IV-28, IV-30) Wildlife and Fish -Goal 1: Manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain or improve diversity and productivity. (reduce sediment runoff) -Objective 1: Develop and Implement habitat management plan that will include key ecosystems and maintain habitat for supporting T&E or sensitive plants and animal species and management indicator species. (increasing stand structure) -Objective 3: Manage the habitat of all T&E or sensitive plant and animal species to maintain or enhance their status. (increasing stand structure) ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST PLAN AMENDMENT -- Utah Northern Goshawk Project (page cc-1) - Goal 3: Restore or maintain forested landscapes in a properly functioning condition. (reducing stand densities) Functioning forested landscapes provide habitat for the northern goshawk and its prey to support a viable population of goshawks in. (Providing habitat for pray) Ashley's Land and Resource Management Plan: Riparian Objective #1 -- Maintain or improve riparian areas and riparian dependent resource values including wildlife, fish, vegetation, watershed, and recreation in a stable or upward trend. Manage for species diversity. (p. IV-45 and 46) *Maintain natural complexity and high relative productivity of riparian areas. *Riparian areas will be given a high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs. Riparian Objective #1 -- Maintain or improve riparian areas and riparian dependent resource values including wildlife, fish, vegetation, watershed, and recreation in a stable or upward trend. Manage for species diversity. (p. IV-45 and 46) *Maintain natural complexity and high relative productivity of riparian areas. *Riparian areas will be given a high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs. Utah CONSERVATION STRATEGY AND AGREEMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF NORTHERN GOSHAWK HABITAT IN UTAH (page 6) -Goal: Provide habitat capable of sustaining viable populations of goshawk in the state of Utah. (increasing diversity in stand structure across the treatment area) -Objective 1: Design a proactive approach to habitat management that will result in the long term conservation and management of habitat for goshawk, its prey and other associated species. ( Thinned stands will develop into large mature trees providing nesting trees) Desired Habitat Condition (DHC) - 1) Diverse forest cover types with strong representation of early seral tree species dominate the landscape. (Thinning will reduce competition for resources favoring seral species) - 3) Forested landscapes have 40% of the area dominated by large trees, well distributed. (Thinning is necessary to reduce stand densities to achieve larger diameter trees) UTAH STATEWIDE ELK MANAGEMENT PLAN (Sec. VI Pages 12-13) -Population Management Goal: Maintain healthy elk populations throughout the state that are managed within habitat capabilities and in consideration of other land uses. (enhancing habitat) -Population Objective 1: Seek opportunities to increase population objectives in individual elk unit management plans to attain a total statewide population objective of 80,000 elk, ensuring that any increases will be subject to an analysis of the impacts to habitat, landowners, livestock operators, and/or mule deer populations. Strategies: - c) Support objectives and strategies in this plan to protect elk habitat and mitigate losses. - d) Support habitat improvement projects that increase forage for both big game and livestock. UTAH STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MULE DEER (Sec. VI Pages 10-11) - Population Management Goal: Expand and improve mule deer populations throughout the state within the carrying capacity of available habitats and in consideration of other land uses. - Population Objective: By 2013, increase the statewide mule deer population by 50,000 to an estimated postseason herd size of 350,000. Strategies: - b) Support all habitat objectives and strategies in this plan to protect and improve mule deer habitat including energy development mitigation in crucial mule deer habitat. NORTH AMERICAN MULE DEER CONSERVATION PLAN (Pages 6-7) Habitat Goal: - Mule deer habitat potential is optimized for quality and quantity across mule deer range. Objective 2: Restore or improve mule deer habitat function throughout mule deer range. Strategy a: Proactively manage shrub communities to maintain mosaics of uneven aged stands to enhance habitat conditions 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. The area appears to occur in "substantial value habitat" Accessed https://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Map.asp?Id=111 . Golden Eagle Utah WAP states" Northern Great Basin and Book Cliffs nesting areas in Utah have been monitored for many years, with apparent breeding declines associated with fire, shrub loss and jackrabbit declines in the Great Basin area" According to https://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/rsgis2/Search/Map.asp?Id=154 this habitat is either Critical or High value for Golden Eagle. Uintah County Resource Management Plan Use active and adaptive forest management to improve forest health and support multiple use and sustained yield with emphasis on employment, forest product production, open space, wildlife habitat, forage, recreation, and other social and economic benefits. Manage forest resources to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, which cause unacceptable harm to resources and assets valued by society, including ecosystem and community health and resilience. 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. 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.
Fire / Fuels:
There is a need to reduce the overall fuel loading in the project area to reduce the risk of large, stand replacing, high-intensity fires. These large scale fires have a detrimental impact on municipal watersheds from sediment runoff. The reduction in fuels will also benefit the local communities by providing structure that can be safely managed in the event of a fire. The thinning of these dense stands will break up fuel continuity and reduce overall bulk density of the stand reducing the likelihood of these high-intensity stand replacing fires. This area receives high amounts of dispersed camping that would be negatively impacted if a large scale fire should occur. This project would also reduce the likelihood of critical wildlife habitat being lost from large scale fires by reducing fuel loading in the area.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Dense stands prevent snow and moisture from reaching the forest floor which then can be lost through evaporation and sublimation. The thinning of these dense stands will increase the amount of moisture reaching the forest floor resulting in increased water availability on the site as well as increase water runoff. The decrease in fuel load could greatly increase water quality in the event of a wildfire by decreasing the fuel load the risk of hydrophobic soils would be significantly reduced. Restoration of the stream channel and meadow will reduce the generation of fine sediment thereby improving water quality. Though the watershed of Little Brush Ck. is not listed by the State of Utah as a municipal watershed, it is part of the Greater Brush Creek watershed that flows into Red Fleet Reservoir, an important backup water supply for the City of Vernal.
Compliance:
NEPA has been completed including archaeological clearances for the timber stand improvement. NEPA will need to be completed for the grade control structures on Dyer Creek and the meadow restoration in Dyer Park. However it will be a categorical exemption as similar structures have been installed in this area. Part of the area where the grade control structures will be placed does have archaeological clearance and the remaining area will have archaeological clearance prior to implementation, including the meadow restoration.
Methods:
The project includes the mechanical thinning treatment of lodgepole pine stands to increase long-term forest health and improve wildlife habitat of the area. Implementation of the treatments will be accomplished with a contract crew using chainsaws to cut unwanted trees and to buck and lop the slash. This proposal includes precommercial thinning of up to 570 acres in young lodgepole pine stands; approximately 300 to 360 trees per acre would be maintained. This is roughly 11 to 12 foot spacing. Slash will be lopped and scattered. The grade control structures will be placed and keyed into Dyer Ck. Grade control structures will either repair existing structures or be additional structures. Structures will be placed in approximate 6 locations along Dyer Ck. Structures will be placed will be placed with a tracked excavator or backhoe. Rock to be used in the structures will be about 2 feet in diameter. The existing gullies in Dyer Park will be filled in with local overburden soil from a near by rock pit. The meadow landform will be recontoured to its preexisting grade. Three to four cross drains will be constructed to prevent future concentration of sheet flow across the meadow. Current access road with be rocked and incorporate the three cross drain features. Log barriers and signage will be placed to to prevent vehicle access to the restored area.
Monitoring:
Continued monitoring will occur in the project area and will be utilized to change/alter management strategy if required to meet objectives. The Forest Service has vegetative study sites throughout the project area. 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. Monitoring of the timber stand will also determine when future timber harvest occurs in the project area. Northern Goshawk territories occur adjacent to this project and nesting activity will be monitored. Photo points will also be established for the stream and meadow restoration portion of the project.
Partners:
Mule Deer foundation has spent many years in this area doing similar treatments to improve habitats. The Utah Division of Water Rights will determine if the in stream work follows all applicable state law. The project has undergone public scoping as part of the NEPA process and been allowed to provide input. The project occurs only of U.S. Forest Service property and does not adjoin any other jurisdictions. The Utah Watershed Initiative has funded numerous projects in this area in the past. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has provided funding for the two stream crossing improvements,
Future Management:
This timber stand improvement portion of the this project will be maintained by commercial timber harvest which will remove the remaining trees after they have grown to the proper size. Then young trees will be allowed to grow, be thinned, and then harvested again. 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 stream restoration and meadow portion of the project should not require future management actions to ensure success. The area will be monitored to determine if the this is indeed the case, if not then appropriate actions will be taken to ensure success.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The pre-commercial thinning will promote large tree development which may be utilized in the future for commercial logging. The clear-cuts will open up portions of canopy and encourage forage growth for domestic livestock decreasing pressure other areas. This area is part of the Lonesome Park Allotment and actively grazed. These type of activities will benefit wildlife and recreational opportunities such as wildlife viewing and hunting. Stream and meadow restoration will benefit fish species including Brook trout.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$154,008.00 $0.00 $154,008.00 $34,000.00 $188,008.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services 570.4 acres of thinning at 270 dollars an acre $154,008.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Personal Services (permanent employee) Project Oversight $0.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 2022
Personal Services (permanent employee) Heavy equipment and operators $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 2022
Materials and Supplies Rock and soil for stream and meadow stabilization. $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 2022
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$154,008.00 $0.00 $154,008.00 $34,000.00 $188,008.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) U.S.F.S. personnel- Project oversite $0.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 2022
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) $154,008.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
United States Forest Service (USFS) Rock and soil for stream and meadow stabilization. $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 2022
United States Forest Service (USFS) Heavy equipment and operators. $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 2022
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Camping (Dispersed) Low
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
OHV Motorized Recreation Low
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Roads – Transportation Network Low
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion/Loss Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Habitats
Habitat
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
OHV Motorized Recreation Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Roads – Transportation Network Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/14/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
The project map includes a feature for Check Dams, but I'm not seeing much in the proposal to describe what is going to be done in this area. Are these the "grade control structures" mentioned or are they different? Can you please provide more detail describing what they are and where they will be placed?
Comment 01/14/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Faucher
It was either check dams or rip rap in the drop down list. I tend to think of rip rap as channel bank scour protect. Check dams can be the same as grade control structures. I added more language in the methods.
Comment 01/14/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
You claim that this project will benefit the Aspen-Conifer habitat type. However, the threats to this habitat type in the Wildlife Action Plan are all focused on conifer increasing in aspen stands. (It probably should be labeled just an Aspen habitat type, but that's a different discussion.) This project appears to be focused solely on the health of lodgepole pine stands. If that is the case, it probably isn't correct to claim benefits to the Aspen-Conifer habitat type. Or, if this project does benefit aspen, can you please describe how it does so?
Comment 01/15/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: James McRae
The purpose of the precommercial thinning treatments include in this proposal is to reduce stand densities. Aspen is present in some of the stands, but it is not a dominate species. Normally lodgepole and other conifers are removed to accomplish the density objective. Aspen is generally not cut in these treatments. Lower stand densities are beneficial to shade intolerance species such as aspen. Lower stand densities would allow any aspen present to persist in the stand longer. See before and after photos from Alma Taylor TSI project
Comment 01/14/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Sampson
I support any effort to clear out the canopy to allow for grass and forbs to become established. I find the majority of lodge pole stands are so thick they don't let much sunlight in to allow for any under-story.
Comment 01/14/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
I support this project because I desire stream restoration projects on forest and I believe both the terrestrial and aquatics portions of this project will result in improvements to habitat and stream function. The project exists within Colorado River Cutthroat trout (CRCT) native range. But the bad news is that CRCT have been extirpated from Big Brush and Little Brush Creek drainages and the DWR does not intend to implement cutthroat trout restoration in either of them. That said, I'm not sure we can list CRCT as a benefited species. The current fishery community is comprised of mottled sculpin, mountain suckers (depending on location within each drainage), and brook trout.
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Thanks for the proposal, Kevin. I think it could be quite helpful to people, and beneficial to your success, if you could upload some pre / post photos of the hardened crossing sites and the check dam sites. The PCT work in the pine stands is pretty intuitive, whereas the stream work leaves a bit too much to the imagination at present. Thanks!
Comment 02/04/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Faucher
I added some photos of the head cuts and crossings. If you look close you can see the failed attempt at using plastic geo grid. Thanks for the suggestion Jimi.
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Miles Hanberg
The proposal talks about Dry Fork watershed and also discusses Dyer Creek, neither of which are in your project area. I am sure this is a result of recycling previous proposals, but you may want to change those errors to make this proposal more reflective of what you are proposing.
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Faucher
Dry Fork was a mistake. Thank you. Both of the two stream channels with the stream crossings are not named by the USGS. We have named them the West Fork of Little Brush Ck. and Dyer Ck. The stream flows through Dyer Park hence the naming. Hope this clears this up.
Comment 01/27/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
I like the project but I would like to try to clear up some confusion. Is this a multi-phased project? Or were components of a previous project not completed? The title page and project details sections discuss previously completed work that are still identified as action items in the proposal and map. If the project is multi-phased, we should probably be including that in the title so that we know where this project stands regarding previous components vs new adjoining projects. I was more confused when seeing all of the old comments from early CY2020 in where this project stands. If the project or portions of the project were cancelled for some reason or not funded in FY21 it might not hurt to note that this is a resubmission, which helps distinguish it because of all the work listed as having been completed.
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Samuel Nielsen
I've updated the project description to try and clarify. This is a resubmission of a project originally proposed last year. The funding proposal was rejected, but the Forest chose to fund some portions of the project itself. The resubmission hopes to secure funding to complete those portions of the project that we were unable to accomplish.
Comment 01/28/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
My understanding is that this project was proposed last year but wasn't funded through WRI. However, the stream component was going to be completed entirely through USFS funds. Did that portion of the project get done last year? If the forest did not do the stream component yet, but are waiting until the lodgepole work can be done, then go ahead and leave it in. If that work has already been done, I feel like it should be removed from this proposal, as it now seems like a separate project. (The lodgepole thinning was never a critical component of the stream restoration, was it?)
Comment 01/28/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Faucher
Tory, We completed the two stream crossings last summer. However we never installed the check dam/ grade control structures on Dyer Ck. This resubmitted proposal still includes the installation of those structures, along with rehabilitation of a heavily impacted meadow.
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Thanks for the clarification. You might want to go back to the project details and re-write some of it just for clarity. There are portions that refer to the grade control structures in the past-tense, indicating they have already been completed. You could indicate that this portion complements other work the forest has already done to improve water quality in the area (i.e. the stream crossings).
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Faucher
Tory, You were correct about the project details stating structure work was already done. Here is how I changed it. "In Dyer Creek, grade control structures were placed in the past to reduce active head cutting in the channel, reducing the generation of fine sediments. Many of those structures failed overtime due to use of undersized rock and lack of adequate keying methods. This current proposal will repair/replace the undersized structures and add additional structures".
Comment 02/04/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
It looks like the Arch clearance and NEPA are complete for most of the project but there is still some work to be done for the meadow and the stream. I imagine it won't be difficult to finish before implementation but, for the sake of having complete information, can you give us a brief timeline of when you expect to have that finished?
Comment 02/19/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Faucher
Hopefully this summer. It should not take more than a day.
Comment 02/04/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Fiorelli
Under the management plans section you list boreal toad management plan. I dont know if this plan should be included as there are not any known populations of boreal toad close to the project area.
Comment 02/04/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Samuel Nielsen
Thanks!
Comment 01/06/2020 Type: 3 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Will you please add another funding line item (or more) for the in-kind amount that you have listed as UWRI funds with the actual source? I am assuming it should be USFS? Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
8693 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
8720 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Check dam(s) (low stage)
10303 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Bank slope adjustment/terracing
Project Map
Project Map