Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head Restoration Project
Project ID: 5645
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2022
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Bob Christensen
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Ashley National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Northeastern
Description:
The purpose of this project is to improve the Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head are through restoration of a spring and wet meadow and wildlife habitat improvement. These improvements include a spring and wet meadow protection raising the water table and increasing water residence time for water quality purposes, and removing conifer encroachment from 945 acres of upland meadows and sagebrush/mountain brush communities.
Location:
The project is located in Duchesne County, southwest of the town of Duchesne, and on the South Unit of the Ashley NF. More specifically it is located in the Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head Peak area.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Two concerns in the Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head area have been identified by the Ashley NF, and the Ashley has identified two projects to improve these watershed conditions. These two projects will address the two identified watershed concerns by improving the spring and an adjacent wet meadow, and removing the threat of encroaching conifers into habitats critical for sagebrush and mountain brush obligate wildlife species. First - The spring and wet meadow is in a severely degraded condition and is in need of protection. Second - This area contains sagebrush/mountain brush communities and upland meadows that are being encroached by conifers (pinon/juniper and Douglas fir). Barring disturbance, conifers will suppress and ultimately replace the existing shrubs. This will negatively affect sagebrush/mountain brush and upland meadow obligate wildlife species (deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep and a variety of song birds) that depend on these shrub communities in this area for survival. Removing these encroaching conifers will improve wildlife habitat in the watershed and deter the encroachment of conifers into important sagebrush/mountain brush communities that are critical for wildlife.
Objectives:
Spring and wet meadow restoration Objectives 1) Protect and restore the sensitive wetland habitat, where wetlands are extremely limited. Shrub and Upland Meadow Community Objectives 1) Deter conifer encroachment into sagebrush/mountain brush and upland meadow communities for approximately 25+ years. 2) Improve wildlife habitat for sagebrush/mountain brush and upland meadow obligate wildlife species (e.g. Brewers sparrow, sage sparrow, deer, elk, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep) through removing encroaching conifers on approximately 945 acres of shrub and upland meadow communities in the Gray Head area of the Watershed. 3) Improve big game winter, summer, and transitory range by maintaining forage for mule deer, pronghorn, bighorn sheep and elk. 4) Long term monitoring of vegetation and wildlife species to measure results of the project in the short term and long term. 5) Assist in accomplishing objectives in several management plans (see Relation to Management Plans Section).
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
These projects to improve the Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head area will reduce threats to the Watershed. Springs and wetlands are rare in this area, this particular wetland is severely degraded and could potentially cease to function as a wetland if action is not taken. Degraded springs and wetlands could have negative effects in the watershed to nearby CRCT. Over time encroaching conifers will replace the sagebrush/mountain brush and upland meadow communities in the area with a stand of pinyon/juniper or Douglas fir. The loss of the these community types would have negative impacts to sagebrush/mountain brush obligate species in the area such as Brewers sparrow (and a variety of other song birds), elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and deer. This project will remove encroaching conifers in these communities and maintain habitat for these wildlife species. Additionally, as pinon/juniper in the Watershed leach the soil of water, this project would help retain water in the Watershed for more desirable vegetation that will aid the ecosystem in retaining water as a whole (especially on the north facing slopes of the project). Reducing the conifer encroachment will increase the amount of shrubs, grasses, and forbs which in turn, will reduce surface water runoff and debris flows (which causes soil erosion and poor water quality) and aid in retaining the moisture in the ecosystem. Conifer encroachment also contributes to large catastrophic fires (e.g. the Dollar Ridge fire of 2018). Removing these conifers will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and increase the likelihood of fire suppression if a fire occurs in the Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head area. This type of project in the area of the catastrophic Dollar Ridge fire would likely have helped reduce the severity of the fire and would have also helped firefighters.
Relation To Management Plan:
Improving springs and wetlands in the area and removing conifer encroachment in sagebrush/mountain brush and upland meadow communities in the area will improve habitat for several wildlife species. Several Species plans have identified conifer encroachment as a threat to the species habitat. Below is a list of Management Plans; their objectives, goals, and strategies that will be accomplished by this project (spring and meadow restoration, and removing encroaching conifers). - The Project will accomplish Objectives in the UDWR Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (CRCT) Conservation Strategy - Objective 4) Secure and enhance watershed conditions. The project will accomplish several goals in the Statewide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan specifically B. Habitat Goal Strategy d. Initiate vegetative treatment projects to improve bighorn habitat lost to natural succession or human impacts; and f. Improve or maintain existing water sources and develop new water sources as needed to improve distribution and abundance of bighorn sheep. - The project will also accomplish several goals in the Statewide Pronghorn Management Plan specifically Habitat Management Goal Objectives (1a) enhance crucial pronghorn habitat, (1c) mitigate loss of habitat, (1e) design project to improve pronghorn habitat. - This project meets several strategies in the Goals and Objectives in the Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan specifically: - Habitat Goal Objective 1 strategy A. (b.) identify threats to habitat, and B. a.(b) work with management agencies to identify and manage crucial mule deer habitats; Habitat Goal Objective 2 strategy A. (d.) initiate vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on.......ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. - This project meets several strategies in the Goals and Objectives in the Statewide Elk Management Plan specifically Habitat Objective Goal 1 strategies (b)properly manage elk habitat, (d) mitigate for losses of habitat; Habitat Objective Goal 2 strategies (c) identify elk habitat in need of restoration, (d) initiate project to improve winter habitat. - This project is also compatible and governed by the Ashley National Forest Plan, with the following goals, (a) to improve 500 acres of wildlife habitat annually (b) develop support from interest groups for funding of wildlife projects. - This Project will also accomplish Forest Service obligations outlined in the Migratory Bird MOU with the USFWS in accordance with the Migratory Bird Executive Order 13186 specifically (1) restoring and conserving habitat for F&WS birds of conservation concern such as the Brewers sparrow and sage sparrow. Habitat for these species will be conserved by removing encroaching conifers to maintain the habitat for these species. - This project is consistent with the "potential conservation action" addressing the threat of "inappropriate fire frequency" identified in the UDWR's Wildlife Action Plan. Action code 2.3.14 sates "Conduct upland vegetation treatments to restore characteristic upland vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings." Reducing conifer encroachment would help restore characteristic upland vegetation. - The Utah State Resource Management Plan has several applicable objectives and policies & guidelines: 1)The State promotes fuel breaks, thinning, chaining, prescribed fire and the selection of fire-resistant vegetation in green-stripping and burned areas. 2) The State will pursue opportunities to conduct and assist other partners with fuel reduction work including mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. 3) Improve vegetative health on public and private lands through range improvements, prescribed fire, vegetation treatments, and active management of invasive plants and noxious weeds. 4) Actively remove pinyon-juniper encroachment in other ecological sites due to its substantial consumption of water and its detrimental effect on sagebrush, other vegetation, and wildlife. 5) Protect existing wildlife habitat and improve 500,000 acres of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state by 2025. - The Duchesne County Plan identifies conifer encroachment as a threat to water yield (Section 6 - Forest Management - Water Considerations in Forest Management), aspen (Section 6 Forest Management) sage-grouse (Section 22 Threatened, endangered, sensitive species), and as a contributor to fuel loading (Section 19 Fire management). This project would reduce those threats and reduce fuel loading by removing encroaching conifers.
Fire / Fuels:
Conifer removal in the Right Fork Lake Canyon/Gray Head area will help reduce the likelihood of a catastrophic wildfire occurring in the watershed. Conifer encroachment contributes to large catastrophic fires, such as the Dollar Ridge fire of 2018. This project will provide a direct long-term benefit by reducing the threat of large fires through reducing fuel loading. While, the initial removal of conifers will increase fuel loading; after the needles fall in 2 to 3 years and the loped trees begin to decay, the long term effect will be a reduction in hazardous fuel build-up. Additionally, removing encroaching conifers will reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and increase the likelihood of fire suppression if a fire did happen to occur.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Spring and wet meadow restoration will greatly benefit ungulate species have severely damaged this sensitive habitat. Fencing the area will protect the area from this damage. Over time if the fence restores the meadow the possibility of a small riparian pasture will be considered. Removal of conifer encroachment has water quantity benefits to the watershed and may contribute to reduced turbidity. Roundy et. al. 2014 found that mechanical tree reduction increased soil water availability. As pinon/juniper leach the soil of water, this project will help retain water for more desirable vegetation that will aid the ecosystem in retaining water as a whole. Reducing the conifer encroachment will increase the amount of shrubs, grasses, and forbs which will reduce surface water runoff and debris flows (which causes soil erosion and poor water quality) and aid in retaining the moisture in the ecosystem. The project will also occur on some north facing slopes where water retention potential would be the greatest. Additionally, the potential reduction in soil erosion/sediment loading may improve the water quality in the streams adjacent to the project. Roundy B. A. Roundy, K. Young, N. Cline, A. Hulet, R. F. Miller, R. J. Tausch, J. C. Chambers, and B. Rau. 2014. Pinon-juniper reduction increases soil water availability of the resource growth pool. Rangeland Ecology & Management 67(5) September 2014.
Compliance:
Archaeology/Cultural Clearances have already been attained for the conifer removal portion of this project with a NEPA Decision signed February 3rd, 2020 for the lop and scatter portion of this project. This project complies with the Ashley Forest Plan and moves towards attaining the Forest Plan Amendment goal of improving wildlife habitat. A portion of the spring and meadow restoration is already completely authorized, some compliance is still needed but should be complete by June 30, 2021.
Methods:
Spring and Wet Meadow Restoration - exclosure fence will be constructed to limit livestock grazing within the wet area. No other action is expected at this time. Conifer Encroachment Removal - This project would be handled under a contract. Removal of encroaching conifers will be done with hand crews using chainsaws. Cut materials will be left on the site or lopped and scattered. There will be no piling, slashing, or burning of cut materials. Treatments will occur from mid-summer to fall. Generally these types of conifer removal projects cost approximately $50/acre. but the crew may need to hike into some of these polygons which will increase the cost per acre to $70/acre.
Monitoring:
After the project is completed we will complete the Project Completion Report and submit photos of the project. Long term monitoring will continue in the area to measure the results of these watershed improvement projects. Spring and wet meadow monitoring will be monitored yearly for five years to look at trends and monitored every three years afterwards to document improvement and additional work if needed. Monitoring will be conducted within the conifer encroachment removal area through long term vegetative plots that have been established in the project area, bird point counts, and big game counts. The completion report for this project will be completed and monitoring results will be available as the monitoring is completed.
Partners:
The conifer removal part of this project is part of a larger effort supported by adjacent private land owners and agencies to deter conifer encroachment and maintain our sagebrush, mountainbrush, and meadow areas. Nearly all of the conifer encroachment removal area in this proposal is located and completely surrounded by Forest Service land. Thus there was very little opportunity for collaboration with other land owners on these particular units. The Forest Service did reach out to the public during the NEPA process when we scoped the public, non-profit organizations, and other agencies for input. We did not receive any comments on the project, but these types of projects generally get positive support from the State and federal agencies, local Counties, nearby land owners, grazing permittees.
Future Management:
Spring and wet meadow will be monitored to ensure that the fencing is providing the expected result, if it does not other methods will be used. Future management in the area will continue to maintain these communities for wildlife, grazing, and overall watershed health. This management is in compliance with the Ashley Forest Plan and would have a life of approximately 25 years, at which time another treatment to remove encroaching conifers may be needed. Post treatment monitoring (vegetative and wildlife) will be conducted and follow-up treatments will be considered, if needed, to ensure the effectiveness of the project.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Conifer removal will leave material on the ground will aide nutrient cycling as well as provide some valued nesting habitat for birds. Several bird species have been documented using this slash material. As this project improves habitat for high interest big game species (e.g. deer, elk, and bighorn sheep), it will thus improve hunting and wildlife viewing opportunity (recreational benefit). A current grazing management plan has been completed for the allotment wherein the project resides. This project will maintain forage and grazing conditions for both wildlife and livestock by deterring the encroachment of conifers into these communities. Grazing regimes are not anticipated to be changed as a result from this project, but rather maintained as forage is maintained by implementation. Permittees that are permitted to run livestock on the Ashley NF are in favor of this type of project as it benefits livestock.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$65,300.00 $7,000.00 $72,300.00 $0.00 $72,300.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Contract for 945 acres of conifer removal at $60/acre - for a total of $56,700. FS contribution of completing NEPA and flagging project boundaries - $7,000. $56,700.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 2022
Materials and Supplies Fencing Supplies $2,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Contractual Services Fence construction 1320' @ $5 a foot $6,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$65,300.00 $7,000.00 $72,300.00 $0.00 $72,300.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) Contract for 945 acres of conifer removal at $60/acre - for a total of $56,700. $65,300.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Service contribution of completing NEPA and flagging project boundaries - $7,000. $0.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 2022
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bighorn Sheep N4 R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Spotted Bat N3
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Desert Grassland
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Emergent
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Unknown
Emergent
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Low
Project Comments
Comment 01/12/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I am not familiar with this area, but from the map it doesn't look like there is any road access to a number of the project polygons. My concern is that if there isn't decent access, and we're asking the contractor to hike into the area, costs are going to go up. I'm not sure $50/acre would cover it.
Comment 01/13/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bob Christensen
Tory you are right. Thanks for the comment. Originally we planned on them using a two track that google shows accessing the polygons, but this two track is not usable. I increased the cost/acre from $50 to $70. I also added a sentence under "Methods" to give an explanation. Had to go "Back to Draft" to make that change and then resubmitted the project.
Comment 01/12/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Can you add a map feature to show where the spring/wet meadow portion of the project will be?
Comment 01/26/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I added the area for the wetland improvements.
Comment 01/27/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
The water quantity/quality tab has a post about Sowers Creek? Is this a relic of a prior proposal? I definitely support the project - and that RFLC spring is a mess- but for me it's too much of a stretch to endorse CRCT as a benefitted species. Maybe I can be persuaded otherwise. The CRCT population of Lake Canyon is about 7 miles downstream of the proposed project area (RFLC springs). Almost all of that 7 miles is dry channel or just open scrubland lacking a defined channel. Additionally, the CRCT occupied reach receives no surface hydrology contribution, even during ultra high runoff events, meaning no sediments or TMDLs from land use affect the occupied water.
Comment 01/28/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
The Sowers Creek issue has been addressed. The benefit for CRCT is definitely open to discussion. That is based off of an assumption that the groundwater/surface water in this area is tied to the RFLC springs. When you look at the Geology of the West Tavaputs it is mostly underlain with Green River Formation, but you see several different units throughout the area. The geology from the western side of Lake Canyon to the eastern side of Sowers Canyon is dominated by a different unit (Saline Facies) and you see different hydrologic behavior in these canyons, fewer and larger springs dominate which strongly implies that the water is collected from a larger catchment. Any management action within these larger catchments will most likely influence these less common points of emergence (this is the assumption). The degree of measurable impact from management actions is unknown. I feel that discussion at either the presentation meeting and ranking meetings to include CRCT is a great way to decide whether it should be removed or remain. Thanks for the comment.
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
So, let me see if I understand. You're not claiming that CRCT will benefit because of the work on the spring, but that the conifer removal will increase the amount of groundwater that feeds both the spring and the streams (both Lake Canyon and Avintaquin Creek?), which do have CRCT. Is that a fair summary?
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryan Engelbert
My interpretation of Ryan's comment was that the benefit was related to the spring work but that could be in err. I'm mostly commenting to inform that the conifer removal is relatively close to the upstream distribution termination point of CRCT populations. Any increase in stable base discharge and moderation of peak flood events would be beneficial to CRCT in SF Avintaquin.
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
That is correct
Comment 01/28/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Bob I think you should add Emergent as a habitat (the wet meadow). Also - is there any little springbrook flowing out of there for a little ways? Or, should / will there be, after restoration, protection, and recovery? In such case I would probably also add Riverine. Even if there are no fish or frogs occupying it, it's a key habitat type in its own right.
Comment 01/28/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Also - no bat or other "little nongame critters" will benefit? Talk with Brian M if you're stuck. Good luck!
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bob Christensen
Thanks for the comment Jimi. Because of degradation at the spring site I added "emergent" as well as the "spotted bat" as you suggested. I think adding "riverine" may be a little bit of a stretch since water from the spring does not flow very far on the surface.
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Ack! Did I say the words Spotted Bat? Backpedal, backpedal!!! Ha ha ha. Really though - I don't see that I did. That particular species is a pretty darn infrequently observed critter, among the least so of all Utah's 18-odd native bat species, as I'm made to understand bats (hardheaded as I can be, a wee little bit does get in). Most Definitely Please ask Brian about bat species. Meanwhile, if you've added Spotted Bat I suggest removing it. Honestly, I would have a broader conversation with Brian about our "bat rotation years", when the next one is, and where the sampling may occur. I think it's a stratified-random draw, grid-cell based thing, and within a drawn grid cell, there's significant discretion on where they can put up their nets or acoustic devices. Alternatively, you might just want some pre / post bat surveys done for this one project, to see if you've done any good for bat use with the project. They need water and I don't think you find them far away from it. But again - please ask Brian! I can promise nothing, and know little more. Good luck!
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bob Christensen
Yes, I agree that the spotted bat appears to be rare in the area, and I will defer to Brian's opinion on it. However, in the past we've had detections of spotted bats in our South Unit, where the project resides. We have a couple published research papers (early 2000's) discussing those detections, and "The Bats of Utah" by Oliver also include the area as habitat for spotted bats. The spotted bat is also a Forest Service sensitive species for the Ashley NF. I am fine with dropping it - We can discuss in our meeting on Monday.
Comment 01/29/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
That sounds perfect. If Brian is there, it would be a great discussion for all attendees to hear. Many of our stream & riparian rehab projects - and potentially, some of the trough / guzzler / pond projects - are surely good for bats and I'm not sure everyone is trying to add them in their project lists. Actually - you know what? The Monday meeting isn't on my calendar. I would love to attend - if you have a sec could you forward me the Zoom link? Thanks!
Comment 02/01/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
This comment has been deleted by author or admin.
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Your "Compliance" section includes information about the arch and NEPA on the lop and scatter portion of the project, but doesn't say anything about the clearances for the stream development. Can you let us know what that portion of the project will require and if those requirements have been met?
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I have updated the Compliance section
Comment 02/08/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
It still looks the same to me. Did you forget to click "save" at the bottom of the page?
Comment 02/08/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
Ok I hit save this time.
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
You don't have anything in the budget and finance sections to show the wetland/spring fence. Can you add that?
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I added budget and finance for the wetlands portion
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I just noticed that portions of this project are cut off along the property boundary between USFS and DWR lands. Did you ever think to reach out to me, or someone else in the division, and see if we would be interested in extending those polygons onto DWR, and perhaps including other areas on DWR property, which would expand the watershed benefits? I'm going to be contracting this one for you, it would have been a simple matter to include DWR lands in with it.
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bob Christensen
I Double checked the map I was using. It shows adjacent ownership as Tribal or Private. However, I know there are some ownership errors on the map I was using. I do see the WRI database shows it as State-wildlife management area. And yes, had I known the error on the map, It would have been good to reach out to the Division.
Comment 02/05/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Bob Christensen
Tory, if you are interested in doing conifer removal on the adjacent State lands that you mentioned, then we can add that into this project proposal - if there is still time, Also, just wanted to iterate that we did reach out to adjacent private land owners when we were putting the NEPA projects together (including this one).
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
9919 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
10444 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Lake/Wetland/Pond Improvements Off/side channel habitat
Project Map
Project Map