Comments

Admin

• Daniel Eddington

  Aug 30, 2023, 4:45:11 PM
  Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. Some corrections need to be made before it can be moved to completed status: 1. Please enter any missing expenses, highlighted in rust, on the Finance Page. 2. Even though the contracting for WRI 5923 and 5533 were completed together, completion reporting and map features, will need to align with the expenditures for each project. 3. All language needs to be in the present tense and not past tense. For example, "we planned to treat a combined 3,150 acres with full size excavator bull-hogs." The "planned" should be changed to something like "completed." Once again, the actual acres for Phase II and III need to be identified then perhaps followed up with a statement of total completed acres. 4. The Narrative and Future management section can likely be copied and pasted from WRI 5533, but it is unaccepted to say "Please see comments in project #5533." If someone wants to print a report of WRI 5923, that information would not be included as currently reported. When you have completed those tasks, please go back to the Completion Form and finalize your report again so I know that it has been completed.

• Alison Whittaker

  Sep 14, 2023, 6:13:01 PM
  Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. I have moved this project to completed.

Project

• Nicki Frey

  Jan 13, 2022, 10:58:52 AM
  Devin, For your SGCN - UPD are in your project area and GRSG are adjacent, correct? And CCT are in the stream.

• Jim Lamb

  Jan 14, 2022, 4:25:04 PM
  Those comments are all correct about the UPDs, GRSG and CCT.

• Jan 26, 2022, 9:40:54 AM
  Just for a little clarification as mentioned in the details section. This project will improve potential UPD habitat. There are active colonies near the Sam Leg Hollow area adjacent to this project boundary and treatment will help improve suitable habitat for this species.

• Clint Wirick

  Jan 14, 2022, 10:38:10 AM
  Kinda a random question but on the map it shows part of a private field and irrigation pond on forest. Is this a mapping error or true? Also I'd like to talk to you to see if there is the potential riparian work on the private.

• Jim Lamb

  Jan 14, 2022, 4:29:19 PM
  Clint, We have some issues with mapping in that neck of the woods. The plats at the county are mostly correct but different maps show different boundaries. We've been working through some mapping issues at the Bicknell WMA which is very close to this project. I will assume the field and pond are not on the Forest , but..... I will introduce you to this landowner if you'd like but he hasn't been the warmest to habitat work near Pine Creek on the Forest...

• Michael Golden

  Jan 27, 2022, 6:52:54 AM
  Oh Clint if you could work your relationship magic with this guy, it could open the door to soooooooooo many good projects.

• Michael Golden

  Jan 27, 2022, 7:38:21 AM
  Devin, Good work over there. Let's get into aspen regen at the head of Pine Creek next! You have a lek a mile away but you are not including sage chicken as a benefitting species in the drop down? A few comments/ questions: 1) Might I suggest that you are addressing the "Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity" threat to sage grouse and the "Problematic Native Species -- Upland" threat for Mountain sagebrush....hint, hint, nudge, nudge. 2) It may also be worth noting in the partners section that UDWR and the Forest Service have been discussing how to increase wildlife habitat and fuel reduction treatments on Boulder Mountain (aka God's Mountain/#Boulder Mountain Believers) and that UWRI is currently funding TNC LCF data collection across the mountain. You guys are just ahead of the curve with this project. 3) Might I also suggest that completing projects that benefit species like UPD, CRCT, and sage chicken help allow for other sustainable uses to occur by reducing threats and moving species toward downlisting or alleviating threats that would cause listing. 4) In addition to any potential for working with the private landowner, what about the BLM land adjacent to the project area? 5) You may want to remove the hand work discussion in threats and risks section since it looks like this is all mastication.

• Jan 27, 2022, 4:14:14 PM
  Thanks Mike for the little nudges and golden nuggets of information that is beneficial to this project. Can't believe that I missed the Sage-grouse on the drop-down. I made some changes to the details that includes your suggestions. Sustainable uses This project will benefit habitat for the Utah prairie dog, Colorado river cutthroat trout and the greater sage-grouse. Improving habitat for these species will allow other sustainable uses to occur by reducing threats (such as high intensity wildfire with effects of noxious weed invasion in mountain shrub vegetation). In addition, improving habitat for these species may help move listed species towards down-listing or reduce threats that could cause a trend towards Federal listing. Partners section The Boulder Mountain range has been a topic of discussion for wildlife improvement projects. The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and the Forest Service have met together multiple times in the last few years to discuss potential landscape projects that would benefit wildlife habitat, fuels reductions and Forest health. The Forest Service is in the process of planning a larger landscape project to address these items. The WRI has provided funding for the Nature Conservancy (TNC) to perform a landscape conservation forecasting analysis on the Boulder Mountain to aid in this planning effort. This Government Creek project will tie in with this larger Boulder Mountain landscape project in improving crucial wildlife habitat.

• Judi Brawer

  Jan 27, 2022, 4:08:17 PM
  Devin, I have a few questions for you: 1. Could you please provide some photos of the project area, including the ponderosa, aspen, and riparian areas where treatments will occur? 2. Are you planning to treat using mastication throughout the entire planning area? In the Threats/Risk section you state: "Within 5-10 years these same areas will increase in cost from hand treatments @ $100/acre to requiring mastication at $375/acre and seeding at $25/acre. Late Phase I expansion areas can currently be treated with bobcats or a full size excavator. Withholding treatment will transition the late phase I areas into needing mastication treatment and re-seeding. Mastication treatment areas proposed for later phases treat early through late phase II." And in the methods section it says that mastication will be used on the entire 1,200 acre project area. Are there areas where hand thinning could/should be used instead? Particularly in phase 1 areas. Also, how will you protect the existing ponderosa, aspen stands, and Bitterbrush communities when using mastication and heavy machinery? Were other, less ground disturbing options considered? 3. I appreciate that the treatments "pave the way for treatments with prescribed fire in the encroaching spruce/fir to encourage aspen regeneration" (although I thought it was encroaching P-J?). I'm glad to see the opportunity for reintroduction and use of prescribed fire -- will this only be in the aspen stands or will you be reintroducing fire into the landscape throughout the project area so that future mechanical treatments will, hopefully, not be necessary. Which gets to my next question. 4. In the Future Management section you say that "The project area will be monitored for re-encroachment and proposed for re-treatment" but what are you doing to prevent re-encroachment and the need for re-treatment, for example, changing grazing management (keeping cows out of riparian and aspen areas), and using prescribed fire? 5. You mention that "Radio telemetry collars were deployed on Mule Deer in this area in December of 2019 and 2020. Data from these collars is being used partially to determine if the encroaching conifers in this area also contribute to limiting factors for fawn survival and summering populations of Mule Deer." What has the data shown? Has it shown that the encroaching conifers are a limiting factor? Has it shown other limiting factors? How is this data improving the location and overall design of the project? 5. You say that this project "fulfills objectives in the Fremont River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan -- Identifies the Upper Fremont River between Bicknell and the USFS boundary as impaired for Total P and Dissolved Oxygen." What are the causes of these impairments and how does this project address them? You mention that data also shows high levels of fine sediment deposition in Pine Creek -- what is causing this high sedimentation and how does this project address that? 6. This project will be removing P-J from sagebrush/bitterbrush, aspen stands, and ponderosa pine stands. But you only list mountain sagebrush and mountain shrub in the Habitats section. Also, the only threat you list is inappropriate fire frequency and intensity -- and that threat is medium for mountain sagebrush and low for mountain shrub. But the same threat is high or very high for most of the species. It would be helpful if you could include the other habitats in that section, as well as the threats to those habitats. And, if you could please explain the differing threat levels for species and habitats.

• Levi Watkins

  Feb 7, 2022, 8:07:28 PM
  I'll address your questions regarding the mule deer collar studies. Results from Utah's collar studies are ongoing and no official results regarding habitat and how it relates to survival have been completed. We have observed that collared deer are using nearby areas (within .5-5 miles) at the same elevation with similar aspects but differ because they have open understory and grass and forbs as the dominant vegetation. While the collared deer do not appear to use the thick pinion/juniper areas of the proposed project and surrounding areas. A study done in Colorado indicated that treating juniper woodlands increases fawn survival (Habitat management influences overwinter survival of mule deer fawns in Colorado. 2014 Bergman et al.) I've attached some maps in the project documents showing heat maps of collared deer use in relation the proposed project as well as just basemaps to visually compare vegetation types. We have observed that deer on this unit appear to be summer range limited because of low IFB (ingesta-free bodyfats) estimates taken during captures in late fall. Low IFB values before going through winter indicates that the deer have not had adequate nutrition through the summer and late fall months to prepare for winter. Survival studies done by BYU and UDWR have indicated that females with low IFB have fawns with a lower birth weight, which then have lower survival rates that fawns with higher birth weights. Adult females in poor condition have lower survival as well. The best way we believe to improve nutrition in summer and fall habitats would be fire treatments in higher elevations. To do so, fuels would need to be reduced at lower elevations to discourage fires from spreading to the private property and structures and the proposed project would aid in that regard as well. The unit also met the requirements to be put into predator management for mountain lions as defined Utah's H.B 125 and is a high priority unit for coyote removal done by Fish and Wildlife Services.

• Feb 10, 2022, 10:45:14 AM
  Hi Judi, thanks for the great and relevant questions. 1- I will upload some photos of the project area into the database. 2- We are planning to mechanically treat (masticate) throughout this entire phase of the project area. Mike also pointed out that discrepancy in the threats/risk section. I removed the hand treatment discussion on cost from that section since we will only be doing mechanical treatment during this phase. The bulk of the treatment area is along the lower foothills that is characterized as grassland veg type transitioning into the mountain shrub vegetation types with persistent P/J on the steeper slopes and ridge tops. The areas in the upper reaches of the project boundary have stringers of ponderosa pine and patches of aspen. The project area is on the boundary of the Bicknell Bottoms waterfowl management area and multiple private inholdings which are considered high values at risk. During the planning stages of this project and during field surveys we determined that mechanically treating (using masticators) the lower fringes and valley bottoms less than 30% slope would accomplish multiple desired conditions addressing the fuels loading in the form of successional pinyon/juniper (P/J) and critical winter range-wildlife foraging habitat improvement. Mulching over hand thinning, would reduce the amount of large woody debris that would be left on the landscape following treatment thus reducing the latter fuels and reducing risk from potential high severity wildfires to the values at risk. When we planned these project areas, we take into account that there will be potential avoidance areas following arch surveys and wildlife buffers such as around potential active raptor nests, that could be hand treated in the future. The ponderosa pine and aspen patches will be protected during implementation. Generally, these contractors will have excavators with mulching head attachments, that have large reaches that can selectively pick out the encroaching P/J amongst the pine and aspen thus eliminating any direct damage to the preferred leave trees. Shrubs are not targeted for treatment, however there will be some impacted from cross country travel of equipment. 3. Our goal is to have prescribed fire as one of multiple tools of treatment to reach desired conditions in various vegetation types including aspen, ponderosa pine and spruce fir. There are many factors that go into a potential burn plan that we address to reach our objectives. Each potential pre-scribed fire project area will be analyzed individually prior to implementation to address every resource. 4. The logic behind the statement "The project area will be monitored for re-encroachment and proposed for re-treatment" is acknowledging that within 10 to 15 years the project area will have new growth of P/J, and having a maintenance plan in place to re-treat those small (whip sized) trees will be more cost effective. 5. The main causes identified in the TMDL Fremont River Watershed document are Croplands, Pastures and Feedlots; however, Pine Creek is listed as a contributing source of Total P. This project addresses the implementation strategy to "Improve upland range and pasture conditions through application of best management practices identified in Fremont River Watershed Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). It is also pretty well established through published literature that sediment generation and deposition can lead to increased Total P loading so increasing ground cover and reducing erosion should help reduce Total P loading to the assessment segment. 6. There are small patches and stringers of ponderosa pine and aspen within the project area that would be enhanced or protected by the proposed treatments however, the majority of the project area falls under a black sage/mountain shrub transitioning into pinyon juniper. So I based the key habitats off the majority of the project area since the that is how it is listed under our Forest Veg Layers. Very good questions regarding the threats and risks. Under the threats for each habitat listed (mountain sagebrush and shrub), the only available threat regarding fire risk had them ranked as medium or low in these habitats, I believe this is based on probability of negative impacts in these veg types. In the species section, the risks and threats to each individual species was generally moderate to high from fire intensity risk most likely based on the entire range of each species. This project addresses one portion of most of the selected species habitats, but is a vital piece of the overall objectives as we move upward in elevation on the north slope of the Boulder Mountain range. As we improved these lower edges of the boundary near private lands and other values at risk such as the Bicknell Bottoms it could open up other potential tools such as prescribed fire in the upper reaches in aspen, pine and spruce/fire habitat types.

• Barbara Sugarman

  Feb 2, 2022, 10:03:19 AM
  Hi Devin, I think that Utah prairie dogs will not substantially benefit from this project. The nearest active colony is approximately 2 miles away from the treatment area. To benefit Utah prairie dogs, would this area be considered a potential future translocation site? In addition, I think that seeding and brush removal would be necessary to have this project benefit Utah prairie dogs. Cheers, Barbara Sugarman

• Feb 4, 2022, 2:10:11 PM
  Hi Barbara, The benefit to UPD from this project would be creating connectivity in similar habitat. The lower half of the project area is within similar habitat as the active colonies to the west with similar soil types and vegetation. As mentioned in the 2012 UPD Revised Recovery plan, "complexes are groups of colonies that are generally within 2 miles of each other, not separated by geographical barriers, and that will exchange migrant each 1 to 2 generation." You mentioned potential future translocation sites, the goal is to improved habitat conditions and connectivity that could favor future translocation sites or natural dispersal. During planning stages we determined that there is a sufficient seed source of grasses and forbs that currently exist in the project area and removal of successional P/J would likely aid in perpetuating these vegetation types. Also, there is not a substantial amount of brush in the lower reaches of this project area that would be considered suitable habitat for UPD, therefore a brush treatment would not be very effective. Thanks for your comments, Devin

• Keith Day

  Feb 2, 2022, 11:11:18 AM
  Devin, I presume you will be looking for pinyon jay colonies this spring? Keith

• Feb 4, 2022, 2:14:21 PM
  Hey Keith, Yes my crew and I will be doing pinyon jay and raptor surveys this spring. If you have some existing known colonies or raptor nesting sites data, send them my way and we will incorporate the appropriate conservation measures into the project area. Thanks,

• Keith Day

  Feb 4, 2022, 2:28:26 PM
  Devin, I do not have any sightings specific to this project. Keith

• Judi Brawer

  Feb 7, 2022, 2:47:50 PM
  One final question: What cultural surveys and tribal consultation are being/have been conducted for this project?

• Feb 8, 2022, 7:42:24 AM
  We were awarded funding for cultural surveys during last years WRI cycle for this Phase III of Government Creek. All surveys both wildlife and cultural will be completed prior to implementation and will have SHPO concurrence.