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).