Raft River Habitat and Vegetation
Project ID: 7356
Status: Proposed
Fiscal Year: 2026
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Nick Robatcek
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Minidoka Ranger District
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Northern
Description:
Landscape scale treatments of Raft River Mountains in Northern Utah to improve Wildlife Habitat, Riparian corridors, Fishery habitat, Fuels Reduction, and Fire POD enhancement for improved wildfire response.
Location:
Raft River Mountains in Northern Box Elder County, Utah
Project Need
Need For Project:
The purpose and need of the Raft River Habitat Improvement Project is to implement a suite of treatments across the Raft River Mountain range that mimic natural disturbance processes to bolster the ecological balance of the mountain range, provide diversity, and address habitat needs for wildlife like restoration of sage-grouse habitat on encroached sagebrush communities, Mule Deer, Elk and Moose habitat improvement through aspen stand and riparian corridor improvement, Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout habitat improvement with riparian/stream improvement and Beaver Dam Analog (BDA) placement.
Objectives:
1. Increase sage-grouse, Pygmy Rabbit, Mule Deer, and Elk habitat by implementing juniper reduction projects targeting benches and areas that typify sagebrush specific habitat, focusing on Phase 1 and Phase 2 encroached areas where treatments will connect sage-steppe seasonal habitats for sagebrush obligate species. 2. Increase the diversity of seral stages of plant communities such as aspen stands and Pinyon Pine stands across the Raft River Mountains at scales meaningful to target wildlife species like the Pinyon Jay, Moose, Bighorn Sheep, Elk, Lewis's Woodpecker, Little Brown Myotis, Dusky Grouse, Ruffed Grouse, Elk, and Mule Deer by implementing treatments that create a mosaic of age classes across the landscape. 3. Maintain and improve sage-steppe habitat conditions for a myriad of species including species such as sage-grouse, Pygmy Rabbit, mule deer, Elk and other sage-steppe obligate species. 4. Improve the ecological health (i.e. resilience and resistance) of sites currently encroached by juniper to provide for improved conifer (Pinyon Pine), sagebrush, and riparian habitat and reduce the risk of transitioning to an annual grassland in the event of a wildfire. 5. Reintroduce fire on the Raft River Mountains to reduce the risk of uncharacteristically large wildfires by creating vegetation mosaics resistant and resilient to disturbance. 6. Improve fish bearing streams in the Raft River Mountains by reducing the potential for large, high severity fires adjacent to streams that would increase sediment, erosion and debris flow events with reduction of conifer encroachment, and introducing BDA's along stream banks. 7. Improve Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout streams and riparian habitat for Little Brown Myotis, Lewis's Woodpecker, Moose, Elk, Mule Deer, Big Horn Sheep and other ungulates, along with Western Bumble Bee in the Raft River Mountains by implementing treatments that increase deep pool habitat and large woody debris with BDA installation, reduction of conifer encroachment, reestablishment of deciduous vegetation (willow, aspen, cottonwood, shrub spp.) and native perennial species.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Currently Aspen stands are either late seral requiring disturbance to restore the ecological balance of the systems or encroachment is beginning to transition the stands to conifer dominated. Reintroducing fire on the encroached stands will improve the diversity of seral stages among plant communities, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce the risk of uncharacteristic large wildfires. Delaying this project will result in further conifer encroachment/domination which will ultimately lead to losing the aspen clone and transitioning to a mixed conifer vegetation type, higher risk of large wildfires and/or making future treatments more costly. Mountain brush communities require maintenance to reduce the conifer and/or annual invasive encroachment to restore sage-steppe obligate species like sage-grouse, mule deer and others alike. conifer reduction and herbicide application will be primary methods to restore mountain brush communities. Further delay of this project will significantly degrade the ability to restore sage-steppe and mountain brush systems in the future resulting in loss of sage obligate habitats. Riparian corridors have impact to streambanks and perennial flow in the Raft River mountains due to conifer encroachment and reduction of native riparian vegetation. The proposed tiered conifer reduction technique will allow for retention of upland vegetation diversity while reducing the encroachment impact and allowing for reintroduction of riparian vegetation. The Minidoka District has a map of known key species habitats like Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout, Townsend Big Eared Bat, known Sage Grouse Leks, and Pygmy Rabbit observations that will be benefitted from the project (Wildlife Map attached). As seen in the Wildlife Tracker Application (images attached) the proposed treatments will improve much of the observed Elk and Mule Deer habitats (summer and critical winter range) along with migration route improvements. Further delay of this project could cause lingering effects to migration corridors through uncharacteristic large wildfire impact and late seral stage vegetation becoming decadent and no longer sustaining to wildlife. Based on the Wildfire Crisis Strategy Map (attached) if the project is delayed, the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire is very high and could negatively impact much of the landscape's habitat.
Relation To Management Plan:
This project supports the Utah State Wildlife Plans including the Utah Sage-Grouse Plan, the 2015 Sage-Grouse ROD, Utah Mule Deer Plan, Utah Elk Plan, Utah Moose Plan as well as the Sawtooth Forest Plan. The project falls within the collaborative wildfire risk reduction program (high risk area). Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Plan The two primary objectives of this plan: *Maintain and increase sage-grouse populations statewide, and within each SGMA. *Maintain, protect and increase sage-grouse seasonal habitats within SGMA's Conservation Strategies Improve and increase sage-grouse seasonal habitats by 75,000 acres each year, including riparian and mesic habitats. Strategies outlined in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Plan that are addressed in this project: *Strategies to address wildlife *Strategies to address invasive plant species *Strategies to address Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Encroachment Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan (2024) 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. Strategies B: Habitat Management and Conservation Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation of mule deer on a minimum of 600,000 acres of crucial range by 2030 Strategies A: Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative Box Elder Deer Herd Unit Management Plan (2013) Habitat Concerns: Summer range on the Box Elder Unit is mostly at higher elevations in the Sawtooth National Forest and Grouse Creek Mountain Range. Summer range habitat concerns are mainly the loss of forbs and shrubs due to pinyon-juniper encroachment. Additional threats and losses to deer summer and winter range in the West Box Elder area is the reduction in habitat quality due to the loss of critical browse species (sagebrush, bitterbrush etc.). This loss has been attributed to a number of factors such as fire, agriculture, drought etc. However, the abundance of weedy annual grasses and the increase of other invasive weeds are the more likely causes of sagebrush decline. Habitat Management: Contributing factors to the loss of browse species such as the impact of the increase in weedy species, particularly annual grasses, juniper expansion, lack of browse regeneration and other variables are all of concern in the habitat management of the Box Elder Unit. Maintenance and/or enhancement of forage production through direct range improvements throughout summer range and winter range portions must be continued to achieve population management objectives. Working with private and federal agencies to maintain and protect critical and existing summer and winter ranges from future losses, and providing improved habitat security and escapement opportunities for deer must also be continued to achieve population management objectives. Utah Elk Statewide Management Plan (2022) Habitat Objective 1: Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. Strategies B: Habitat Management Strategies C: Habitat Improvement Habitat Objective 2: Reduce Adverse impacts on elk herds and elk habitats Strategies D: Noxious Weed Control Elk Herd Unit Management Plan Box Elder (2023) Habitat Concerns: A large amount of coniferous trees have been dying off and aspen regeneration has been low throughout the summer range. Some natural water sources have also been degraded due to erosion and overuse by livestock. It is possible that excessive conifer growth and tree diseases have led to reduced understory and poor habitat. There is also limited winter range on the subunit (Sawtooth), leading to elk wintering in other areas. Habitat Management: All subunits would benefit from habitat improvements. The goal of habitat improvement should focus on redistributing elk away from agricultural areas and improving rangeland productivity. Subunit 1d (Sawtooth) - Summer range habitat treatments would improve rangeland productivity and allow elk to increase to the population objective. Controlled burns of thick and dead conifer stands would increase understory and allow aspen regeneration to occur. Improving natural water sources would lead to healthy riparian zones for elk to use as well. Utah Moose Statewide Management Plan The primary limiting factor for moose in Utah and across their range is the availability of suitable habitat. Habitat can be degraded, fragmented, or lost to a variety of causes including human development and plant succession. As deciduous forests are converted to coniferous forests, moose habitat is altered and provides less forage. Forest fires and logging can help remove coniferous trees and return the habitat to early successional stages which are beneficial for moose. Habitat Management Goal: Assure sufficient habitat is available to sustain healthy and productive moos populations. Objective: Maintain or enhance the quality and quantity of moose habitat to allow herds to reach population objectives. Strategies: A, E, F,
Fire / Fuels:
Treatments including Cut and Pile, Lop and Scatter, Mastication, Mowing and Burning will reduce risk of larger more severe wildfire and improve potential natural fire control features on the landscape reducing fire risk of the communities of Yost, Lynn, Standrod and inholdings scattered within the forest.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Vegetation management activities in the following HUCs will address water quality; Johnson Creek, George Creek, Clear Creek, Junction Creek, and Dove Creek. By installing BDAs where appropriate in streams and increasing large woody debris within these systems via placement of material. Water quality within the Raft River Mountains will be addressed by implementing treatments that reduce risk of uncharacteristically large wildfires by reducing fuels via thinning, mastication, and application of prescribed fire treatments.
Compliance:
NEPA is projected to be completed and signed before end of January of 2025, only needs for further implementation are remaining acres of cultural surveys, and silvicultural prescriptions.
Methods:
This project utilizes the full suite of treatment tools including hand thinning, mastication, herbicide application, and prescribed fire. * Sage-Steppe and upland habitat treatments will include thinning through hand treatments (lop and scatter & cut and pile), mechanically with mastication followed by native shrub and herbaceous seed application, and prescribed fire implementation to reintroduce disturbance on old, decadent sites. 4161 acres of cut and pile and/or mastication is proposed in sage steppe upland habitats along with 3749 acres of lop and scatter. * Mixed conifer/aspen habitat treatments will comprise hand treatments (lop and scatter & cut and pile), and prescribed fire to promote diversity and initiate primary succession where late seral stands are present. 16,922 acres of prescribed fire is planned, ranging from stand replacing to enhance aspen stands and reset the successional phase, to low intensity under burns to benefit Douglas fir understory, and mosaic landscape burns in sage and upland steppes to provide diverse habitat and landscapes. * Threats to Riparian/riverine habitats will be addressed through collaboration with UDWR and USFS biologist to identify BDA installation where appropriate along 10 miles of Johnson Creek (and tributaries), ~8 miles of Wildcat Creek (and tributaries), ~1 mile of Charleston Creek, ~3 miles of One Mile Creek, and about 2 miles of Clear Creek. Aside from BDA installation, tiered hand treatments (lop and scatter & cut and pile) will occur within the same riparian/riverine corridors which will reduce the conifer (Juniper) encroachment, while retaining upland vegetation, and allowing for native deciduous, herbaceous and woody vegetation to reestablish in riparian steppes. The tiered distances are as follows: 1. First 50 meters from stream bank, 100% of conifer targeted/removed. 2. Next 50 meters, 50% of conifer targeted/removed. 3. Last 50 meters, 25% of conifer targeted/removed. Totaling 150 meters (2765 acres) of conifer encroachment reduction surrounding targeted creeks and tributaries. * Mahogany specific treatments are proposed to address the encroachment of conifer, mainly juniper, on pure stands and out competing the critical winter range habitat. trials with low intensity prescribed fire to expose soil and allow for seed germination with little competition is proposed on 3 units totaling 307 acres. Additional treatments on mahogany stands (2 units, 75 acres) will include different approaches (lop and scatter & cut and pile) to assess and allow for adaptive management changes depending on results from prescribed fire and hand treatments. * POD line improvement through road mowing is proposed in the Clarks Basin area and the Black Hills area of the Range. Fuel reduction of 500 feet on each side of the road will occur in the anticipated areas to reinforce the POD lines, allowing for improved wildfire response and holding features for managing incidents that occur.
Monitoring:
Monitoring will include Sage-Grouse HAF protocol with photo points within sage-steppe environments, aspen stem counts and Mahogany LPI in forested environments combined with photo plots, and collar data on collared Moose, Mule Deer and Elk will be documented. Please see attached monitoring matrix for full monitoring plan for the project, Minidoka Grazing standards and guides (FY24 AOI Attached) from annual AOIs will be used for monitoring and resting areas that need extended resource protection.
Partners:
Partners include Utah DWR, Box Elder CRM, Range Permittees, NRCS, West Dessert District BLM, Utah State University. Utah DWR -- supports project and assisting with identifying critical habitat areas, areas of concern, working together to implement contract and work during implementation. West Box Elder county & Box Elder CRM -- support and approval of project. Proposal to the CRM committee January 14. Range Permittees -- support and willing to adjust rest rotate schedules in AOI, willing to try electronic fence allotment boundaries NRCS -- support and assisting with contacting and coordinating with adjacent land owners and private inholdings with treatment options to benefit habitat and defensible space around private property. West Dessert District BLM Utah State University -- support and interest in species specific management trials, coordinating with staff on monitoring and data analysis of results post treatment. Keystone Partner (PEK Services) -- CWRRP partner assisting with implementation, contract implementation/inspection and capacity.
Future Management:
Post treatment management will largely be focused on changes to grazing rotations and installation of new cattle guards to ensure sufficient vegetation recovery post treatment. Monitoring will be completed to assess recovery and will be objective based to determine when treated areas are suitable for grazing to resume.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The proposed activities will increase habitat suitability for a myriad of species including Mule Deer, Sage-Grouse, Elk, and Moose, forage resources for both wildlife and livestock will be increased as plant communities return to an early seral plant community and the associated values with improved land condition and wildfire populations will support a sustainable use of these resources for recreation, hunting and community use.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$2,202,820.00 $2,330,710.00 $4,533,530.00 $71,000.00 $4,604,530.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Helicopter and fuel truck for prescribed fire. $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Contractual Services Helicopter and fuel truck for prescribed burning $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2028
Personal Services (permanent employee) Overtime and travel for personnel to support prescribed fire. $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 2027
Personal Services (permanent employee) Overtime and travel for prescribed fire. $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 2028
Archaeological Clearance Arch Survey completion on the remaining acres $0.00 $121,400.00 $0.00 2026
Personal Services (permanent employee) Forest Service and PEK Services Inc employees $0.00 $216,000.00 $12,000.00 2026
Materials and Supplies 4 Cattle Guards $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2026
Contractual Services Contract for cut and handpile work: 500 acres. $337,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2026
Contractual Services Contract for Lop and Scatter of 1000 acres $0.00 $150,000.00 $5,000.00 2026
Seed (GBRC) Seed for mastication treatment $80,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Archaeological Clearance Archaeological survey $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 2025
Personal Services (permanent employee) Forest Service and PEK Services Inc employees $0.00 $292,400.00 $12,000.00 2027
Contractual Services Lop and Scatter of 3969 acres, cut and pile 1,200 acres $0.00 $565,350.00 $0.00 2027
Contractual Services Lop and scatter and cut-pile contract contribution $835,320.00 $0.00 $0.00 2028
Contractual Services Contract for cut and handpile: 1040 acres and lop and scatter - 4000 acres $0.00 $593,160.00 $0.00 2028
Personal Services (permanent employee) OT and travel expenses for Prescribed Fire $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Personal Services (permanent employee) OT and travel for prescribed fire $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2028
Contractual Services Lop and scatter and cut-pile contracts contribution $840,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Personal Services (permanent employee) Salary for PEK Services Inc and USFS $0.00 $292,400.00 $12,000.00 2028
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$2,202,820.00 $2,330,710.00 $4,533,530.00 $71,000.00 $4,604,530.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) $970,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
United States Forest Service (USFS) Other funding is BIL/IRA money $0.00 $857,750.00 $27,000.00 2027
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) $885,320.00 $0.00 $0.00 2028
United States Forest Service (USFS) BIL/IRA funding for "Other" $0.00 $487,400.00 $17,000.00 2026
United States Forest Service (USFS) Archaeological Survey $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 2025
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) $307,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2026
Habitat Council Account $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2026
United States Forest Service (USFS) Other funding is BIL/IRA money $0.00 $885,560.00 $27,000.00 2028
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Lewis's Woodpecker N4
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Little Brown Myotis N3
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) Medium
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures High
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes High
Dusky Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Western bumble bee N3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures Unknown
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Medium
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes Unknown
Project Comments
Comment 01/02/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Chante Lundskog
Northern Leatherside Chub do not exist in the Raft River drainage and should be removed as a species that this project is benefiting.
Comment 01/06/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Nick Robatcek
Thank you Chante, we removed the Leatherside Chub from the species list.
Comment 01/23/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Brunson
Our knowledge and experience in these small streams indicate that certain reaches could greatly benefit from LTPBR processes. Charleston Creek contains no fish and although implementing a project here would not benefit any fish species, it would benefit the system by collecting sediments, raising nearby groundwater, and supporting riparian communities. Likewise, the Right Hand Fork of Johnson Creek and One Mile Creek upstream of the confluence with Sawmill Creek would also be good locations for this work. Wildcat Creek has had multiple wildfires over the past two decades and the Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout population is very small and limited to a short reach of stream from 41.907144°N -113.612665°E upstream to 41.902500°N -113.618009°E. BDAs upstream of this reach could collect fine sediments that suffocate fertilized eggs and may greatly benefit the trout in this reach. BDAs placed downstream of the reach are also likely to be beneficial. Planting woody shrubs along the stream could also benefit the trout here. If work is proposed on the main stem of Johnson Creek, UDWR asks to be involved with the locations and numbers of BDAs placed here because this reach is showing an increase of Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout moving throughout the system after the 2011-2014 restoration project. In addition, several beavers have been transplanted in Johnson Creek in recent years.
Comment 02/13/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Nick Robatcek
Thank you, Clint, we are planning to use the LTPBR process while collaborating with UDWR and other partners when implementing the proposed riparian work to improve the riparian communities in the Raft River Mountains. The BDA Locations will be prioritized in Wildcat and Johnson creeks while coordinating with UDWR to identify best placement. Initial amount and locations of BDAs will be estimated and are likely to change due to the impact the initial phases of treatments along the creeks. Woody shrub planting is a thought we have but want to first reduce the conifer encroachment and witness the initial vegetation response. UDWR will be largely involved with the Riparian work throughout this project, and we look forward to collaborating together. Thanks for the comment, Clint.
Comment 02/03/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Emily Bishop
Can you please expand more in your proposal on the BDAs you have proposed? There is hardly any information about them. For example, how many, where they are located (they are not specifically mapped), is there any financial information (whether requesting funding from WRI or getting it elsewhere), have you applied for stream alteration permits yet, etc.
Comment 02/13/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Nick Robatcek
Thank you, Emily, as mentioned in the response for Clint, we are not sure where and how many to place in the treated areas yet until we see the impact from the initial tiered conifer encroachment treatment. After consulting with Shane Hill on this question, we will be looking at 15 -- 30 BDAs within Johnson and Wildcat Creeks and we will update the map with preliminary BDA locations before February 19th. Finance requests are not yet requested for BDA specific work, however that may change in the future. We will be collaborating with UDWR on all BDA installation process and alteration permits when we are closer to the implementation phase of that proposed action. Thank you for the comment, Emily.
Comment 02/11/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Destiny Allgood
Could you explain how prescribed burning in a sage grouse area is beneficial to the sage grouse? Some research shows that sage does not bounce back well after being burned and that regrowth only occurs around a certain diameter from an unburned "parent" plant. The map shows about 16,364 acres being burned and reseeding happening on about 4,000 acres where the burn did not occur. Will you be reseeding on the areas that were burned? How are you going to ensure there is still sufficient sagebrush in this core sage grouse area after burning?
Comment 02/12/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Avery Cook
I had some similar questions on the sagebrush reduction aspects of this project with it being in a PHMA/SGMA. The top of the Raft Rivers is a high resistance and resilience area so there is a good chance that sagebrush will not be permanently lost post fire like we see in some of the lower elevation fires in the area, however a type conversion is still a possibility and loss of sagebrush habitat is not desirable. The area is an important late brood rearing area for the sage-grouse population. Is it possible to move control lines to burn less of the sagebrush? Or to burn in a highly mosaiced pattern that will retain significant sagebrush stands to reseed the area? Could you expand on your objectives used in the future management section to determine grazing deferral periods? I could have missed something but was just seeing utilization percentages in the attached AOI. Are there plans for invasive annual grass monitoring in the burned areas and POD line improvement and resources available to treat if needed? Disturbance associated with other control line improvements in the area have resulted in significant annual grass establishment along roadsides.
Comment 02/12/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Stacy Tyler
Please refer to my reply to Destiny's comment. To expand on your additional questions, the grazing will be managed differently based on treatment and allotment. Some allotments already have rest pastures. Our largest concerns involved protecting investment in seedings and either generating enough aspen regeneration that grazing doesn't have an impact or ensuring that the new shoots reach above hedge height. We are covered under NEPA to do annual grass treatments and have a couple of areas in mind for the project area including the 2018 Raft River Fire scar and areas of the Bally Mountain range. Once those treatments areas are defined we will likely add these to the project for furture consideration.
Comment 02/12/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Stacy Tyler
Prescribed burn units are planned utilizing the most logical areas to contain the burn, including ridgelines and roads. This often includes vegetation that we are not specifically targeting. The goal of the prescribed fire treatments is to restore aspen, and sagebrush will not be targeted. We recognize that fire will spread into some non-target areas, so some sagebrush could be impacted. We've written adaptive management into our NEPA and will do ID Team reviews of treatments annually. While we do not plan to seed the prescribed fire areas, we could complete post-fire treatments (without additional NEPA) to address any unintended outcomes such as loss of any desireable vegetation or treatment of invasives.
Comment 02/12/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Wyatt Freeze
Please don't hesitate to reach out to the Box Elder County Weed Department as this project progresses and comes to fruition. With disturbance comes the potential for new weed infestations, or the growth of current infestations. Species of concern for us that are found in this project's area is scotch thistle and spotted knapweed.
Comment 02/19/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Nick Robatcek
Thank you for your comment Wyatt and we look forward to working with Box Elder Weed Department!
Comment 01/07/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Can you help me understand what the funding source is so I can decide if we need to create a new funding source or use one that we already have set up? Is this USFS funds or are they coming from somewhere else? Do you know if the funds are BIL or IRA or is there some of both? Thanks.
Comment 01/08/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Stacy Tyler
The Sawtooth Forest is in the process of receiving this funding from the USFS WO for a Keystone Agreement. The funding will either be BIL or IRA. I should know which one or if it's both within a few days.
Comment 01/08/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thanks for that. I would just enter it as USFS for now and then if we need to track it separately under a new USFS funding source we can add it at that time.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
3216 Water development point feature Construction Water Control Structure
14623 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Vegetation Improvements Manual removal / hand crew
14634 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
14635 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
14635 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
14636 Terrestrial Treatment Area Prescribed fire Prescribed fire
14637 Terrestrial Treatment Area Mowing Brush hog
14638 Terrestrial Treatment Area Prescribed fire Prescribed fire
14670 Terrestrial Treatment Area Mowing Brush hog
14670 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-helicopter)
14670 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
Project Map
Project Map