THE UNCOMPAHGRE PLATEAU PROJECT BEGINNING OF THE UP PARTNERSHIP Long term sustainable health of the land is likely to be better served with a cooperative and economically viable collaboration of partners. The USFS, BLM and CDOW began meeting in 1998 to address the Plateau’s declining mule population from a habitat perspective and the Uncompahgre Mule Deer Project was born. It soon became apparent that mule deer were simply an indicator of a larger ecosystem issue problem. The Mule Deer Project evolved into the Uncompahgre Ecosystem Restoration Project as the agencies began meeting with the PLP and discussing the formation of a partnership to address mutual interests and concerns. In 2001, the partnership was formalized and the Uncompahgre Ecosystem Restoration Project (UERP) was shortened to UP, the Uncompahgre Plateau Project. The PLP was interested in working with the Forest Service on revisions to the Forest Plan and trying to determine how communities, especially loggers and ranchers, could be a part of and benefit economically from the management activities occurring on the Plateau. PLP received a Ford Foundation grant to further these social, economic and restoration objectives through collaborative demonstration projects. Although the agencies and PLP’s interests were somewhat different, they had much in common. Parallel values and desires to improve the condition of the Plateau while providing sustainable cultural, social, economic and ecological values to the communities were compatible and led to a partnership. It simply made good sense for people to communicate and work together in a collaborative fashion. The PLP will continue to emphasize social and economic benefits from ecological restoration and work to coordinate demonstration projects with UP. In turn, the agencies will focus on ecosystem restoration and land health, but also understand and support the need for social and economic values to the communities resulting from natural resource management on the Uncompahgre Plateau.

THE UP PARTNERS The Uncompahgre Plateau Project consists of four partners: The USFS, BLM, CDOW and PLP (Appendix 6). A Cooperative Agreement/Memorandum of Understanding (CA/MOU) executed in 2001 formalized the relationship between the partners. The agreement was signed by the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado State Director of the BLM, the Regional Forester for the USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region, and the President of Uncompahgre/Com, Inc., a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation created by the PLP. The CA/MOU expires on December 31, 2006 at which time it is subject to review and renewal or expiration.

20

The CA/MOU defines the partners, their intent, and their mutual benefits and interests. It also establishes the framework for UP and defines the roles and representatives of the Executive and Technical Committees.

UP EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Executive Committee (EC) is comprised of the Colorado State Director of the BLM, the Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region of the USFS, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the President of Uncompahgre/Com. Inc., or their designees. The EC is responsible for final approval of the UP Plan and for annually reviewing project progress and addressing future resource commitments by each partner.

UP TECHNICAL COMMITTEE The UP Technical Committee (UTC) is the working group and backbone of the UP Partnership. Each partner has representatives on the UTC. Their role is to promote collaboration and interagency/community cooperation to achieve the goals of UP. The Technical Committee meets monthly to handle coordination of activities, meet with outside members, review project requests, and recommend budgeting and project approvals. Each committee member is a liaison for their organization and takes information back to their organization for review and approval. The UTC holds regular public meetings (Collaborative Council/Community Meetings) to establish goals, strategies and plans for developing projects.

UP COORDINATORS The UP partnership hired four outside contractors to coordinate a variety of programs. A Public Education/Outreach Coordinator (PEC) and a Technical Coordinator (TC) were hired in May 2001. Financial and Grant Writer Coordinators (FC and GC) were hired in 2002. The PEC is responsible for public education and outreach programs and providing information and learning tools for the community and partners. The financial coordinator is responsible for financial record keeping, bill paying, contracting with outside contractors and helping with day to day business needs. The grant coordinator works with the partners seeking grant opportunities and writing and applying for grants. These positions are all contracted by Unc/Com, Inc. The UTC oversees the duties of the Technical Coordinator, whose responsibility is to coordinate the overall project and work with the PLP and Unc/Com, Inc. in concert with the other three coordinators. The coordinators work as a team to mesh the overall activities of the partners and community for the UP Partnership.

21

THE ROLE OF UP The primary role of UP is to help coordinate and facilitate restoration activities on the Uncompahgre Plateau. UP does not pre-empt, override, or dictate management on any federal, state, or private lands. The specific roles of UP include: • • • • • • • • •

Help implement and integrate restoration activities from a landscape perspective across administrative and land-ownership boundaries utilizing an adaptive management approach. Help reduce the “red-tape” required to implement restoration projects. Obtain and provide funding for restoration efforts on the Uncompahgre Plateau. Identify research needs and assist with funding for restoration-related research studies on the Uncompahgre Plateau. Develop guidelines for prioritizing, designing, monitoring, and evaluating restoration projects and implementing projects within the framework of the UP Partnership and goals and regulations of the partners. Act as a central clearinghouse and repository for restoration information. Provide a forum for public input, information, and education that transcends agency, administrative, and ownership boundaries. Encourage the use of local labor in all facets of planning, analysis, implementation and monitoring. Develop sustainable natural resource products for the local economies.

THE COLLABORATIVE APPROACH The often conflicting demands on public lands and natural resources have resulted in natural resource management becoming “conflict management”. While the public is applying pressure on management agencies to do a better job of managing public lands, the amount of money and resources spent on planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, and litigation is leaving less resources for fundamental, on-the-ground resource management. Public land management often evokes the image of “analysis paralysis”. Resolving this paralysis is of utmost importance to resolve conflict, better utilize agency personnel, reduce waste of public funds, and do a better job of communicating and working with the communities while managing the public’s natural resources. The foundation for UP is to develop strong communication, collaborative learning and partnerships among the agencies and community and to be more effective in managing landscapes on an ecosystem basis. Collaborative Learning (CL) as defined by Daniels and Walker is a: • Philosophy that values change, creativity and innovation. • Framework that guides appropriate application. • Set of techniques that generate learning, improvements and action. Collaborative Learning Goal: • Making meaningful durable decisions in the face of complexity and conflict.

22

Collaborative Learning Philosophy: • Important decisions must be made in the face of core differences in goals, values and opinions. • The task is to manage conflict, not resolve it. • Consensus is not the only metric of progress or satisfaction. • Improvements are often more feasible than solutions. • Improved decisions result from improved learning. • Emphasize situation versus problem. • Stress improvement versus solution. • Focus on concerns and positions versus positions. • Seek desirable, feasible, and viable change versus. By using a collaborative approach, the UP Partnership hopes to balance economic, cultural, social and ecological values in the restoration of the Uncompahgre Plateau. UP strives to use the best science available to develop and implement a plan for sustainable natural resource management on the Plateau. UP will also use the strength of the partnership to help obtain funding for ecosystem restoration on public and private lands through agency and outside grant funds.

COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The UP process centers on community involvement. The Plateau ecosystem functions as a whole irrespective of administrative or land ownership boundaries. It is essential to maintain the health of the Plateau to sustain wildlife, tourism, recreation, livestock production, silviculture, aesthetics, water quality and quantity and other attributes that are integral parts to life in Western Colorado.

PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS The Collaborative Council (CC) developed as a forum for community participation and involvement in the UP partnership. The CC consists of a diverse array of concerned citizens and interest groups. It is open to all that desire to participate in the UP process. CC meetings help to inform and update the public, obtain information (local and traditional knowledge) and recommendations from community members, develop community visions, address concerns and issues related to the Uncompahgre Plateau, and discuss and generate specific UP projects and actions. CC meetings are held throughout the year in different locations around the Plateau as an effort to enhance the role of citizens in federal and state lands and management decisions. In addition, field trips and information and educational presentations are made to view restoration needs, efforts and information first hand. In addition to the broader CC meetings, UP will seek input from Geographic Focus Groups (GFGs). The purpose of GFG’s is to bring together affected interests and address management and restoration activities in specific areas on the Plateau. GFG’s will typically work on the 5th level watersheds.

23

Other venues to become involved or provide input on the project include: • Personal contact with any of the PLP, BLM, CDOW and USFS members. • Submitting comments to the UP email address at: [email protected]. • Sending comments to UP at: UP, 2300 South Townsend, Montrose, CO 81401 • Calling the UP information line at: 970-252-6002. This is an information line. Calls will be directed to the person, organization or agency that can best assist you with your question or input. • Contacting the Public Education and Outreach Coordinator: Daniela Howell @ 970-2490353, email [email protected] or the Technical Coordinator: Rick Sherman @ 970249-6154, email [email protected]

COMMUNITY-BASED INFORMATION & EDUCATION PLAN Providing information, education and outreach to the community and partners are high priorities for the Uncompahgre Plateau Project. The Public Lands Partnership hired a Public Education and Outreach Coordinator (PEC) to develop an Information and Education Plan. The plan outlines UP’s principal communication and education objectives, methods to be used to accomplish the communication objectives, and a list of key contacts and target audiences. The education program is designed to provide educational opportunities to assist the community in helping the partnership make informed decisions. Letters were sent out to the community providing information about UP and inviting them to a community meeting. More details on the information and education program can be found in Appendix 7. For immediate information on UP, please feel free to visit the UP website at: www.UPproject.org.

CURRENT INFORMATION, RESEARCH AND PROJECTS CURRENT INFORMATION A variety of information necessary to guide ecosystem restoration on the Uncompahgre Plateau is available or being developed. Current efforts are focusing on identifying and filling information gaps. Most of the information currently available is in the form of scientific studies, history books, management plans, environmental assessments, aerial photographs, satellite imagery, maps, GIS layers, and the local knowledge within the community (Appendix 8).

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) DATA During the past year, a comprehensive effort has been made to compile, format, integrate, and interpret GIS data among the CDOW, USFS, BLM, and others (Appendix 9). The maps illustrated in Appendix 1 are a result of this effort. Current and past vegetative treatments, such as prescribed fires, roller-chopping, chaining, plowing, seeding, spraying etc. are shown in Appendix 1, Map G. Complete historic records for timber harvests and some of the other treatments have been difficult to retrieve. Efforts to 24

collate and digitize this information are on-going. Evaluation of past treatment sites is important for understanding the sequence of vegetative changes that occur following treatment. The UP area is divided into 23 principal (5th level) watersheds. Watershed management is the foundation for ecosystem management. Events occurring at the top of drainage can affect the entire watershed. All restoration efforts need to carefully consider this fact during project planning. Precipitation information, Appendix 1, Map H, is critical to understanding the type of treatment, seed mixture, timing and site potential for success when planning a vegetative restoration project. The history of management actions across the Plateau is very important to develop an understanding of resource issues, commercial and community values and opportunities to learn from prior vegetative disturbance. Map G shows locations of the various types of management actions occurring on the Plateau. Timber harvests, prescribed fires, chainings, contouring, roller chops, etc. are shown on this map. This information is a cornerstone for monitoring and developing future restoration actions based on historic management outcomes. A number of sensitive areas are found throughout the Plateau (Appendix 1, Map I). These locations are identified as special management areas to protect a variety of resources including sensitive, threatened or endangered species habitats; wilderness or road-less areas, unique ecological sites, and energy transmission corridors. Proprietary cultural and paleontological sites are not included on the maps to protect these areas from vandalism. Sustaining farming and ranching within the UP area is an important UP objective. Knowledge of grazing allotments is important to identify opportunities to work with livestock permittees in restoration efforts. Grazing allotment maps and data on federal lands were produced by the Public Lands Partnership, working with the American Farmland Trust and Adaptive Mapping Systems (Appendix 1, Map E). Roads are a significant disturbance on the Plateau landscape and fragment natural ecosystem functions and processes. Roads can change surface run-off, create fire breaks for wildfires, increase soil disturbance and erosion, affect water quality, fragment wildlife habitat, and provide a seed bed for noxious weeds. Appendix 1, Map F shows the road locations. Mule deer were the initial focus for the founding of UP. Appendix 1, Map J and page J-1 delineate and define important winter concentration areas for mule deer. A decline in vegetative quality and quantity in the mule deer winter range is a major concern to UP. Soils information is paramount to understanding natural processes, site potential and for planning restoration efforts. Soils have been mapped for six geographic units on the Plateau (Appendix 1, Map K). However, the format of the information is not GIS friendly, and UP has not had the resources to digitize this information. Development of a quality soils map is an anticipated product for UP integrating data from the NRCS, USFS and BLM.

25

Understanding the history, occurrence regime, intensity and size of natural fires is very important for ecosystem restoration. UP has digitized recorded natural fires on the Plateau (Appendix 1, Map L) and supported two fire history studies in the ponderosa pine and pinyon/juniper vegetation zones. Updating and expanding this information into a comprehensive data base will help UP managers better understand natural processes, current conditions and information needs for planning restoration projects. The GIS maps will provide a baseline for management decisions. Identification of unknown information and data gaps is underway and will be a continuing process as we learn more about the restoration process. Additional maps and information are available in the Uncompahgre Plateau Landscape Assessment report.

LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT A Landscape Assessment (LA) for the Uncompahgre Plateau is currently underway. The LA will identify and analyze key ecosystem processes involving the overall health of the Plateau. The purpose of the LA is to characterize the dominant physical, biological and human processes of the landscape that affect the condition and function of the land. Data bases will be compiled, synthesized, and analyzed using current scientific and GIS information available for the Plateau. Land health will be analyzed and priority areas identified for restoration needs. Information gaps will be identified to determine where additional science and information is needed to make better informed decisions. It is an important first step in identifying and prioritizing restoration opportunities and will assist with the development of management plans including the revision of the GMUG Forest Plan (see below). The LA will serve as a foundation of information for decision making. The LA will be enhanced by new research findings, project development, monitoring and analysis.

GMUG FOREST PLAN REVISION The Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests (GMUG NF) are in the process of revising the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This revision updates the initial plan developed in 1983, along with revisions done in 1991 and 1993. The Revised Forest Plan will include the development of: 1) desired conditions, 2) objectives, 3) standards, 4) land suitability determinations, 5) special area designations and recommendations, and 6) monitoring and evaluation requirements. The Plan is being revised to: 1) incorporate new research and scientific recommendations, 2) address new laws, regulations and policies, and 3) address changes in demand for various outputs, values and outcomes. The current Plan lacks adequate direction for using wildfire and prescribed fire for resource benefits, controlling noxious weeds and maintaining forest vegetative health, and protecting in-stream flow values. One of the Geographic Assessment Areas being addressed in the Forest Plan Revision encompasses the UP area. UP and the USFS are co-facilitating community meetings, known as the Uncompahgre Working Group, to develop community partners and to obtain input for both projects. The joint meetings are being held to be more efficient with public and agency time and to make the projects more timely and cost effective.

26

FIRE HISTORY STUDIES Two fire history studies are being conducted to determine the occurrence, interval, intensity, extent, and distribution of fires on the Uncompahgre Plateau. This knowledge will be used to help determine how historic fires have affected the vegetation and other resources on the Plateau and how restoration efforts can more closely replicate natural processes.

Montane Zone Fire History Fire history in the ponderosa pine community of the Plateau is being studied by the USDA Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, CO. Funding: USFS. Completion date: December 2002. Principal researcher: Dr. Wayne Sheppard, USDA.

Pinyon-Juniper Zone Fire History Research into the age structure and fire history of the Plateau’s PJ zone is being conducted by the University of Colorado. Funding: Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), University of Colorado. Completion date: Spring 2003. Principal researcher: Karen Eisenhart, PhD candidate, University of Colorado.

LANDSCAPE DYNAMICS MODEL A Landscape Dynamics Model is being developed to predict the normal range of variation in vegetative communities on the Plateau. The model will help managers better understand plant community dynamics on the Plateau and will be used to determine how predicted vegetative changes resulting from various management options compare to natural, historic ranges of variation. Funding: USFS, Colorado State University, University of Massachusetts. Completion date: 2003. Principal researchers: Dr. Bill Romme, CSU; Dr. Kevin McGarigal, U of M.

NATIVE PLANT RESTORATION OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS In the summer of 2002, the University of Wyoming (UW) began a study to determine opportunities and constraints for native plant restoration on the Uncompahgre Plateau. This study will focus on the flora of the pinyon-juniper and sagebrush ecosystems. Data to be collected include an inventory of plant species and tree age structure at selected sites across the Plateau. The data will be used to determine how the current flora varies across the Plateau, how the flora in disturbed areas differs from the flora of comparatively undisturbed reference areas, and what the seeding gaps are, given these differences. The age structure of woodlands will be evaluated to determine the extent of tree density increases and tree invasions since EuroAmerican settlement, and to what extent restoration is needed. Data on the potential threat from

27

exotic plants will be used, along with other information, in developing a set of possible restoration goals and seeding needs for the pinyon-juniper and sagebrush ecosystems. Funding: BLM, UW. Completion date: 2005. Principal researchers: Dr. Bill Baker and Doug Shinneman, UW; Peggy Lyon, Colorado Natural Heritage Program.

MULE DEER STUDIES Since 1997, the CDOW has conducted several mule deer research projects on the Uncompahgre Plateau. The purpose of this research has been to more accurately estimate population numbers, to better understand population dynamics, and to determine why deer numbers steadily declined during the 1990’s. These studies have been designed to provide a complete picture of the deer recruitment cycle from conception to adulthood.

Annual Adult and Winter Fawn Survival Rates and Cause-specific Mortality. Since December 1997, the CDOW has equipped over 600 deer on the Plateau with radiotransmitters to determine annual survival rates of bucks and does and survival rates of fawns from mid-December to mid-June. This information is being used along with mid-December sex and age data, aerial quadrat counts, and hunter harvest data to more accurately model the population. Cause of mortality is also being determined to evaluate the role of predator versus non-predator causes of mortality. Funding: CDOW, Mule Deer Foundation, and Safari Club International. Completion date: On-going. Principal researcher: Dr. Bruce Watkins, CDOW.

Pregnancy and Fetal Rates In February 1999, the CDOW determined pregnancy and fetal rates of mule deer on the Uncompahgre Plateau using ultrasound techniques and blood testing. This information provides a baseline for evaluating the potential productivity of the Uncompahgre deer population. Funding: CDOW. Completion date: 1999. Principal researcher: Thomas M. Pojar, CDOW.

Summer Fawn Survival Rates and Cause-specific Mortality In June 1999, the CDOW began a study of fawn survival and causes of mortality between birth and mid-December. This study allows a relative assessment of the importance of summer fawn mortality versus winter fawn mortality. It also will provide information on predator versus non-predator causes of mortality. Funding: CDOW. Completion date: September 2002. Principal researcher: Thomas M. Pojar, CDOW.

Effects of Winter Nutrition Enhancement on Deer Survival Rates and Recruitment

28

In December 2000, the CDOW began an experiment to determine if the nutritional quality of winter habitat on the Uncompahgre Plateau is a key factor limiting mule deer fawn survival and recruitment. Using supplemental feeding of does in two locations on the Plateau during winter in a crossover design, this study will evaluate the effect of enhanced nutrition of does during winter and early spring on subsequent mid-December fawn/doe ratios and over-winter fawn survival. Another aspect of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of utilizing ultrasound techniques and vaginal implant transmitters in adult does to measure fetus mortality and to locate and capture neonate fawns born from specific does. An objective of this part of the study is to investigate how fetal and neonatal survival rates are affected by the nutrition level of does during winter. Funding: CDOW, Mule Deer Foundation, and Habitat Partnership Program. Completion date: 2004. Principal researchers: Chad Bishop, CDOW and Dr. Gary White, Colorado State University (CSU).

Effects of Habitat Manipulations on Survival and Recruitment The second phase of the CDOW’s nutrition enhancement study is to determine whether habitat on the Uncompahgre Plateau can be manipulated in a manner that actually benefits mule deer populations. If winter nutrition appears to be a critical limiting factor of the deer population, habitat quality will be manipulated in an attempt to replicate the effect of enhanced nutrition from supplemental feeding. Funding: CDOW. Completion date: 2010. Principal researchers: Chad Bishop, CDOW; Dr. Gary White, CSU.

The Potential Role of Infectious Disease Investigations into the possible role of infectious disease in the Uncompahgre deer population began in 1999. In 1999, 200 hunter-killed deer from the Uncompahgre region were tested for chronic wasting disease. In 2000 and 2001, blood samples were taken from deer captured during December to determine the sero-prevalence of antibodies for bovine viral diarrhea, epizootic hemorrhagic disease, and bluetongue. In 1999-2001, neonatal fawn mortalities were tested for several viruses and enteric pathogens. Funding: CDOW. Completion date: Summer 2002. Principal researchers: Dr. Erin Myers, MS Candidate, Colorado State University; Dr. Mike Miller, CDOW.

The Role of Habitat in the Decline of Mule Deer A study of landscape changes on the Uncompahgre Plateau and Piceance Basin and their potential impact on mule deer was recently completed One aspect of this research was to analyze and compare historic and recent aerial photographs to evaluate how vegetative communities have changed on a landscape scale during the 20th century. Another aspect was to use historic grazing exclosures to evaluate how grazing has affected plant community development in several sagebrush-dominated habitat types distributed around the western slope. Three of the historic exclosures used in this assessment are located on or near the Uncompahgre Plateau. Funding: CSU, CDOW, Natural Resource Ecology Lab (NREL). Completion date: 2003. Principal researchers: Dr. Dan Manier, NREL, CSU; Dr. N. Thompson Hobbs, CDOW and NREL; Dr. David M. Theobald, NREL.

29

GUNNISON SAGE GROUSE STUDY The Gunnison sage grouse has been designated as a candidate species for listing under the US Endangered Species Act. Remnant populations of Gunnison sage grouse are known to occur in at least two areas on the Uncompahgre Plateau. The CDOW began a study of seasonal habitat use, movements, and dispersal by Gunnison sage grouse in the spring of 2002. Birds will be trapped, radio-collared, and monitored on the Plateau as well as other areas. Funding: USFWS, CDOW. Completion date: 2004. Principal researcher: Dr. Tony Apa, CDOW.

NATIVE PLANT PRODUCTION The use of native plants in restoration is a priority for UP. Upcoming studies by Baker, Shinneman and Lyon will provide information on occurrence and distribution of native species in the PJ and sagebrush zones, but similar efforts are necessary in the other Plateau zones. To expand our knowledge about native plants and to assess the potential for locally producing native seeds, UP has been working with a variety of partners including BLM and USFS ecologists, botanists and range management specialists, the Upper Colorado Environmental Plant Center (UCEPC) at Meeker, the USDA Shrub Science Laboratory in Provo, Utah, the University of Wyoming, Colorado State University Extension and Research, the Colorado Natural Heritage Program, and the BLM National Native Plant Development Program (NPDP) in Washington, DC. In addition to learning more about native species, this group is developing a priority list of native grasses, forbs, and shrubs to be used in the restoration efforts in the PJ zone. Current, commercial sources of native seeds are often inadequate to supply the necessary species or quantities needed by land managers for restoration efforts. In addition, some plant species could have local ecotypes that are better suited to the Uncompahgre Plateau than commercially available ecotypes from another region. UP supports the sustainability of agriculture in the local communities and is looking at opportunities for local growers to produce native seeds. To this end, UP is working with UCEPC, CSU Research and Extension, and the BLM NPDP. Initial efforts have focused on developing a list of producible forbs and grasses and research needs to begin growing foundation seeds for growers. These efforts are supported by a recent grant from the BLM NPDP.

NATIONAL FIRE PLAN As a result of catastrophic fires in the Western United States in 1999 and 2000, Congress enacted legislation and funding for the development of a National Fire Plan. The purpose of the plan is to use public education and fuels reductions programs on federal, state, and private lands to reduce the occurrence of catastrophic fires. The BLM and USFS, in cooperation with the Colorado State Forest Service, counties, and the Resource, Conservation and Development Program (RC&D) are working on programs to implement the National Fire Plan in this area. Record setting fires in 2002 have re-enforced the need to return fire and other restoration efforts to the landscape to reduce un-natural fuels build up due to long term fire suppression. UP 30

intends to integrate these fuels reduction programs into the broader ecosystem restoration efforts through education, partnerships and working with industries that can provide innovative restoration tools that also help sustain local economic values.

PROGRAMS UNDER DEVELOPMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT MODELING Archaeological protection is required under the Antiquities Act. Any project on federal lands or using federal dollars that could potentially disturb or destroy archaeological sites must be preceded by an archaeological inventory and assessment. Cost and efforts for meeting these requirements are high. To help meet these requirements the BLM, USFS and Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) archaeologists are working with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office to acquire funding to develop a model for more effectively addressing the protection of archaeological sites and doing cultural clearances.

RE-VEGETATION PLAN A comprehensive vegetation plan is being developed for the Plateau. The plan will identify desired vegetative age structure and mosaic by watersheds and recommend prescribed treatments, native seed mixtures and application techniques based on site potential, soils, precipitation, slope, aspect and elevation. Considerations of noxious weeds and/or invasive nonnatives will receive priority in vegetative management planning.

SEED STORAGE & PROCESSING FACILITY The development and utilization of native seeds is a priority for restoration efforts. Opportunities exist to assist the local agricultural industry develop native seed growing programs. This will require the development of foundation seed which will then be grown by producers. Development and utilization of native seeds will require having a facility and staff to store, mix, and process seeds. Proper temperature and humidity are necessary to maintain seed viability during storage. UP is looking at possibilities for developing such a facility. A possible site is at the Upper Colorado Environmental Plant Center, located at Meeker, Colorado, which has a professional, experienced staff and the environmental conditions to minimize costs for operating such a facility. This facility would be used for a variety of other private and agency projects working with the development and use of native plants. The location could serve Colorado and possibly some of the nearby states.

31

IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL INFORMATION GAPS UP is committed to basing restoration efforts on a solid foundation of community input and scientific information. Much is known about the status of the biological and physical features of the plateau; however, there is much to be learned. The Landscape Assessment, current and future research projects, management plans, community input and partnership efforts will be used to identify information gaps. Management efforts will be monitored as a learning tool to measure successes or failures and to direct efforts for additional information needs. Scientific research and continual learning will be critical as the project adapts to new information and changes in management practices. The need for additional information will be ongoing as we continue to learn about restoring the ecosystem.

COMMUNITY INFORMATION NEEDS Any successful restoration effort on the Uncompahgre Plateau must incorporate local knowledge, needs, and desires. It is critical to establish a community vision of what the Plateau should look like, how it should function, how it should be managed, and how its resources should be used. The future success of UP depends on the continued interest, support, and involvement of the community.

SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION NEEDS • • • • • • • • • • • • •

A vegetation plan including vegetation data for each identified strata of the Plateau. Identification and prioritization of restoration sites, site potential, treatment timing and methods. Identification of specific seeding recommendations including seed mixes, timing, application rates and procedures. Identification of what treatment size is necessary to achieve desired landscape results. Develop a better understanding of water yield, quality and watershed management under natural and management conditions. A delineation of stream, riparian, wetland, riverine, pond and reservoir distribution, condition, and restoration potential. A comprehensive inventory of the flora and fauna of the Plateau. A complete inventory of habitats for the Colorado River Cutthroat Trout along with a recovery management plan. An understanding of how the Colorado River T & E Recovery Program is affecting other species along the main stem rivers. A better understanding of how physical changes and human activities (i.e., roads, pipelines, power-lines, fences, ditches, traffic, hunting, hiking, woodcutting, grazing, etc) fragment wildlife communities and ecosystem processes. An understanding of the impact of water diversions on natural watersheds. A better understanding of how logging and grazing can be used as management tools for restoration. A cost effective process for addressing archaeological issues prior to treatments.

32

• •

A comprehensive understanding of soils composition, distribution and detailed site potential considering precipitation regimes, slope, aspect and elevation. Develop a better understanding of the role of fire in vegetative communities, seral stages and mosaic.

TOOLS AND METHODS Ecosystem restoration will require a variety of tools to create the desired UP goals for landscape vegetative mosaic and species/age class diversity. Each tool and the manner it is used will create a specific result or anticipated product. Tools for restoration fall under four basic categories, 1) Mechanical Methods, 2) Prescribed Fire, 3) Prescribed Grazing, 4) Chemical Treatment and 5) Biological. Project objectives, site conditions, weather, cost, tool availability, public opinion, archaeological sites, state and federal laws and policy are the primary considerations in selecting the appropriate tool. Because fire is the primary natural disturbance factor on the Uncompahgre Plateau, in most cases it would be the preferred tool if conditions are acceptable for either managed wildfire or prescribed fire. When fire is judged too risky or ineffective under acceptable prescriptions, one of the other treatment tools could be very effective in meeting resource objectives. Properly used, mechanical, chemical, livestock grazing and native plant treatments could be successful in achieving vegetative objectives to increase plant diversity, control noxious weeds, improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for wildlife and livestock, and create the desired mosaic. Following is a description and discussion of the major tools for consideration including its description, operation, cost, and constraints:

MECHANICAL METHODS Roller Chopping The roller chopper is a large steel cylindrical drum, equipped with several blades protruding 12-14 inches along the entire width. It is towed behind a crawler-type tractor to knock down and break up mature vegetation. It is frequently used in mature or midaged pinyon-juniper and shrub stands, on slopes less that 15 percent with a limited amount of shelf-rock or large rocks or boulders. Roller chopping can be done anytime the soil is firm and dry enough to support the heavy equipment. Results are best when done in cold weather. A single roller chopper can treat 15-25 acres a day, depending on its width, and the type of vegetation and terrain involved. Seeding with native species is recommended and can be done behind the cat or applied aerially before the project.

33

Hydro-Ax The Hydro-Ax is a large articulated tractor with a 6-8 foot wide, hydraulically controlled mower/mulcher head mounted on the front. The machine has rubber, flotation-type tires which result in minimal ground disturbance. A single machine can treat up to 20 acres per day and can operate on slopes up to about 20 percent. The machine has the capability of being highly selective and can meander through a stand of trees removing selected trees, or patches to create a desired mosaic. The machine chops and mulches the plant material into the desired size, which can range from fist-size to 3-4 foot long sections or larger. Stump height can be controlled, and may vary from below ground level to any desired heights. It can operate on most ground surface conditions, including rather large sized rocks. The Hydro-Ax head is lifted above the tree or shrub top and lowered quickly, usually completely chopping the plant in less than 15 seconds. The Hydro-Ax is used in most vegetative types including mountain shrub, and pinyon/juniper stands with stem diameters up to 15-18 inches. Seeding with native species is recommended with the operation or as an aerial application prior to treatment.

Fecon Flail The Fecon Flail is a “track hoe” equipped with a 3 to 6 foot wide by 2 foot diameter drum on the end of the boom that is used to chop/grind the vegetation. The flail is used in most vegetation types, from sagebrush to larger pinyon-juniper trees. Estimated production per day is 4-6 acres when clear cutting, depending on the nature of the project. It can be used on fairly steep slopes and with great precision. The most detailed mosaics can be created. It can chop vegetation into very small pieces and thus, can be used in a manner that will avoid damage to nearby houses and other structures. Seeding can be done with the operation, or aerially applied before treatment.

Dixie Harrow The “Dixie Harrow” consists of a large spike tooth harrow pulled by a 4-wheel drive rubber tired tractor equipped with a three-point hitch. The Dixie harrow can be used in sagebrush or other small shrub stands and offers a high degree of control with results similar to fire. Factors such as the pattern of treatment, residual density of sagebrush, seeding, and timing all can be controlled. In most cases a once over treatment will reduce big sage by 50-60%, and a twice over treatment will result in a 90-95% reduction. Seeding may be done by casting the seed from a “whirly bird” seeder mounted to the front of the tractor. A 200 hp+ tractor is suggested, and can cover approximately 45 acres per day with the twice-over method.

Brush Mowing The brush hog is a large rotary mower pulled behind an 80-100 hp tractor equipped with a P.T.O. Its use would be limited to sagebrush and other small shrubs in areas that were 34

fairly gentle terrain and with no large rocks or down trees. Best results occur in sagebrush stands where good residual herbaceous vegetation is present. Because ground disturbance is minimal, seeding success is usually not good. The height to which the target species is cut may range from ground level to 12-15 inches high. The degree of sagebrush mortality and re-growth can be controlled by the height above ground level the plants are cut. Cutting to less than 4 inches will probably result in 85-100% mortality. Leaving greater than a 10 inch height may result in a kill of only 40-60 percent. The mobility of this tool will facilitate ease in creating a complex treatment design.

Chaining Chaining consists of dragging a large ship anchor chain attached to two bulldozers across the landscape to knock down the vegetation, allowing new growth to emerge. Single or double pass operations are done. Double chaining operations consist of reversing the direction on the second pass to achieve greater kill of the vegetation. Chaining is done primarily in pinyon-juniper stands, but can be used on sagebrush. Chaining can be done on a wide range of surface conditions. The presence of large surface rocks is limiting. Chaining results are best in mature pinyon-juniper, poor results occur in mid to youngaged pinyon-juniper trees. Seed is normally applied aerially before the operation.

Commercial Forest Product Removal Commercial Forest Product Removal consists of a number of types of operations, including logging, post and pole and firewood cutting. These tools may be used in lieu of other treatment methods if it meets the project objectives, is feasible, economical and provides local economic benefit. A wide range of situations may exist for use of this tool depending on the condition of the forest product market at the time the project is desired. Development of new sustainable harvesting methods will be an important restoration tool.

Roads, Trails and Utility Corridors Restoration Reclaiming and reseeding unnecessary roads and trails, re-shaping vegetation lines along utility rights-of-ways and restoring native plants are important tools to reduce wildlife habitat fragmentation, restore native plants, reduce erosion and protect sensitive physical utility facilities from catastrophic fires.

Exclosures Exclosures utilizing fences, vegetation, gates and other means may be used to protect newly restored areas from motorized vehicles or grazing. Newly restored areas may need temporary rest over a period of time for recovery, while other areas such as native seed production areas may need to be totally closed to any wildlife or livestock grazing to maximize seed production.

35

PRESCRIBED FIRE Prescribed fire is a preferred tool for use on the Uncompahgre Plateau to accomplish vegetative objectives. When conditions are suitable it can be applied to fuels in their natural or modified state, under specified conditions, weather, and other variables, to allow the fire to achieve sitespecific resource objectives. Prescribed fire can be used to control certain species, enhance growth, reproduction, or vigor of certain species, manage fuel loading, and maintain vegetation community types that are fire dependent. Risks of using fire include: 1) potential weed invasion, e.g., cheat-grass, dominating the site following burning, 2) getting larger than desired burned areas with straight, rather than undulating edge, because too little pre-burn vegetative diversity existed to be able to control the burn, 3) fire escape and associated risk to life and property, 4) ineffectiveness of treatment due to inadequate prescriptions. 5) Impact on watershed management and water issues. Seeding is necessary on burned sites where non-native species are a significant threat, and for best results seed is usually aerially applied during the first fall following the burn. Research is underway (UW) to determine where seeding is necessary and where natural succession can be relied upon to re-establish native plants after disturbance. Burn treatments would be applied in accordance with agency policy and procedure, and fire planning guidance.

PRESCRIBED GRAZING Livestock grazing may be used as a tool to accomplish some vegetative objectives. Grazing is a natural process, and may be used in lieu of mechanical, chemical, or prescribed fire to accomplish some specific vegetative objectives. Techniques such as salt distribution, water access, and temporary electric fencing can be used to direct grazing to achieve grazing objectives. Cattle, sheep, or goats can be used to selectively suppress, inhibit or control herbaceous and woody vegetation. Animal impact to disturb the ground surface and incorporate seed into the soil, and add organic material is a common example of using livestock as a treatment tool. In some cases livestock are used to attempt to control noxious or invasive vegetation, or to keep a vegetative community at, or move it into a specific seral stage. The development of grass banks and alternative grazing allotments will be important to rest areas that have been treated and need time to recover. Some areas that receive heavy grazing may need to be fenced to prohibit grazing by wildlife and livestock, e.g., native seed collection sites.

CHEMICAL TREATMENT A variety of chemicals or herbicides are available for use in managing vegetation to meet desired objectives. Spike, Roundup, Rodeo, Escort and Tordon, are examples. Such treatments must be conducted in accordance with Agency and State procedures and laws, and product label standards. Chemicals can be use to accomplish specific results, and can be applied by many different methods. The selected technique depends on a number of variables, 1) treatment objective (removal or reduction), 2) accessibility of the site, 3) topography, 4) size of the treatment area, 5) characteristics of the target species and the desired vegetation, 6) the location of sensitive areas, 7) anticipated cost and equipment limitations, 8) and weather and vegetative 36

conditions at time of treatment, 9) Soil types and considerations. Herbicide applications should be schedule and designed to minimize potential impacts on non-target plant and animal species.

BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT An important tool for restoration will be the use of biological treatments. The utilization of native plants for restoring disturbed sites is paramount to restoration success. Historic vegetative treatments were often re-seeded with non-native species that successfully adapted to site conditions and provided soil stability for erosion control and forage for livestock. However, some of these species have continued to dominate and out-compete native species after 40 years. Research efforts currently underway are directed at looking at opportunities and constraints of vegetative treatments on native plants. A Native Plant Development Program and vegetation plan are underway to determine the best way to propagate native plants for restoration efforts and the best management techniques for utilizing native seed production areas.

GOALS OF UP The overarching goal of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project is to improve the ecosystem health and natural functions of the Uncompahgre Plateau. A clear understanding of the goals and tools needed for achievement and anticipated products are essential to accomplish restoration efforts. The following sections describe these issues. The goals were developed from the many aspects of the UP partnership, community collaboration process, scientific input and resource needs. Specific goals include: • • • • • • • • • •

Restore the landscape and vegetation as a whole so that managed and natural processes are sustainable for the benefit of people and the ecosystem. Restore the species and age diversity and quality/productivity of native plant and animal communities. Change the distribution of plant age classes to match a more natural distribution. Improve watershed health, water quality and yield. Improve habitat quality for most wildlife species. Increase the recruitment and natural survival of mule deer. Improve the distribution and quality of the mule deer winter range. Develop community partnerships to promote the health of the Plateau while sustaining social and cultural values. Provide new stewardship opportunities for sustaining community-based natural resource businesses. Demonstrate a collaborative partnership between communities and agencies working together in an adaptive approach to ecosystem management tailored to restoration efforts across jurisdictional boundaries.

37

ANTICIPATED PRODUCTS OF UP In addition to funding and facilitating restoration projects, anticipated products from UP which were developed from the collaborative process include: • • • •

•

• • •

•

•

Coordinated watershed restoration plans developed across jurisdictional boundaries. Interagency coordination of National Fire Plan efforts. Development of a common GIS database with USFS, BLM, CDOW and NRCS information.  Consolidated GIS map layers that include: current vegetation, soils, transportation, treatment activities, and wildlife. A comprehensive, cost effective restoration monitoring program (site specific and landscape scale).  Comparative reference sites.  Vegetative ex-closures.  A common monitoring database. Develop scientific information necessary for effective restoration management. Studies include:  Fire history.  Landscape dynamics model.  Mule deer studies.  Archaeological assessment model.  Landscape assessment.  Native plant restoration studies. Coordination of interagency activities.  Interagency coordination meetings  Interagency / interdisciplinary planning and agreements. Collaborative community involvement process. Public education and community partnership programs for landscape health issues and restoration. Programs include:  Demonstration areas, tours, website, newsletter, school programs, presentations, news releases / press packages and living history video. Development of a native seed program for restoration activities.  Collection of locally adapted species and ecotypes.  Regional seed collection, storage and mixing facilities.  Local seed grower program.  Identification and protection of quality local seed sites.  Development of re-vegetation strategies and prescriptions. Development of demonstration sites and technique evaluation areas.  Education and monitoring.  Control sites

38

INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION An ecosystem is an interrelated, functional complex of animals, (including humans) plants, and microorganisms along with their physical and chemical environment. Although we are an integral part of ecosystems, as contemporary humans, we are unique in our ability to dramatically alter how ecosystems function. Human influences can cause ecological states and relationships that developed over thousands of years to shift in a short period of time. Simply put, ecosystem restoration is the attempt through active management to return a landscape to a functional state more similar to that under which it evolved. To be effective, ecosystem restoration must realistically balance desired landscape conditions with community values and economic considerations.

INTEGRATED COORDINATION STRATEGY The purpose of this section is to outline a strategic approach by key agencies and stakeholders for the implementation of a collaborative, large scale, adaptive management, landscape restoration project. Restoration approaches will utilize ecosystem and watershed-based principles and will be managed within current agency mandates and land use plans. It is not the intent of this coordination strategy to supplant or replace existing agency management direction, programs or independent agency efforts. This strategy focuses on the parallel and interrelated management program areas of the BLM, US Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), Tri-State Generation and Transmission and other administering partners and their connectivity with adjacent private lands. The intent is to provide a “seamless” approach to planning and treatment of selected watersheds. The watershed approach will also allow a more accurate assessment of predicted effects of proposed actions and a more robust cumulative effects analysis. Understanding the landscape on a much broader scale is equally important as we work with groups like The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and share information sources such as their Southern Rocky Mountain Eco-Regional Assessment, which targets species and ecosystems of concern. Opportunities to look at larger landscape issues, concerns and cooperative learning and management efforts will benefit everyone. It is recommended that a closer working relationship with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) be established. The integration of the NRCS soil survey database (NASIS) into the analysis and planning process will allow for better predictive capability for proposed land treatments due to the strong emphasis on soils-vegetation relationship. The NRCS, in coordination with local Soil Conservation District Boards and the Colorado State Forest Service, can best assist with comprehensive watershed restoration program delivery to willing private landowners. Several existing agency programs necessitate integrated program approaches to be successful in terms of effective on-the-ground management while simultaneously providing high quality customer service.

39

Transportation System/Travel Management The UP Project area shares common boundaries with public land managed by the USFS, BLM and CDOW. Many travel-ways cross these common boundaries, and there is a need to develop an integrated transportation system inventory, common signing conventions, public education and outreach, portal and information signs, and new comprehensive travel maps for the public. This strategy includes full implementation of the recently approved Uncompahgre National Forest Travel Plan. It is recommended that the BLM Field Offices complete a complementary travel management plan for the UP planning area.

Integrated Fire Management Plans This is an obvious complement to the National Fire Plan and the presently integrated BLM-FS fire suppression program. The Fire Management planning objective would strive for consistency across boundaries with all other coordinating agencies, and be scientific based upon findings from research underway on the Plateau. The first priority would be in the Uncompahgre Plateau Project analysis area where the Forest Service does not have a fire use element in the Forest Plan. The intent is to develop appropriate and consistent response strategy for wildfire starts and to conduct planned fuel treatments on public land within the UP Project area. The process for creating the appropriate management response should follow the general planning approach utilized in the development of the BLM Uncompahgre Field Office Fire Management Plan. This approach involves the delineation of fire management map units, the assignment of resource management objectives to those map units, and the identification of potential fuel treatment and suppression actions to meet those management objectives.

Noxious Weed Management Weed management strategy will include weed inventory, GIS location data bases, monitoring and treatment. It will be an integrated approach using all available tools including chemical, mechanical, biological and grazing management control. Management will involve all weed control partners including BLM, USFS, State, Counties, grazing permittees and private landowners.

Natural Resource Information Management. Lessons learned from recent joint interagency analysis and planning efforts emphasize the need for improved coordination in the agencies’ (USFS, BLM, CDOW, NRCS) ability to integrate natural resource information management, analysis and decision support capabilities. Several specific products will enhance the ability to successfully plan and manage projects: 1) a common “activity layer GIS/database” that can be used to track past and current vegetation treatments and, 2) a consolidated soil survey map of the six soil surveys covering the UP Project Area. A comprehensive soil map and associated interpretations will be invaluable for predicting future restoration treatment sites.

40

Integrated Rangeland and Grazing Management. Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) need to be updated to reflect the need for grazing flexibility for rangeland vegetation improvement treatments. Provisions for alternative pasture rotations and swing grazing allotments for permittees temporarily displaced by land treatments will need to be considered and coordinated. A common Range Allotment Boundary (RAB) layer should be developed. The RAB layer should reflect the current status of the fence locations and water sources along with vegetative plant community type, range condition and present production. It is recommended that efforts be concentrated in the inventory, upgrade and maintenance of existing range infrastructure. A high priority should be placed on the inventory, maintenance and upgrade of earthen stock tanks, springs and other water developments. Retro-fitting fences with wildlife compatible fence standards should be evaluated in areas of high wildlife use. The existing rangeland monitoring exclosures should be evaluated for upgrade or reconstruction. Sites for additional monitoring exclosures should be selected to provide representative areas that accurately reflect management needs.

Selection of Watershed Restoration Project It is recognized that every watershed on the Plateau needs some restoration efforts across the landscape. Based on the information developed in the Uncompahgre Plateau Landscape Assessment (LA), recommendations developed from scientific research projects underway on the Plateau and partnership prioritization meetings held, it was recommended that a candidate watershed be selected for scheduled NEPA analysis and implementation of a comprehensive watershed restoration project. An agency/community working group, using defined criteria, selected the Spring Creek/Happy Canyon/Dry Creek drainages as the first watershed analysis area. NEPA analysis and restoration efforts will begin in 2003. The selection of priority watersheds for restoration treatment will be the primary vehicle for site-specific NEPA analysis and project implementation.

CDOW Coordination CDOW wildlife management plans should more fully integrate federal land management objectives and land use plans. This integration should address the potential effects that CDOW population objectives and management strategies can have on federal lands. Efforts to better estimate population numbers, habitat conditions, and long term habitat capability should be priorities.

Science and Monitoring. Monitoring will be the primary method for evaluating program effectiveness. The purpose of the science and monitoring program is to assist managers in applying restoration management to the landscape in an adaptive management approach. A cost effective monitoring program for the determination of watershed restoration program effectiveness will be essential. The monitoring program should be scalable from the 41

project to the landscape level. A common monitoring database should be developed and maintained for analysis, interpretation and reporting of monitoring information. It is anticipated that the program would publish annual monitoring and evaluation reports.

Demonstration Areas. The development of new techniques and combinations of land restoration practices in trial situations will be essential for both validation and innovation of the restoration program approaches. The creation of paired control and treatment demonstration areas for the evaluation of restoration actions, equipment and techniques are necessary for program evaluation.

Native Seed Program. The intent of the Native Seed program is to develop a cost effective way to complete large treatment projects that require reseeding of locally adapted native grass, forbs and shrubs. The program will collect seed from representative sites of selected plant communities that will be prioritized for restoration. The seed will be grown in foundation fields at the UCEPC, Meeker Plant Center for eventual release to commercial growers. The UCEPC facilities will be upgraded for additional seed storage and mixing capability. Seed will be produced in quantities sufficient to provide for local and regional restoration efforts. This program will also create a standardized set of reseeding practices that will develop field guides for site assessment and evaluation, site preparation, application rates and recommended seed mixtures.

Community Collaboration. A community based collaborative process will be utilized to engage interested stakeholders including local, county and tribal representatives, and interest groups, as well as the UP partners. This process will facilitate dialogue about the complex interrelationships between public land management and community sustainability. Critical linkages between natural resources and community values will be identified. The collaborative effort will identify a range of desirable, feasible and viable management options.

Administrative Coordination. The UP Project is envisioned to become a multi-year program commitment. For the UP coordination strategy to work successfully, agency administrators will have to validate and clarify the UP Project goals and objectives. To meet those mutual objectives, regular UP coordination meetings between agency administrators and key staff are recommended for the development of common programs of work and the identification of resources necessary to accomplish the programs of work. It is recommended that consideration be given to formally providing a Full Time Equivalent (FTE) or portions of a FTE position(s) that can serve on the UP Technical Committee and on Interagency/Interdisciplinary teams for planning and program coordination. 42

ROLE OF THE PRIVATE LANDOWNER The private landowner plays a key role in the restoration of the Uncompahgre Plateau. Private lands comprise approximately 25% of the UP area. UP does not have any authority on private lands and will only work with willing landowners. UP can assist private landowners with technical information, inventory, evaluation, planning, cost sharing, and implementation and monitoring of restoration projects in addition to conservation easements. Several agencies including the Division of Wildlife, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and Colorado State Forest Service currently work with private landowners. UP will look for opportunities to partner with these agencies and others to work with private landowners to restore and enhance their lands. Working with private landowners will help close communication gaps between the agencies and the community.

RESTORATION PROJECT FUNDING, SELECTION AND IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA PROJECT FUNDING One of the roles of UP is to help develop funding sources for restoration projects and restorationrelated research on the Uncompahgre Plateau. Project funding comes from a variety of sources and is administered through Uncompahgre/Com. Inc., a non-profit organization. Applicants for restoration projects on the Uncompahgre Plateau are eligible for funding regardless of administrative and land ownership boundaries. Project funding applications are reviewed and approved by the UP Technical Committee (UTC) representing the partners. The funding process includes: • Funding application submitted for UTC review and approval (Appendix 10). • Notification of approval/disapproval of funding. • Award funding. • Project contract between the contractor and Unc/Com., Inc. • Approval of satisfactory project completion by project manager. • Submittal of UTC approved billing invoice to Unc/Com., Inc. • Payment

PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA Project selection for funding will be based on four major criteria: 1) Land Health, 2) Coordination, 3) Fiscal Issues, and 4) Community Concerns. A variety of other selection criteria will also be considered (Appendix 11). The process for selecting a project is based on the following prioritized criteria.

43

Priority 1. Land Health Issues. The project must meet one or more of the following land health criteria: • It addresses a land health concern identified in the Uncompahgre Plateau Landscape Assessment Report. • It addresses a land health concern identified by the USFS, BLM, or CDOW in a management plan or report. • It addresses a priority land health concern identified by the local community. • It benefits threatened, endangered or sensitive species. • It addresses an emergency land health need (i.e., rehabilitation after fire, flood, drought, blow downs, disease, or insects). • It addresses a health or public safety issue related to land health (i.e., imminent fire risk, poor water quality). • It helps achieve the overall ecosystem goals of UP.

Priority 2. Coordination Issues. The project should accomplish one or more of the following coordination criteria: • It must comply with all existing laws, regulations, and agency management plans. • It achieves multiple agency and community objectives. • It provides leverage for additional funding. • It is based on sufficient data to make informed decisions and have a high probability of success. • It addresses concerns identified through community collaboration and by geographic focus groups. • It involves cooperative working partners. • It incorporates post-treatment management that helps ensure long-term success. • It integrates well with other ecosystem restoration efforts.

Priority 3. Fiscal Issues. The project should meet one or more of each of the following fiscal criteria: • It is cost effective and will use best value contracting. • The goal of the project is achievable given the requested funding and the anticipated completion date. • There is opportunity for additional funding from outside sources. • Cost share requirements are met.

Priority 4. Community Issues. The project should meet one or more of the following community criteria: • It has strong support from the local community. • Any potential negative impacts to land users, landowners, or businesses are minimal or can be mitigated. • The potential beneficial effects to the community outweigh potential adverse effects. • It provides opportunity or incentives for community involvement. 44

• • •

It results in a flow of sustainable, marketable forest products It utilizes local work force and benefits local owner/operators The direct economic benefits to the community outweigh any negative economic impacts.

PRE-PROJECT GUIDELINES It is important to inventory current site conditions and understand why they exist before planning a restoration project. Guidelines for restoration site assessment are provided in Appendix 12. Pre-treatment inventory will help determine the potential for project success while providing a baseline record for planning, implementing, and evaluating the project. Following these guidelines will help insure that the effort is part of the larger ecosystem restoration objectives.

PROJECT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES The final design of any individual project will be dictated by conditions on the ground. Wide discretion in the design and layout of individual projects will be possible. However, certain basic guidelines will apply to all projects funded by the UP. Projects that do not incorporate basic design elements will not be considered for UP funding. Noted below are some primary design and implementation criteria. Also see Appendix 13. • The desired vegetative response for the project should be defined. • Projects should be designed to emphasize diverse edge patterns on the treated perimeter. • Project designs should incorporate mosaics of treated and untreated areas. • Treatments should include consideration of diverse vertical structure. • Geometric patterns, strips, and other unnatural designs should be avoided. • Borders should be irregular with textured edges that “feather” from treated to untreated areas. • Large, uniform block treatment should be avoided. Substantial sized undisturbed strips and untreated islands should be incorporated into restoration projects over 100 acres in size. • Seed mixtures should include a mix of native species appropriate to the site, and, whenever possible, local eco-types. Non-native species should not be used except where no appropriate native plants are available. In exceptional cases where they are used, non-native species should be non-competitive and non-invasive. • Project timing should consider seasonal impacts to wildlife. • Project timing should consider precipitation, temperature, seeding success, land use, etc. • Grazing should be coordinated to enhance establishment and maintenance of the desired vegetation response. Exclusion should occur long enough to allow establishment to occur. • Projects should, to the extent practical, identify opportunities to utilize local skills, businesses and other resources. • Identify by-products; value added opportunities and/or other economic or educational benefits that accrue to communities as a result of the restoration treatment. • Consider aesthetic values and visual impacts. • Consider terrain features and site conditions that can influence project success.

POST-PROJECT MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES

45

Post-treatment management should be carefully planned prior to restoration project implementation. Upon project completion and based on monitoring results, adaptive management strategies should be selected and implemented to allow UP restoration objectives to be met. Major guidelines are noted below. Additional guidelines are listed in Appendix 14. • Ensure desired vegetative response is achieved, which may require re-seeding and follow-up treatments. • Actively manage livestock grazing to enhance establishment and maintenance of vegetation, and consider ways to mitigate potential wildlife impacts on a treatment. • Control noxious weeds and invasive species.

PROJECT MONITORING AND EVALUATION GUIDELINES Project monitoring and evaluating is essential for determining the success of a project. Each project must have a monitoring and evaluation plan that will be the responsibility of the project sponsor. Monitoring information should be maintained by the project sponsor and available as a tool to assist with the planning and implementation of future projects. Considerations for monitoring and evaluation are: • Identify the problem and define monitoring and evaluation objectives. • Prioritize and determine what data are necessary to measure restoration effects.  Develop a standardized (practical) monitoring method and schedule (at a minimum) a two and five year schedule.  File a monitoring plan with the appropriate managing agency.  Describe environmental conditions during the treatment (i.e., weather, special circumstances, equipment malfunctions) that might have had an effect on meeting project goals.  Establish monitoring locations on treated sites and adjacent untreated control sites for future reference.  Describe what was successful or might be done differently during the treatment to maximize restoration efforts and cost effectiveness.  Describe conditions or locations that may need closer monitoring (i.e., erosion or noxious weed invasion concerns immediately after the treatment).

46

REVIEW OF RESTORATION PROJECT PROCESS Step 1 Project Application Procedure • •

Review project selection criteria (pg. 38-41, Appendix 11). Complete UP Project Application (Appendix 10).

Step 2 Receive Approval from the UP Technical Committee Step 3 Follow Pre-Project Guidelines • •

Contract with Unc/Com. and develop a monitoring plan. Prepare pre-project site assessment (Appendix 12).

Step 4 Follow Project Design and Implementation Guidelines •

Project design and implementation (Appendix 13).

Step 5 Project Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines • • • •

Prepare GIS mapping for monitoring and track & evaluate project. Make adaptive management changes if necessary. GIS mapping and project tracking. Complete project. Close active file.

47

BUDGET AND SCHEDULING FUNDING SOURCES To date UP has received over $2.8 million in direct and related funding (Table 4). UP began with a $500,000 commitment from the CDOW for mule deer habitat restoration. As the partnership grew and evolved into an ecosystem restoration project, funding has come from numerous sources. Other agency funding has come from the USFS, BLM, BLM National Native Plant Development Program, BLM Science Initiative Program, Department of Interior CCI Program, Colorado Historical Society and WAPA. Funding has also come from the PLP/Ford Foundation, CDOW Habitat Partnership Program (HPP), National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (managed by the BLM), the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Colorado Mule Deer Association, and the Colorado Wildlife Federation. Matching funding for research has come from the University of Wyoming, University of Colorado, Colorado State University, and the University of Massachusetts. One private donation was received. A variety of help has come in the terms of soft match, from numerous agencies, organizations and individuals. Soft match extends current funding and leverages grants. Some of the organizations and agencies that have provided soft match to date include: The Public Lands Partnership; BLM; USFS; CDOW; WAPA; Delta, Ouray, Montrose, and Ouray counties; City of Delta; Colorado State University, (Extension; Research; School of Forestry and Natural Resources and State Forest Service); University of Wyoming; USDA, Forest Service Shrub Science Laboratory, Provo, Utah; USDA, Rocky Mountain Range and Experimental Station, Ft Collins; Upper Colorado Environmental Plant Center, Meeker; BLM National Native Plant Development Program, Washington, DC; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Tri-State Generation and Transmission, Inc., Natural Resources Conservation Service; Colorado Natural Heritage Program; Western Slope Environmental Resource Council; National Forest Foundation; Ridgway/Ouray Community Council; Western Colorado Congress; Uncompahgre Valley Alliance, Sierra Club; Intermountain Resources; M3Research; Black Canyon Regional Land Trust; The Nature Conservancy, Southwest Seeds and the Black Canyon Audubon Society. Citizen volunteers have provided expertise and assistance to the agencies handling a variety of duties. For the coming year, UP funding has been budgeted by BLM, CDOW, USFS, Western Area Power Administration, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, PLP/Ford Foundation, Colorado Mule Deer Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Colorado Wildlife Federation. As UP collaboration grows, additional funding from a variety of programs is expected. UP has hired a professional grant writer to assist with obtaining outside funds. Foundation funding that promotes community involvement, collaboration, scientific research, conservation, wildlife management, sound economic sustainability, and community-based ecosystem management will be an important component of the UP budget. Outside funding will be applied to filling scientific information gaps, developing special programs (i.e., developing incentives for better private land management and restoration, and information and education programs for the community, with an emphasis on youth).

48

Table 4. UP Funding Sources to Date FUNDING SOURCE

Amount

Budget Cycle

BLM

$70,000 $170,000 $100,000 $119,000 $165,000 $173,000

09/30/2002 2002-2004 09/30/2002 09/30/03? 09/30-03? 09-30/03

Landscape Dynamics Model Univ. Wyo. Native Plant Research Native Seed Project Native Seed Projects Science Initiative Projects Sagegrouse, demonstration, restoration projects

CDOW (HPP)

$15,000 $30,000

06/30/2000 06/30/2001

Habitat Projects Habitat Projects

CDOW

$45,000 $9,000 $500,000 $5000

06/30/2001 06/30/2002 06/30/2004 06/30-03

Habitat Projects/TC Salary Unc/Com Inc/GFC Salary Habitat Projects/TC Salary Range of Variability study

Colorado Historic Society?

$100,000

2005

PLP/Ford Foundation

$26,750 $46,500 $148,000

09/30/2001 09/30/2002 09/30/2005

Field Trips/PEC Salary Supplies/Trips/PEC/FG Salary Supplies/Trips/PEC/FG Salary

USFS

$324,500 $55,000 $165,000 $11,000

09/30/2001 09/30/2002 09/30/2002 9/30/04

Landscape Assessment Fire Study/ Montane Zone Wildlife Habitat Projects Cultural Model Study

Colorado Mule Deer Assoc. Colorado Wildlife Federation

$500 $4,000

12/30/2002 12/31/2002

Mule Deer Habitat Project Conservation Easement

Nat. Fish & Wildlife Foundation

$65,000 $150,000 $50,000 $100,000

09/30/2001 12/31/2001 09/30/2002 09.30/04

Habitat Projects/Salary Habitat Projects/Salary Private Land Projects Seeking Common Ground Projects

Rocky Mtn. Elk Foundation

$50,500 $50,000 $8,000

09/30/2001 09/30/2002 09/30/2002

Habitat Projects Habitat Projects Habitat Projects

University of Colorado University of Wyoming

$7,286 $33,788

2002 08/31/2005

Fire Study - PJ Zone Native Plant Research

Western Area Power Admin.

$25,000 $10,000

09/30/2002 2003

Fire Study - PJ Zone Cultural Modeling Study

TOTAL FUNDING

Application

Cultural Clearance Model Study

$2,832,82 4

TC= Technical Coordinator PEC=Public Education Coordinator GFC=Grant/Financial Coordinators

49

FIVE YEAR SCHEDULE Due to the different budget cycles of the UP partners, UP budgeting will be done on a calendar year basis. The 2003 budget is available from Unc/Com., Inc. The five year UP Project Schedule runs from 2002-2006, with the exception of part of the mule deer study which runs until 2010 (Table 5). This schedule of events is due to change with community input, development of new partners, new scientific input and opportunities for better projects.

Table 5. UP PROPOSED FIVE YEAR SCHEDULE PROJECT Initiation

Completion

UP Plan (UPP)

2001

August 2002 (Draft)

UPP Update

August 2003 (Final)

Update as needed

UP Technical Committee Meetings

June 2001

Monthly (1st Wed.)

GMUG Forest Plan Revision

October 2001

November 2004

Collaborative Council Meetings

January 2000

On-going

Executive Council Meeting

2002

Annual

Public Education and Outreach Meetings

September 2001

On-going

UP Field/Demonstration Site Projects

May 2001

On-going

UP Newsletter

October 2001

Quarterly

UP Website

November 2001

On-going

Project Applications Deadlines

January 01 2002

On-going

Fire History Studies

October 2001

June 2003

Landscape Assessment Report

October 2001

May 2002

Landscape Dynamics Model Study

2002

2003

Mule Deer Research Projects

1999

2010

Native Seed Development

September 2001

On-going

Native Plant Restoration Study

May 2002

August 2005

Determine Information Gaps

May 2002

On-going

Implement Information Studies

May 2002

On-going

Grant Applications

January 2002

On-going

Restoration Planning & Implementation

January 2002

On-going

Restoration Monitoring

May 2002

On-going

Restoration Evaluation Meetings

December 2002

Annual

Cultural Resource Model Study

2003

2005

Sage Grouse Study

2002

On-going

50

SUMMARY AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The UP Plan is a working document designed to give an overview of the Uncompahgre Plateau Project, its history, background, objectives and participants. It is the foundation for an ecosystem restoration project directed by best science and public input. The information in this plan is not total, but is a start to allow UP Partners and the community an opportunity to brainstorm ideas to make the project the best it can be. UP is a community program. It is about neighbors, communities and agencies working together to find better solutions for sustaining, utilizing and restoring the natural resources we love and enjoy. Your input and involvement in a positive and meaningful fashion is important to this cause. Many individuals, organizations and agencies have worked hard to get this project off the ground. The accomplishments have been done as a TEAM, and the credit goes to the TEAM. To the UP Partners, community and the many folks working behind the scenes to make this partnership and UP Plan possible, MANY THANKS for being such important members of the UP TEAM!

51