1. 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.

2. ASPEN
 However,
aspen has decreased
throughout the Intermountain West
during the 20th century, and aspendominated acreage within the national
forests of Utah has declined by 50% or
more in recent decades (Bartos 2000).

3. Multi-Aged stand
Productive understory with forbs, grasses, and young aspen
FUNCTIONING ASPEN STAND

4. ASPEN STAND NOT RECRUITING

5. Estimate loss of 1% per year
Total loss of 10,000 acres
8,000,000 lbs. of forage production
CONIFER ENCROACHED ASPEN STAND

6. 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, the
guidelines present a progressive range of alternatives, prior considerations, and
monitoring elements that will greatly aid forest managers in making difficult land
use decisions regarding aspen communities in Utah

7. MONROE MOUNTAIN WORKING GROUP
Forest 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 3day 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 include
Kim Chapman, Verl Bagley and Jody Gale of USU Extension
John Keeler of Utah Farm Bureau
Kevin Mueller of Utah Environmental Congress
Rayne Bagley and Will Talbot - Livestock producers and Premittees on Monroe
Tooter Ogden and Travis Blood - Sevier and Piute County Commissioners
Paul Rogers of Western Aspen Alliance
Vance 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

16. BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’S
ON 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

17. BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’S
ON MONROE MOUNTAIN
25,000
20,000
15,000
Cattle AUM's
Sheep AUM's
10,000
5,000
0
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

18. BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’S
ON MONROE MOUNTAIN
Mule Deer
AUM's
Sheep AUM's
Cattle 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

19. BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’S
ON MONROE MOUNTAIN
25000
20000
15000
Elk AUM's
Mule Deer AUM's
10000
5000
0
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

20. BROWSER & GRAZER AUM’S
ON MONROE MOUNTAIN
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
Elk AUM's
Mule Deer AUM's
Cattle AUM's
15,000
Sheep AUM's
10,000
5,000
0
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

21. 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

23. 
We Know that when Aspen (or Aspen
dominated by Spruce and Fir) is
disturbed it responds with a flush of
new growth (regeneration).