Monroe Mountain Project by Tom Tippets, UGIP
-
Upload
utah-section-society-for-range-management -
Category
Sports
-
view
355 -
download
8
description
Transcript of Monroe Mountain Project by Tom Tippets, UGIP
ASPEN Intact aspen stands are among the
most prolific producers of livestock and wildlife forage (grasses, forbs, shrubs, and young aspens) in the Intermountain West.
ASPEN However, aspen has decreased
throughout the Intermountain West during the 20th century, and aspen-dominated acreage within the national forests of Utah has declined by 50% or more in recent decades (Bartos 2000).
FUNCTIONING ASPEN STAND
Multi-Aged stand
Productive understory with forbs, grasses, and young aspen
ASPEN STAND NOT RECRUITING
CONIFER ENCROACHED ASPEN STAND
Estimate loss of 1% per year
Total loss of 10,000 acres
8,000,000 lbs. of forage production
Forest Restoration Working Group
A collaborative group formed for the purpose of reaching consensus on critical forest issues primarily affecting National Forest lands in Utah.
Under no illusion that this document will solve all aspen problems, however, theguidelines present a progressive range of alternatives, prior considerations, andmonitoring elements that will greatly aid forest managers in making difficult landuse decisions regarding aspen communities in Utah
MONROE MOUNTAIN WORKING GROUPForest Restoration Working Group was looking for a place to “test-drive” the Guidelines.
Jason Kling, Forest Ranger for the Fishlake National Forest invited a collaborative group to work on Monroe Mountain
April 2011 the first meeting was held and has met every month since, including a 3-day field trip of the mountain.
Co-chairs are Bill Hopkin of Utah Department of Agriculture and Food Mary O’Brian of Grand Canyon Trust.
Participants includeKim Chapman, Verl Bagley and Jody Gale of USU Extension
John Keeler of Utah Farm BureauKevin Mueller of Utah Environmental Congress
Rayne Bagley and Will Talbot - Livestock producers and Premittees on MonroeTooter Ogden and Travis Blood - Sevier and Piute County Commissioners
Paul Rogers of Western Aspen AllianceVance Mumford and Gary Bezzan of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Tom Tippets of Grazing Improvement Program And Several from Fishlake National Forest serving in a technical advisory role
BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’SON MONROE MOUNTAIN
Sheep AUM's Cattle AUM's
1910 8,513 14,851
1920 7,501 14,020
1930 6,373 5,887
1940 5,446 4,664
1950 2,935 6,126
1960 3,424 4,754
1970 2,584 5,186
1980 2,124 6,877
1990 2,121 6,458
2000 1,763 7,731
2010 1,780 7,750
BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’SON MONROE MOUNTAIN
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
Cattle AUM'sSheep AUM's
BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’SON MONROE MOUNTAIN
Sheep AUM's Cattle AUM's Mule Deer AUM's Elk AUM's
1910 8,513 14,851
1920 7,501 14,020
1930 6,373 5,887 3,685
1940 5,446 4,664 8,597
1950 2,935 6,126 8,597
1960 3,424 4,754 21,016
1970 2,584 5,186 16,785 257
1980 2,124 6,877 12,145 2,573
1990 2,121 6,458 9,143 5,146
2000 1,763 7,731 10,781 9,133
2010 1,780 7,750 6,687 5,403
BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’SON MONROE MOUNTAIN
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
Elk AUM'sMule Deer AUM's
BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’SON MONROE MOUNTAIN
1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20100
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Elk AUM'sMule Deer AUM'sCattle AUM'sSheep AUM's
GRAZING DIDN’T GET US HERE
Lack of disturbance got us here.
But now, when there is a disturbance,
(fire or logging) Grazing is a major factor in the success or failure of recruitment of the Aspen stand
We Know that when Aspen (or Aspen dominated by Spruce and Fir) is disturbed it responds with a flush of new growth (regeneration).