As seen in many areas of the Intermountain West, pure aspen forest stands on the Lower Fish Creek Wildlife Management Area and adjacent properties are dying off at an alarming rate, with an increase in dieback visible each year. Little to no aspen regeneration is present in some areas. The typical lush forb understory of aspen stands is no longer present in these dying stands. Possibly impacted by drought, SAD (Sudden Aspen Decline), overbrowsing by ungulates, or perhaps just due to a lack of disturbance, this aspen resource will soon be eliminated and converted to sagebrush range land or conifer forest. This project is needed to encourage aspen regeneration and to improve wildlife habitat before this resource is lost forever. Jamie Nogle from The National Turkey Federation offers the following explanation of the benefits of aspen work to upland game (WRI 4840), As the conifer encroaches within the aspen stands and dominates the area there is loss of herbaceous vegetation which is used by mule deer, elk, and forest grouse. Dusky grouse, although a conifer-dependent species, rely heavily on aspen and associated understory for providing food in the form of insects, forbs, leaves, and berries. Male dusky grouse require some openness in order to display and young broods often use aspen as escape cover. Maintaining aspen cover is essential for nesting and brood-reading. Managing aspen for younger age classes is beneficial for the species. Ruffed grouse are more dependent on aspen than dusky grouse. This project will help reach the desired 3,500 stems per acre desired by ruffed grouse. It will also contribute more downed logs that can be used for drumming by males during the breeding season. Aspen are critical for ruffed grouse during the winter when they forage primarily on male aspen buds. This project will create small patches of young aspen that will be protected in part from ungulate use through the use of brush fences. Sage Grouse is in decline across its entire range. Studies have shown that conifer encroachment into sagebrush ecosystems increase the perches available to raptors and increase predation of sage grouse. Eighty-six percent of sage grouse hens avoid nesting in sagebrush invaded with conifers. On the higher elevations of Lower Fish Creek, between Lower Fish Creek and Beaver Creek, we are seeing Douglas-fir encroachment into sagebrush stands that have had documented sage grouse populations. The Douglas-fir fir that has been established is quickly allowing for greater Douglas-fir establishment with increased seed source and increased snow drift retention in the otherwise mostly open area where snow gets blown off the ridge in the winter time. These Douglas-fir in the upper elevation sagebrush need to be cut before the area increases its pace of transition to forested land rather than its historic sagebrush habitat. Downstream, wildfire impacts have been a large concern to the Carbon County Council since the Seeley fire and all of its associated post fire impacts. A fairly long response time to any wildfire in this project area coupled with critical infrastructure (Helper City spring development, rail line, and downstream highway) has made this area a priority for wildfire mitigation work. In the case of a catastrophic wildfire, downstream impacts on the Price River and adjacent downstream infrastructure could be significant. Post-fire effects from the Seeley fire were devastating to in stream fish habitat, and potential negative effects to fish habitat would be significant in this area due to Lower Fish Creek's designation as a Blue Ribbon fishery. Most north-facing timber stands are in Fire Regime Condition Class 3 with significant Douglas-fir beetle mortality from recent years and significant deadfall in the units. Given the steepness of some of these forest stands (some stands average 54%) there likely could be significant mass erosion in the case of wildfire, impacting mid slope spring developments, bottom slope spring developments, and permanently damaging existing forest ecosystems and habitat. Some shaded fuel breaks have been implemented via a Catfire grant over the last four years but more work is needed to connect and complete fuel breaks at Lower Fish Creek. Priority in this project has been given to protecting Helper City's spring development along the river and then to parallel fuel breaks on ridge tops to allow firefighters to make a stand should there be a fire. Previous phases of conifer removal and pile burning have been completed in this area. Disturbance along roads and in the adjacent Helper City properties have shown that noxious weeds are present and have the ability to invade these recently disturbed areas. In order to reduce noxious weed invasions, primarily musk thistle and houndstongue, weed control will be necessary in prior treatment areas to encourage revegetation by desirable species. The primary objectives of the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) is to conserve and protect wildlife populations and habitat, and to provide hunting, angling and wildlife viewing access to the public where they can. Funding used in the acquisition of the Lower Fish Creek WMA requires that the property be managed and maintained for wildlife. The Lower Fish Creek WMA provides crucial habitat for numerous game species including mule deer, elk, black bear, dusky grouse, ruffed grouse, and cottontail rabbit. It also provides habitat for species of concern including greater sage-grouse, golden eagle, and Lewis's Woodpecker. Lower Fish Creek, running through the property, is a Blue Ribbon fishery in the state. This project offers maintenance and enhancements of the diverse habitats (conifer, aspen, mountain shrub, mountain sagebrush) that meet the needs of these different species. It also reduces the potential for severe erosion events into the stream in the event that an intense, un-managed fire burns through the slopes and impacts the stream below. The wildlife on the property depend on succulent understory forage, particularly forbs, that are invigorated through disturbance. Forbs provide the most nutritional forage during times of critical wildlife development- fawning, calving, and brood-rearing. Creating a patchy variety of habitats, that reduces extreme fire potential, also maintains habitat currently meeting wildlife objectives. Final note, activities being pursued under this WRI grant proposal closely follow the 2019 Lower Fish Creek Forest Stewardship Plan (FSP). Our polygons for fuels reduction and aspen regeneration follow the boundaries suggested by Natalie Conlin who wrote the most recent Forest Stewardship plan.

1) Conserve & protect the Price River watershed by maintaining a functioning network of resilient forests; return forest structure to a balanced, healthy and historic level. 2) Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire and its post fire impacts on the watershed. By improving and creating strategic shaded fuel breaks connecting the high sagebrush to the river. By thinning forest near and above critical infrastructure. By reducing erosion potential through a managed vegetation removal approach- including reducing fuels through both initial treatment and follow-up pile burning. 3) Improve and maintain aspen forests for wildlife forage production, understory diversity and cover. Through disturbance generating clear felling decadent aspen stands with machinery and excluding browsers. By improving production potential for early-seral understory forbs and shrubs. 4) Improve and maintain existing sage grouse habitat. By cutting conifer encroachment into ridge top sagebrush areas. By improving adjacent aspen stands which provide insects and forb supply for chicks. 5) Maintain functional conifer habitats with intact understory. By creating fuel breaks and reducing fuel loads. By thinning trees to reduce spread of disease. By increasing light availability to understory plant species. By retaining snags and logs for wildlife use. By emphasizing the retention of spruce, ponderosa, and older age classes of Douglas-fir. 6) Reduce the spread and distribution of noxious weeds. By monitoring and treating disturbed areas, particularly in high traffic areas and areas with bare soils. 7) Maintain hunting and angling opportunities for DWR constituents. By maintaining and improving habitats for diverse game and fish species.

Any further delay in completing the aspen portion of this project would result in further loss of the aspen resource in this watershed. Aspen forests would likely cross an ecological threshold and be lost, transitioning to a range/ brush environment. Risks of not completing the aspen treatments include: (a) continued decrease in quality of wildlife habitat and forage, (b) a loss of aspen as a valuable watershed component, and (c) increased risk of wildfire (aspen is more resilient to wildfire than decadent sagebrush rangelands, woodlands or conifers). If the aspen resource continues to lose acreage on an annual basis, this could have a detrimental impact on the watershed downstream. Any further delays in implementation could result in further loss of reserves in the aspen root systems; therefore future treatments would be unsuccessful at stimulating aspen regeneration. Currently, wildfire is the greatest threat to these overgrown north-facing timber stands. There has previously been significant Douglas-fir mortality due to the Douglas-fir beetle and there are many jackstrawed areas within these stands. There is significant possibility for erosion within these stands. Average slope within the thinning units on the downstream end is 24 percent, while on the far upstream end it reaches an average of 54 percent slope with great variability within units. Anecdotally, in some of the steeper drainages on the downstream end slumping of sections of soil are visible. If the area experienced a catastrophic fire over a significant portion of Lower Fish Creek, we would expect to see mass erosion due to the slope steepness alone in this area. If we saw mass erosion similar to what we saw on the Seeley Fire of 2012, it could compromise Blue Ribbon-designated fish habitat within the Price River that would be difficult to recover. There is a conversion from a historic sagebrush ecosystem to a Douglas-fir dominated ecosystem on the WMA ridge top. The Douglas-fir that are present in the sagebrush stands are unlikely to be older than 40 years of age. Absence of tree mortality around the firs suggests that this is a new phenomenon in this area. Visual estimates report that there are few trees in the 20-40 year-old range, but significantly more in the 0-20 year range, supporting a quickening pace of Douglas-fir establishment. Even with the fairly few Douglas-fir that are present, there is likely a negative impact on sage grouse already. Before Douglas-fir establishment in this area becomes more widespread, treatment is necessary to conserve this ecosystem. Currently, noxious weeds in the project area are fairly confined to high traffic areas along roadways and within recently disturbed areas (i.e. the Helper Springs area). Weed treatment following pile burning in 2021 will be necessary to reduce establishment of noxious weeds throughout the project area, and reduce the spread to other areas as wildlife traverse throughout their range. There are risks associated with this project, but those risks are being mitigated. As mentioned above, noxious weeds may spread as a result of new disturbance, but funding is identified to address these issues early on. Aspen treatments may experience heavy use by ungulates attracted to the young forage, but brush fences are planned to reduce browse on new treatment areas. Fuels will remain on the ground following timber removal until piles can be burned. Pile burning is planned in future phases of the project to reduce these fuels. Erosion from fuels treatments on steep slopes is a potential. Hand treatment is being used a method as opposed to mechanical on steep slopes to reduce soil disturbance in these areas.

Lower Fish Creek Habitat Management Plan: The primary objectives of all DWR Wildlife Management Areas are to conserve and protect wildlife populations and habitat, and to provide hunting, angling and wildlife viewing access to the public where they can. This project diversifies habitat for a variety of wildlife species and provides for increased foraging opportunities. Management Objectives:1) This property will be managed to provide access to Lower Fish Creek for fishing and hunting opportunities. 2) Wildlife habitat will be managed to increase its functionality, appeal, availability and use by all fish and wildlife species. Habitat management will be consistent with sound ecological principles and wise land use practices. Noxious weed control: UDWR personnel will spray and control noxious weeds on the property. Care will be taken to limit opportunities for noxious weed introduction. Forest Management: Set seral stage back to quaking aspen where possible using logging or prescribed burning. Sagebrush Management: Maximize functionality for greater sage-grouse, mule deer, elk, through vegetation manipulation. Lower Fish Creek Forest Stewardship Plan: This plan created in 2019 by FFSL is our guide for all current treatments being proposed within Lower Fish Creek. The FSP suggests treatment areas, what to treat and potential impacts and we are following it closely. Another FSP is currently being prepared by FFSL for a neighboring private landowner to guide future work in the drainage. Landowner Objectives: 1) Maintain and enhance wildlife habitat to increase its functionality, appeal, availability and use by all fish and wildlife species. 2) Manage timber on the property to provide for sustainability of wildlife habitat and forest resources. 3) Reduce the potential for insect outbreaks and catastrophic wildfire. Aspen regeneration treatments: Clear felling and/or patch cut areas of declining aspen to stimulate aspen regeneration. Ensure adequate ground disturbance within and around the existing stand to remove competing vegetation. Avoid steep slopes. If less than 500 acres are treated, protection of regeneration from browsers using hinge, slash or traditional fencing. Fuels reduction/ thinning: Forest thinning and/or creation of fuel breaks on steep slopes using cable or helicopter yarding extraction or hand cut, pile, and burn methods. Weed control: Continued treatment of musk thistle and other noxious weeds. Monitor for any new weeds. Carbon County CWPP(2019): The Lower Fish Creek Area is a part of priority area 2 identified for wildfire risk reduction within this CWPP. It notes as a concern that there are very few roads in this area that can act as fuel breaks and that response times are a concern. This project addresses a number of goals within this plan: Goal A5: Begin fuel reduction treatments in previously identified priority areas. Goal A1(2-5): Reduce undesirable fuels adjacent to riparian areas to reduce fire impacts and maintain channel stability. Goal A2(2-5): Control noxious weeds that contribute to fire hazard. Goal A3(2-5): Manage vegetation adjacent to roadways, trails, and railroad lines to prevent wildfire ignitions or to interrupt contiguous fuels. Goal B3(2-5): Conduct fuel reduction treatments on State-managed land in high priority areas. Goal B8(2-5): Support wildlife habitat improvement projects that also reduce wildfire risk. Goal C4: Construct fuel breaks in priority areas. Utah Forest Action Plan (FAP): This project area falls into priority area 3 Sevier-Skyline within the Utah FAP. This project addresses a number of goals and priorities within the FAP: Use all available management tools to restore and maintain healthy ecosystems. Implement monitoring programs to determine effectiveness of the forest practices, including Forest Water Quality Guidelines and Forest Stewardship Management Plans. Collaborate with partners to minimize the impacts of introduced pests. Plan and complete projects that meet the needs of entire communities that focus on resilient landscapes and fire adapted communities. Utah Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (2015-2025): The WAP identifies sensitive species and their habitats and pinpoint their threats, limiting factors, and crucial data gaps. This plan provides strong, clear guidance for improving habitats and strengthening wildlife populations. It is a strategic tool that can reduce and prevent listings under the endangered species act. Utilizing mechanical hand treatments in conifer and aspen stands will contribute to stand health and also improve forage and habitat for wildlife. Creating fuel breaks will also protect important sagebrush habitats from fire. This projec will also address threats to Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCNs) by improving habitats and reducing threats. Greater Sage-Grouse occur in the sagebrush habitats on the upper elevations of the Lower Fish Creek WMA. This project addresses the following WAP listed threats to the species; problematic native species (removing encroaching conifer), and fire and fire suppression (creating fuels breaks to reduce risk of fire into sagebrush habitats). Encroaching conifer reduce overall quality and and use of sagebrush habitats by sage-grouse. Lewis's Woodpecker use aspen patches surrounded by shrubs and riparian bottoms as a secondary breeding habitat, with primary habitat being ponderosa. Limited ponderosa are being protected through the project area by removing other encroaching conifer. Aspen regeneration is being promoted through the project. This project addresses the fire/and fire suppression threat identified in the WAP. Golden eagles have been documented nesting in the cliffs on the north side of Lower Fish Creek. One of the threats identified in the WAP to golden eagles in inappropriate fire/fire frequency. This project brings fire-like disturbance back to the project area. This can positively influence prey species of golden eagle. Some small brush piles from thinning are retained to provide small mammal habitat. Aspen-Conifer is a key habitat in the WAP. Aspen has declined greatly for two main reasons: (1) departure from natural fire regime (reduction in disturbance), resulting in widespread forest succession to conifer dominance; and (2) heavy ungulate browsing on young aspen stems, following disturbance. This project will cause disturbance which encourages rejuvenation of aspen stands, and will protect browsing in treated areas using brush fences. This project addresses the threat of inappropriate fire frequency and intensity. Strategy: Applying mechanical disturbance agents such as timber harvest. This can also be used to stimulate aspen regeneration and avoid or reduce resource losses to conifer beetles. As with fire, larger mechanical treatment areas serve to distribute browsing pressure and reduce damage to individual stems, increasing regeneration success. Mountain Sagebrush is another key habitat in the WAP. 1) Surpluses of older and Uncharacteristic classes, the latter reflecting abundance of invasive nonnative annual grasses and encroachment by conifers. This project addresses the following threats: inappropriate fire frequency and intensity (creating fuel breaks to reduce risk of fire through sagebrush stands). Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse: The goal of this Plan is to protect, maintain and increase sage-grouse populations and habitats within Sage-Grouse Management Areas (SGMAs). That goal will be accomplished by meeting the two primary objectives of this plan, which are to: 1) Maintain and increase sage-grouse populations statewide, and within each SGMA, and 2) Maintain, protect and increase sage-grouse seasonal habitats within SGMAs. Habitat loss due to fire is the single greatest threat to sage-grouse in Utah. Fire can lead to direct loss of essential sagebrush and can result in invasive plants replacing native vegetation. This project will create fuel breaks to reduce the risk of a wildfire spreading into the sagebrush community. This project will also reduce the risk of predation by removing trees located within sagebrush habitats that could serve as raptor perches. This project area is within the boundaries of the Carbon Sage Grouse Management Area (SGMA). This project addresses a number of points in the Conservation Goal, Objectives and Strategies section: 2Aia) Prioritize fuels mitigation to protect habitats within and near SGMAs 4c) using Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI), remove conifer as appropriate in areas protected in 4(b) to ensure that existing functional habitats remain intact. 4f) Using the WRI, implement active, passive, and natural riparian and mesic restoration projects...to increase nesting and brood-rearing habitats. Utah Strategic Plan for Managing Noxious and Invasive Weeds (2004): Weeds aggressively compete for moisture, nutrients, space and sunlight with surrounding desirable plants. Most troublesome weeds are "exotics" or non-native species that exhibit aggressive invasive behavior, are highly adaptive, have high reproductive abilities, and are persistent. They typically invade where human activities have caused disturbances such as road construction, non-intensive farming, poorly managed grazing or logging, urban development, and high impact recreation. Large natural disturbances such as drought, fires, and floods may also play a role in the spread of invasive plants. Noxious weeds can create monocultures that eliminate diverse plant communities. Watersheds dominated by noxious weeds tend to be less efficient in absorbing and storing water resulting in increased soil erosion. Noxious weeds can diminish forage production for all classes of herbivores and reduce habitat for small birds and animals. Houndstongue and Musk Thistle are both currently found within the project area and may invade areas of recent disturbance. Both are class III weed species and should be contained where possible. Herbicides can offer good control of these species, as well as digging before seed development. After invasion by an aggressive weed species and subsequent successful control/management activities, the objective is to return the site to a desirable species composition, if possible. The goal of the vegetation manager is to explore and understand the underlying order of the vegetation in the target site. Action Items: 1. Obtain a knowledge of the system 2. Properly identify the problem weed 3. Plant with the crop (end result) in mind 4. Develop a plan for each situation 5. Evaluate yearly success State of Utah Resource Management Plan: The State recognized the need for local planning documents to provide guidance for the management of natural resources. The overarching goal was to have the state and federal governments coordinate on land management activities and share input. Although this project does not involve federal land management agencies, the state agencies involved find it important to follow the guidelines within the plan for project development. 1) Fire Management: 1) The State advocates for forest management practices that promote species diversity and overall ecosystem health. 2) The State supports the Watershed Restoration Initiative to encourage reduced wildfire acreage and suppression costs, reduced soil loss from erosion, improved water quality and yield, improved wildlife populations, increased forage, reduced risk of additional federal listing of species under the Endangered Species Act, and resistance to invasive plant species. 2) Forest Management: 1) Encourage and promote cooperation by other land management agencies (State, private and federal), employing ecosystem management, forest health and stewardship principles. 2) Develop partnerships and cooperative relationships with organizations that share goals of forest management. 3) Monitor and control invasive species, particularly in riparian corridors. 4) Support the use of all appropriate silvicultural methods to reduce the risk of damage due to insects, disease and fire. 5) Support the sustainable removal of conifers to promote the establishment of aspen and attendant grass, forbs and shrubs where appropriate. 3) Noxious Weeds: 1) Establish immediate revegetation or rehabilitation after treatment. 2) Alongside treatment, the establishment of healthy ecosystems is the most effective way of preventing the spread of noxious weeds. 3) The state of Utah supports proactive management of noxious weeds. Effective management by federal, state, and private entities is vital to protect agriculture, rangelands, and private property. 4) The state supports the removal of noxious weeds from affected areas and rehabilitation of effected areas post treatment. 5) Post-treatment, areas that have been invaded by noxious weeds must be revegetated and rehabilitated. The goal after treatment is to return the area to a desirable species composition if possible. As native vegetation is reestablished, the risk of future invasions of noxious weeds decreases. 4) T&E Species: 1) Work with stakeholders and partners to continue to implement recommendations from the Utah Wildlife Action Plan 2015--2025 to conserve sensitive species and their habitat. 2) Identify and minimize the threats to sensitive or federally listed species to ensure healthy and robust populations of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species can exist in Utah. 3) Restore 75,000 acres of critical habitat for sensitive species each year through the Watershed Restoration Initiative and by partnering with other government and nongovernmental entities. 5) Wildlife: 1) Expand wildlife populations and conserve sensitive species by protecting and improving wildlife habitat. 2) Increase current populations or establish new populations of wildlife in all suitable habitat within the state as outlined in approved management plans. 3) Conserve, improve, and restore 500,000 acres of mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges. 4) Provide a diversity of high-quality hunting and viewing opportunities for wildlife species throughout the state. 5) Protect existing wildlife habitat and improve 500,000 acres of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state by 2025. 6) Water Quality and Hydrology: Cooperate in the protection, restoration, enhancement and management of water resources in the State of Utah to the extent of each agency's authority, expertise, and resources. Carbon County Resource Management Plan: This plan establishes a vision, influences growth, justifies ordinances, protects private property rights, and anticipates capital improvements. The RMP identified local knowledge and developed management objectives and policies related to natural resources. The RMP is based on the needs and preferences of the county, its residents, and property owners. It is the county's foundational document for management of public lands and the basis for communicating and coordinating with land management agencies on land and resource management issues. This updated county plan will provide clear objectives, goals, and policies that can be applied across agency boundaries, and will be more effective in protecting the customs, culture, and traditional uses of county residents while providing for the conservation and use of the county's resources. This project initially developed out of a desire by Carbon County to address fire concerns in culinary watersheds following the Seeley Fire. This project is designed to reduce the threat of catastrophic fire through fuels reduction, but also creating space for fire managers to access critical fire fighting locations if needed. This project contributes to the following areas of the county plan: 1) Land Use: 1) The county supports land use practices which promote proper ground cover to prevent erosion. The county will promote practices which will decrease the growth of noxious weeds and other undesirable plants. 2)Encourage coordination between federal agencies and local governments, public land managers, and private landowners. Support responsible development and the long-term health of the land. 2) Forest Management: 3) We support the Utah Watershed Initiative under the direction of the Utah Department of Natural Resources and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. We encourage the creation of healthy forests and actively promote the use of silvicultural tools to prevent the loss of forests due to insect and a disease activity. 4) Manage forests for continuous yields of wood products, wildlife, fisheries, and water while protecting soil resources. 8) Support the management of beetle-killed timber to protect local water resources, reduce fire hazards, and protect soil and vegetation. 9) Promote forest health and sustainability on private forest land by providing education and cost sharing with private forestland owners. 10) Support the management of non-commercial aspen stands in mixed age groups to provide a source of forage. 14) Support the use of mechanical, chemical, prescribed fire, or wildland fire use to alter or perpetuate timber stands and increase herbaceous yield or cover as appropriate in areas where harvest methods are impractical or demand does not exist. 16) Support agencies in identifying, maintaining, and restoring forests with late successional characteristics to a pre-fire suppression condition. Support the removal conifers as determined appropriate, and manage land to promote the establishment of aspen cover and attendant grass, brush and forbs. 3) Fire Management: 1) Fuel reduction techniques such as conifer reduction, grazing, prescribed fire, and chemical, biological, and mechanical treatments may be acceptable, given site-specific variables. 3) Support watershed management, including use of prescribed fire to avoid catastrophic fire, encourage aspen regeneration, remove dead standing trees, manage bark beetle impacts, and increase vegetation and diversity in plant communities. Work with the private landowner(s), federal, or state agency, in cooperation with Utah Forestry Fire & State Lands to remove fuel load buildup by prescriptive grazing, silviculture prescriptions or mechanical means. 4) Wildlife: A. Forest and range health are managed to provide more forage for both livestock and wildlife. 1. Promote hunting and wildlife photography in the area. 5. Support and cooperate with the UDWR for projects related to wildlife management decisions. 9. Continue efforts to improve and increase forage through habitat manipulation. 13. Support agencies in maintaining or improving habitat carrying capacity for elk or deer. 17. Support responsible wildlife management; ensure that wildlife interests are given due consideration in all public land use and resource development decisions. Encourage partnerships among county residents, the county administrators, and federal and state agencies to practice watershed and rangeland management principles. The County values game hunting as part of the custom and culture of the county. Healthy wildlife populations support local ecology. Thriving wildlife populations provide wildlife viewing and hunting experiences for residents and visitors to the county. Hunting continues to be part of the economy and traditions of the area 5) T&E Species. 4. Support efforts to help ensure that the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) remains under the management of UDWR and does not become listed as threatened or endangered. 6) Water Quality and Hydrology: 18. Where water resources on public lands have diminished because grasses have succeeded to woody vegetation, a vigorous program of mechanical treatment should be applied to promptly remove the woody vegetation and stimulate the return of grasses. These efforts would be intended to provide a watershed that maximizes water yield and water quality for livestock, wildlife, and human uses. 19. Manage watersheds to maintain or improve soil quality and long-term productivity. 23. The county encourages actions by individuals, groups, and local governments that are aimed at improving water quality and supporting the hydrology of the county. 7) Noxious Weeds: a. Comply with the Utah Noxious Weed Act. 5. Control and reduce noxious weeds and poisonous plants using integrated pest management techniques and strategies; including the use of herbicides, biological control agents, and mechanical or hand treatments. 6. Control noxious weeds and poisonous plants in cooperation with public land users and state and local agencies. 7. Treat areas that contain cheatgrass and other invasive or noxious species to minimize competition and favor establishment of desired species. 13. Continue to encourage, coordinate with, and participate in public land management agency projects to implement an aggressive noxious weed and invasive species control operation on all of the lands they manage. Division of Wildlife Resources Strategic Plan: This strategic plan provides DWR employees with clear direction about who they are, what they do and how they will conduct themselves when serving the people of Utah as trustee and guardian of the state's protected wildlife. The benefits of this project to game and non-game wildlife contribute to resource management by the state of Utah. As a DWR-owned property, improving habitat for game species also contributes to constituency goals of the DWR. Resource Goal: Conserve, enhance and actively manage Utah's protected wildlife populations. R1) Increase, decrease or maintain wildlife populations, as needed, to meet the objectives in our management plans. R2) Maintain existing wildlife habitat and increase the quality of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state. Constituency Goal: Strengthen support for wildlife management by demonstrating the value and importance of wildlife to all Utahns. C6) Increase hunting and fishing opportunities Utah Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan: This document provides overall guidance and direction for managing Utah's mule deer populations. This plan provides general information on natural history, management, population status, habitat, and issues of concern for mule deer in Utah. This plan also outlines the goals, objectives, and strategies for managing mule deer populations and their habitats. Deer eat a wide variety of plants including browse, forbs and grasses. Fawn production is closely tied to the abundance of succulent, green forage during the spring and summer months. Mule deer do best in habitats that are in the early stages of plant succession- early plant succession relies on fire or some other type of disturbance. This project is designed to return aspen communities to an early successional stage and encourage suckering through mechanical treatments. The project area is within crucial habitat for mule deer. The portion of the property the project covers provides summer and fawning habitat. Individual deer using this project area may benefit from increased nutrition in available forage which could in turn lead to better lactation, fat stores, and survival. 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 2024, manage mule deer populations within the state as conditions allow and bring all populations to their unit objective. 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. Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2024. A. Watershed Restoration Initiative b. Work with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize mule deer habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration (Figure 6). Emphasis should be placed on crucial habitats including sagebrush winter ranges and aspen summer ranges. d. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. e. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinyon-juniper woodlands and aspen conifer forests in early successional stages using various methods including timber harvest and managed fire. Deer Herd Unit Management Plan Deer Herd Unit # 16BC Manti (2020): The goal of this plan is to expand and improve mule deer populations on the Manti unit considering available habitats and other land uses. Body fat data from captured deer on the Manti are relatively good and near statewide averages suggesting that overall, this herd has not reached or exceeded carrying capacity on summer range. However, improving summer range conditions through projects such as this, can increase fat stores available when deer move onto summer ranges which are in poor or very poor condition. The 2019 data shows the Manti deer population having an average size of 24,466 with an average of 61 fawns per 100 does. Three-year average (2019) survival from collar studies on the unit show adult survival at 84.6 percent, and fawn survival at 50.3 percent. Habitat Management Objectives: Maintain or improve mule deer habitat on the unit by protecting, maintaining, and enhancing existing crucial habitats and mitigating losses due to natural and human impacts. Strategies: 1) Continue to improve, protect, and restore sagebrush steppe and aspen habitats critical to deer. 2) Cooperate with federal and state land management agencies and private landowners in carrying out habitat improvements such as conifer removal, controlled burns, etc. on public and private lands. Habitat improvement projects will occur through the WRI process. 3) Work with federal and state partners in fire management and rehabilitation on crucial deer habitat. Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan: The statewide elk management plan provides overall guidance and direction for Utah's elk management program. This plan briefly describes general information on elk natural history, management, habitat, and population status. Elk are a generalist ungulate, and have a varied diet which consists of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Although elk inhabit most habitat types in Utah, they prefer to spend their summers at high elevations in aspen conifer forests. Elk will spend the winter months at mid to low elevation habitats that contain mountain shrub and sagebrush communities. Elk in Utah are more closely tied to aspen than any other habitat type. Aspen stands provide both forage and cover for elk during the summer months and are used for calving in spring. This project aims to improve and maintain aspen stands on the Central Mountains/Manti which will contribute to improved forage. Elk within the project area can be found year-round, but this project improves habitat primarily for crucial summer range and calving. Habitat Management Goal: Conserve and improve elk habitat throughout the state. 1) Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. a) Coordinate with land management agencies and private landowners to properly manage and improve elk habitat, especially calving and wintering areas. WRI a) Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk habitat. WRI b) Coordinate with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local Utah leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize elk habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration. i) Identify habitat projects on summer ranges (aspen communities) to improve calving habitat. ii) Encourage land managers to manage portions of forests in early succession stages through the use controlled burning and logging. Controlled burning should only be used in areas with minimal invasive weed and/or safety concerns. 2) C. a. Work with land management agencies and county weed boards to control the spread of noxious and invasive weeds throughout the range of elk in Utah. Elk Unit Management Plan Elk Herd Unit #16 Central Mountains (2016): The goals of this plan are to manage a population of healthy animals capable of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities including hunting and viewing. This includes maintaining and enhancing existing elk habitat through vegetative manipulation, sound domestic grazing practices, and other management techniques that will meet habitat objectives. Elk summer habitat appears to be in stable condition. Summer ranges are impacted by fairly high recreation use during the summer months. This tends to displace elk from portions of important summer range. On the Central Mountains Manti unit, in 2019 the three year average population of elk was 11,367 with 46 calves per 100 cows. This project will improve summer habitat by increasing forage in aspen stands and conifer understories. Habitat Objectives: 1) Enhance elk habitat on a minimum of 20,000 acres during the next 5 years through direct range improvements. 2) Cooperate with federal agencies to improve summer range forage production and forest health by actively managing vast acreages of beetle-killed conifer stands. This may include salvage logging, prescribed fire, and other techniques. At least 1,000 acres per year will be targeted. 3) Coordinate with federal agencies to protect and enhance aspen communities on summer habitats. Management techniques that assure a diverse age structure of aspen communities will be utilized.

This project began in 2016 as an identified high priority area for wildfire mitigation work from the Carbon County Commission, Desert Edge Fuels Committee, and Statewide Catfire group after the 2012 Seeley Fire burned over nearby Huntington Canyon and caused significant post fire effects to the watershed. The major concerns being addressed were: impacts to Helper City's spring development and culinary water supply, impacts to rail and highway routes, and post fire mass erosion effects on the Price River and surrounding communities. From 2016 to 2020 a number of shaded fuel breaks were implemented and while these offer access and defensible fuel breaks in the case of catastrophic fire, more work needs to be done to prevent future catastrophic fires below Scofield Reservoir. The loss of aspen results in development of range/brush, conifer or the woodland ecosystem type, which are more fire prone than aspen. Removing woody debris from the stands and encouraging the development of aspen will inherently make the stands less likely to result in a catastrophic wildfire, a serious benefit considering the network of private properties nearby in the Lower Fish Creek watershed as well as the Beaver Creek watershed. Additionally, the restoration of these stands will promote heterogeneity on the landscape, a useful tool for mitigating insect and disease outbreaks (thereby reducing standing dead fuels) and ultimately creating a better defense against fire. Stands identified in this project for aspen regeneration work were determined to be in Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 2 within the 2019 FSP indicating a moderate departure from historic fire regime conditions. Lower elevation stands identified for thinning and shaded fuel breaks were identified to be in FRCC 3 indicating a high departure from historic fire regime conditions. This work will return project areas to FRCC 1 after work is completed.

Conserve & protect watersheds by maintaining a functioning network of resilient forests; by reducing the risk of severe, large scale wildfire in the project area, the actions will protect watershed values from damage to soils that result in reduced infiltration and increased runoff in the short-term and loss of top soil and subsequent reduction in soil productivity in the long-term. The additional treatment of drainages that could act as funnels during a wildfire protects these riparian areas in the long term. A large portion of this project is centered around protecting Helper City's water infrastructure that is present on site. Fuels reduction work above and around the spring development will directly reduce the likelihood of culinary water impacts post fire. In addition much of the downstream water is used for irrigation. By reducing post fire impacts we will be preventing sedimentation of these irrigation systems. Water quality/quantity will improve through increased water yield in this watershed due to a sustainable aspen forest resource: studies have shown that sagebrush (and conifer) encroachment into aspen stands throughout the Intermountain West causes a significant decrease in an area's water yield (mechanisms include differential accumulation of snow, melting patterns, and plant water use rates). By encouraging the regeneration of aspen, the watershed's water yield should increase. Forest Water Quality Guidelines serve as a resource created by the State that include considerations for land managers to reduce water quality/quantity impact in their management practices. The guidelines will be consulted for the aspen harvest to minimize impacts and enhance water quality. A post-harvest field review complements the guidelines to determine the effectiveness of the logging (including road construction, maintenance, skid trails, site prep etc.) on the protection of forest, soil, and water resources. On the private land, a post-harvest review will be conducted and submitted to the State for evaluation.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) will be completed by the contractor prior to any treatments, pursuant to 65A-8a-104 of the Utah Code. All contractors will be required to be registered with FFSL as a forest operator, pursuant to 65A-8a-103 of the Utah Code. For the 50 acres of Aspen regeneration work archaeological survey work will be completed prior to work on the ground. Money is being requested through this WRI proposal to cover the survey.

Aspen Regeneration Stands (50 Acres): FFSL will use a contractor to harvest decadent and dying aspen stands, then clear the areas of woody material. In areas where machinery does not disturb the soil sufficiently to stimulate regeneration, a ripper attachment will be used. Felled aspen trees not being taken off site by the contractor will be piled outside of the forest stand to be used as a barrier to protect the aspen regeneration from browsers. Where the formation of an adequate slash fence is not possible due to lack of material, 8' polypropylene fencing will be supplemented to complete the perimeter to keep out both cattle and browsing wildlife. On the perimeter of the Aspen stands that face the open sagebrush fields we will leave one standing dead aspen approximately every 100' when it doesn't interfere with machine work for bird habitat. Existing roads will be used to access the aspen stand on the WMA. All equipment will be cleaned before entering the property to reduce the risk of invasive/noxious weeds spreading to the project area. If any weeds are observed in the project area, they will be removed/ treated immediately. As successful regeneration of aspen is more likely if stands are harvested or treated in the dormant season when nutrient reserves in aspen roots are highest, project work will likely happen in the fall. Residual large, dead trees with cavities will serve as potential nesting locations for birds. Aspen regeneration work will be funded through an existing Landscape Scale Restoration grant and will serve as match for the WRI funded portion of this project. Timber Thinning Units (93 Acres): These units will follow a similar prescription to the 96 acres treated in the previous Catfire project. The goal is to create a shaded fuel break consisting of aspen and widely spaced and limbed conifers. The prescription is as follows: All live conifers (primarily spruce, white fir, juniper and Douglas-fir) under 6" DBH shall be cut and piled for burning. All dead standing conifers over 6' tall will be cut and piled for burning. Dead and down trees over 4" in diameter and six feet in length will also be bucked to length and piled for burning. Retained conifers will be thinned to a crown spacing per single tree of 10 feet, minimum trunk spacing of 20 feet. All retained conifers will be limbed up to 5' above the ground. All cut trees will be completely severed from the stump and no live limbs will remain attached to the stump. Standing stump height shall not exceed 4 inches on the uphill side. All cut material will be reduced to lengths no greater than five feet in length. All cut material will be built into compact piles for burning. All burn piles must be constructed at a distance of at least ten feet away from the drip line of any retained trees. Burn piles will be spaced at least ten feet apart. Material in burn piles should be stacked tightly together. Burn piles will be no more than six feet tall and eight feet in diameter. Any Ponderosa pine or Limber pine found in the treatment unit will be retained. Ponderosa and limber pines under 10' in height should not be limbed. Any standing trees over 14" DBH may be left. Trees identified as bearing trees, or any tree blazed or tagged to mark the line of any Government survey, shall not be cut or destroyed under penalty of the law. Trees with reference tags will be left uncut. Of the 93 acres 81 will be contracted out and 12 will be completed by an in house fuels crew. Of those in house acres 2 are first entry treatments and 10 will be second entry treatments to make a previously created shaded fuel break more effective. Piles created under this treatment will need to be burned during the winter of 2022/23. Pile Burn Units (32 Acres): Piles in these units were created during the second entry of cutting under the previous Catfire project during the fall of 2020. These piles will be burned in Nov-Dec of 2021 using FFSL Area staff and DWR staff. These particular units were very dense cutting units and so there are large tightly packed piles in certain areas. We expect this work will take two days to complete, attempting to burn 50% of the piles within all units the first day and 50% the next day to reduce the amount of heat and reduce the likelihood of torching of leave trees. Musk Thistle Spray Units (64 Acres): These units were the first entry fuels thinning units treated under the previous Catfire project. Piles were created in the fall of 2018 and were burned in November of 2020. With the disturbance we are expecting an increase of Musk thistle and houndstongue. Spot spraying will be necessary at the burned sites to reduce the anticipated increase of these invasive weeds. Spot spraying will occur with a spray crew for 2 weeks, spraying 2-4D at these sites. Treatments will be focused only on the pile burn sites. Sage Grouse Lop and Scatter Unit (88 Acres): Lop and scatter of all conifers within the unit. Work will be completed by contract. Unit has very sparse conifer within it.

Aspen Regeneration Units and Timber Thinning Units: Photo points will be established to identify pre- and post-treatment conditions, as well as long-term monitoring points for future reference. Post-treatment photos will be taken within 3 years post-treatment. Day-to-day monitoring of contract operations will be completed during implementation by DWR and FFSL personnel. Post-harvest, the efficacy of the management practices to protect soil, forest and water will be evaluated using the Forest Water Quality Guidelines. Both pre- and post-photos will be uploaded to the WRI database as well as general summary of work results.

This project is a collaborative effort on private and state land, resulting in a landscape-level impact. Trout Unlimited, DWR and FFSL aim to improve aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat, reduce fire risk, and restore forests to a healthy, balanced state. FFSL WUI: has implemented the previous phase of this project using Catfire grant dollars and is looking to expand the work completed for the protection of critical infrastructure and the protection of these forests. FFSL Forestry: is expanding aspen regeneration work in Carbon County currently being completed with 106 forestry using money acquired through the Landscape Scale Restoration grant program. Work completed on the Lower Fish Creek WMA will be expanded onto neighboring private properties in subsequent years. DWR: is working to control herbaceous weeds and recreation impacts on the WMA. DWR will also be assisting with Arch. clearance needs. Trout Unlimited: Is helping to coordinate conservation district needs as well as planning future work within the streambanks at Lower Fish Creek due to its designation as a Blue Ribbon trout fishery. Private Landowners: Adjacent private landowners have been interested and willing to participate in timber thinning work on their land. Part of this project occurs on adjacent private land. Future phases of this project through LSR as well as other grants will likely include these adjacent private landowners. Helper City: A small portion of this project is on Helper City land that includes their spring development next to the river. They have been engaged and interested in this work occurring since the earliest planning stages of the previous Catfire project.

A majority of the project occurs on the DWR-owned WMA. This area will be protected and managed for long-term habitat health for the benefit of wildlife and the public. Properties are managed according to the Land Use Rule R657-28 and the Lower Fish Creek Habitat Management Plan, as well as according to rules set forth through the Pittman Robertson Act. Future management is furthermore guided by the Forest Stewardship Plan. The effectiveness of the aspen treatments will be determined for those particular stands. Based on the results, the same techniques may be utilized on aspen stands further south on the WMA, and a neighboring private property, where aspen stands are also not recruiting. Within the aspen units treated under this project proposal brush fencing and conventional fencing will be used to exclude cattle and wildlife for a period of approximately 5 years depending on aspen growth rates to allow for natural regeneration of aspen. Additionally, the use of prescribed fire has been discussed as an additional phase of this project and possibly as a long term maintenance tool for certain units within the WMA. FFSL has provided resource management recommendations through the Forest Stewardship Plan written in 2019 (which are written for 10 year periods). The property will be visited annually as part of regular DWR maintenance activities to address weed concerns that may arise through time.

The proposed aspen timber harvest (50 acres) is a sustainable use of forest resources. Aspen will be used commercially by the contractor if material is left over from brush fence construction. The local forest industry is bolstered by working on projects like this. Job opportunities are also provided for rural communities. In return, the land benefits from multiple ecosystem services, including: higher biodiversity, improved fire protection, increased forage and cover for wildlife, water and soil retention, and stronger connectivity and resilience of these vulnerable aspen communities. There is currently a grazing agreement on Lower Fish Creek with neighboring landowners able to graze during the growing months. In addition some of the work proposed here is occurring on private lands with active cattle grazing. Within the aspen regeneration units livestock and browsing wildlife will be excluded for approximately 5 years, depending on the rate of regeneration. At which time fencing will be removed and both cattle and wildlife will be able to access the stand. Within the timber thinning stands (93 acres) forage should be improved for both cattle and wildlife fairly quickly by increasing sunlight to the forest floor thereby increasing understory plants. Reductions in invasive thistle around burned burn piles through spraying should also increase native forage. Once piles are burned in both the timber thinning units and the pile burn units (31.5 acres) wildlife, cattle, and hunters will have increased access to areas which were previously unwalkable. There are four connected fuel breaks that go from the ridgetop sagebrush down to the river being proposed or improved in this proposal and they should improve movement of wildlife, cattle, and people throughout the project area. Creating, improving, and maintaining diverse habitat types through this treatment create opportunity for hunting and angling. Mule deer and elk will benefit through increased forage throughout the year, and individuals may experience improved survival or recruitment through improved nutritional quality. These species are often available to hunt during fall seasons within the project area. Black bear are hunted on the property and will benefit from improved food resources through this project. Upland game including forest grouse, and rabbits will benefit from increased and improved forage with leafy forbs and fruit-bearing or leafy shrubs being encouraged through this treatment. Ruffed grouse habitat will improve with increasing cover and forage, while Dusky grouse habitat will be maintained by thinning conifer stands allowing light to reach the understory and maintain important existing cover and food. A few smaller burn piles will be maintained to provide cover for small mammals, including rabbits. The Lower Fish Creek blue ribbon fishery may be protected from sediment loading as a result of erosion through this project in the event that a wildfire that becomes unmanageable. Treating the upper slopes through a managed approach can help to reduce these impacts. Fuel breaks can be used to slow down fire in the future and create places for firefighters to manage.

07/01/2021

06/30/2022

2022

Contract Thinning: Contract thinning was initially proposed to target about 181 acres with the acreage split between sagebrush flats on top of the ridge to reduce Douglas fir encroachment into sagebrush and the other half finishing connecting a number of fuel breaks within the WMA. We initially estimated that the combined bid for these two areas would come in close to $500/acre based on the sparseness of Douglas fir in the Sagebrush unit. The bid ended up coming in at $1112/acre so in order to meet our budget we reduced the scope of the work area to ~80 acres. This split out to 38 acres of sagebrush Douglas fir encroachment cut and pile and 42 acres of timber thinning with an additional 2 acres of timber thinning that was completed via our seasonal crew. While we had to reduce acreage we did end up with an excellent contract crew (Cutting Edge) that did a great job with the cut and pile work. In the Sagebrush units our scope was to have them cut and pile all conifers within the units. Within the timber thinning units our scope was as follows: * All standing conifers, live or dead, under 6" DBH shall be cut and piled for burning. * Dead and down trees over 4" in diameter will be bucked to length and piled for burning. * Retained conifers will be thinned to a tree spacing of 20 feet. Healthy Douglas fir, Ponderosa pine, or spruce will be preferred for retention over other species of conifer. * Any standing trees over 14" DBH may be left. * All retained conifers will be limbed up to 5' above the ground. * Any Ponderosa pine or Limber pine found in the treatment unit will be retained. Ponderosa and limber pines under 10' in height should not be limbed. * All cut trees will be completely severed from the stump and no live limbs will remain attached to the stump.- Stump height shall not exceed 4" on the uphill side. * All cut material will be built into compact piles for burning. * All burn piles must be constructed at a distance of at least 10' away from the drip line of any retained trees. Burn piles will be spaced at least 10' apart (measured from widest outside point to widest outside point), forming a grid-like order of piles. Piles will be constructed with material stacked together tightly. Burn piles will be no more than 6' tall and 8' in diameter. Herbicide Spraying: In June of 2022 we hired an 8 day 5 person UCC crew to spray invasive thistle in disturbed areas that had been previously treated. Our focus of this portion was to spray around burn pits from piles from cutting phase 1 that had been burned the fall of 2020 over about 57 acres. They ended up completing that work early and were able to spray within units that have piles that are ready to be burned covering an additional 128 acres. Thistle was fairly under control in these units so work was fairly quick. The crew used milestone in these units. Aspen Regen Work: This work was supposed to occur via Landscape Scale Restoration funds from the area forester out of our SE FFSL office. Unfortunately we had turnover in that position this year so this work didn't get completed. The WUI program out of the SE office ended up walking the designated polygons again to prep for Arch clearance and ended up moving the potential work area due to steep slopes and gullys since this work will eventually be done with feller bunchers or other machinery. Once it was moved DWR was able to perform arch clearance on this area to prep for future work. These units that were surveyed cover about 70 acres. Pile Burning: In the initial proposal we were slated to burn about 32 acres of piles that were cut via Catfire funding in the fall of 2020. We had an initial couple of early snows this year that melted off early that we didn't burn during. We got a decent snow in late November that we attempted to burn with. We had about 8 staff and we attempted to go up the road in single digit temperatures and 30 mile an hour winds. The road about halfway in was drifted in about 4 feet deep and with only ATVs and UTVs we were unable to get over the ridge and around the road so we called it off for safety. We will reattempt to burn those 32 acres of piles as well as the 82 that was cut during FY22 under the Upper Price River Watershed WRI project in fall of 2022.

Despite some setbacks we were able to complete a lot of good work under this project. With the 44 acres of timber thinning we finished the last of the fuel breaks that were planned under the Catfire project that was started in 2017. We now have solid shaded fuel breaks from which to make effective management decisions regarding fire suppression in case of a fire. These fuel breaks extend onto neighboring private land as well as Helper City land ensuring that they are in the most effective spots in this area. The sagebrush units while they had to be scaled down were placed in the most effective spots within the larger initial unit to prevent further spread of Douglas fir. The thistle spraying crew was able to accomplish a lot more than expected and we hope that by spraying some of the units prior to burning piles that we will be able to mitigate the impacts of those piles once they get burned. Overall for the Aspen Regen units I think it was good that we got another year to prepare for that work. By walking the units again and adjusting the boundaries I think we will able to be more effective with that work once it's implemented.

Under the Upper Price River Watershed FY23 proposal we have plans to go back and burn the remaining piles within Lower Fish Creek. We are planning on possibly borrowing or renting a snowcat to push in the road the day prior so that we can ensure that we can get out to it, mitigating the most difficult portion of implementing pile burns up there. We will probably need to fund another brief round of thistle spraying around those burn pits once we complete the burning so we will be working on finding funding for that work. In these areas that we are working in we don't expect regrowth to be particularly fast so we think that this work will remain effective for years to come. The area forester will continue to work to implement aspen regen work on the top of Lower Fish Creek WMA and is currently writing a Forest Stewardship Plan for neighboring private land so that they might be able to be included in that work.