Project Details

This first phase of the project proposes to reduce shrub (primarily sagebrush) cover via Tebuthiuron (i.e., Spike) in small (< 100 ac) areas of dense sagebrush stands where the herbaceous (i.e., grasses and forbs) understory is currently being limited. We propose to treat 833 acres of sagebrush in total across a large landscape of intact sagebrush communities on the Awapa Plateau (Parker Mountain). This is phase one of four with a goal to treat a total of 4,100 acres by the completion of all phases in a WRI focus area The majority of the project area falls into the Parker Mountain-Emery Sage-Grouse Management Area. Understanding seasonal habitat types are key to understanding sage-grouse habitat needs and conservation. The Parker Mountain sage-grouse population is one of the most studied in Utah. We have used information gathered and published from past studies of radio-marked sage-grouse and the response of sage-grouse to past sagebrush treatments. Proposed treatment areas are known to be active nesting and brood rearing habitat. Accordingly, we have designed the spatial and temporal scale of treatments to leave large areas of intact sagebrush in place where sage-grouse can meet their shrub canopy needs for nesting. The benefit will come during the early and late brood-rearing periods where sage-grouse broods will have access to increased forb cover, and the associated insects within the treatment areas. Past research on Parker Mountain has shown that sage-grouse broods readily select treatment areas for brooding habitat. However, past treatment areas across the mountain have now returned, or will return shortly, to pre-treatment conditions with high shrub canopy potentially limiting the understory. The increase in herbaceous cover will not only benefit sage-grouse broods, but increase forage for livestock and other wildlife species.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

Habitat loss has been identified as one of the primary threats to sage-grouse populations in Utah by the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Utah. Treating sagebrush stands to reset succession to an earlier seral stage affects, either directly or indirectly, three of the four key sage-grouse threats identified by the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives Final Report (February 2013) for the Greater Parker Mountain sage-grouse population. For convenience, these threats are listed below:

1) Loss or degradation of habitat (primarily due to vegetation succession)
2) Conversion of habitat (sagebrush to pinyon-juniper or cheatgrass at the lower elevations)
3) Increased risk of predation because of expansion of, or changes in, the native predator community in response to anthropogenic factors, and
4) Habitat fragmentation from loss or degradation of habitat that results in a loss of sage-grouse habitat connectivity.
Chick survival is one of the key components to maintaining and increasing sage-grouse populations. By increasing forbs, and the associated insects, in known brooding areas sage-grouse broods can be benefited. Although this project will reduce sagebrush cover, which could be looked at as a potential habitat loss, the proposed prescription of small scale and spread-out timing of treatments has been designed specifically to not put the sage-grouse population at risk. Similar treatments on Parker Mountain in the past have resulted in increased forbs and were strongly selected for by sage-grouse broods. These same treatments have had sagebrush cover return to pre-treatment levels within as quickly as 10 years. 
This action is a proven, low cost method for increasing habitat sustainability across the Parker for the grouse, deer, pronghorn, elk, domestic livestock and a myriad of other sagebrush obligate species. Parker Mountain is relatively high in elevation and currently is at low risk to cheatgrass expansion or other invasive plants.

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

Many if not all of these management plans mention removing p/j in landscapes. They also mention vegetation treatment projects to maintain, restore and enhance habitats. This project is based on research that shows maintenance, restoration and enhancement of habitats for a large number of species occupying the Sagebrush areas of the Parker Mountain can be accomplished using the treatment methods outlined. Please reference the two papers in the documents section. However, for your reading pleasure I have included all the usual references...
.
 1) Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) also referred to as the "forest plan" IV-3. Integrate vegetation management with resource management to maintain productivity and provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. LRMP, IV-3. Coordinate wildlife and fish habitat management with State and other Federal and local agencies. LRMP, IV-4. Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals.

2) US Forest Service Greater Sage-grouse Utah Amendment, September 2015. Objective: Every 10 years for the next 50 years, improve greater sage-grouse (GRSG) habitat by removing invading conifers. Desired Conditions: In GRSG seasonal habitat, capable of producing sagebrush, has less than 10% conifer canopy cover. Vegetation treatment projects should be conducted if they maintain, restore ore enhance desired conditions for sage-grouse.

3)Parker Mountain Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan, October 1, 2006. 
2. Strategy: by 2011, make an assessment of non-desirable/invasive vegetation in sage-grouse habitats.
2.5. Action: Treat areas where undesirable vegetation has become, or is at risk of becoming a factor in sage-grouse habitat loss or fragmentation.

4) Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah January 11, 2019
     4c. Using WRI, remove conifer as appropriate in areas protected by federal, state and private landowners to    ensure that existing functional habitat remain.
     4d. Using WRI, maintain existing sage-grouse habitats by offsetting the impacts due to conifer encroachment by creating additional habitat within or adjacent to occupied habitats at an equal rate each year - or 25,000 acres each year- whichever is greater.
      4e. Increase sage-grouse habitats by using the WRI- and other state, federal and private partnerships- to restore or create 50,000 acres if habitat within or adjacent of occupied habitats each year in addition to 4d.

5) Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah, February 14, 2013. 
Sage-grouse Management Goal: Protect, maintain, improve and enhance sage-grouse populations and habitats within the established Sage-grouse Management Areas.  2.0.3 Objective 3 - Habitat: Enhance an average of 25,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat in Sage-grouse Management Areas annually. 2.0.4 Objective 4 - Habitat: Increase the total amount of sage-grouse habitat acreage within Sage-grouse Management Areas by an average of 50,000 acres per year, through management actions targeting Opportunity Areas. 5.4.1 Aggressively remove encroaching conifers and other plant species to expand greater sage-grouse habitat where possible.

6)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013. 
General Conservation Objectives: 1. Stop population declines and habitat loss. 2. Implement targeted habitat management and restoration.  Specific Conservation Objectives: 1. Retain sage-grouse habitats within PAC's. 3. Restore and rehabilitate degraded sage-grouse habitats in PAC's. Conservation Objective: Maintain and restore healthy native sagebrush plant communities within the range of sage-grouse 
Conservation Objective: Remove pinyon/juniper from areas of sagebrush that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal) at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of pinyon/juniper incursion.
-Prioritize the use of mechanical treatments.
-Reduce juniper cover in sage-grouse habitats to less than 5% but preferably eliminate entirely.
-Employ all necessary management actions to maintain the benefit of juniper removal for sage-grouse habitats.

7) Utah Wildlife Action Plan, 2015 Publication Number 15-14, State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Effective 2015-2025 -- Promoting and funding restoration that reduces the uncharacteristic and surpluses of older age class, including: Dixie/chain harrow, brush mowing or other treatments that reduce the older age class and stimulate the younger/mid age classes; herbicide or mechanical treatment of non-native invasive species such smooth brome; single tree mulching/cutting of invading conifer (p.51).

8) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer. Section IV Statewide management goals and objectives. This plan will address Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2013 (p11-12). Strategy C. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. Strategy f. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages.

9) Plateau Deer Herd Management Plan Unit #25 (2015) - Habitat Management Objectives -- Encourage vegetation manipulation projects and seeding to increase the availability, abundance, and nutritional content of browse, grass, and forb species. Strategies: Habitat Protection, Improvement and Maintenance - Reduce expansion of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinyon-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop & scatter, bullhog and chaining projects; maintain summer fawning areas by increasing beneficial habitat work in summer and transitional habitat areas.(p3-4)

10) Sevier County Resource Management Plan 2017- Water Quality and Hydrology. This action is congruent with Desired Management Practice number 3. Where water resources on public lands have diminished because grasses have succeeded to pinyon-juniper and other woody vegetation, a vigorous program of mechanical treatments should be applied to promptly remove this woody vegetation and biomass, stimulate the return of the grasses to historic levels, and thereby provide a watershed that maximizes water yield and water quality for livestock, wildlife, and human uses.(pg 24)

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

When applying Tebuthiuron for sage-grouse brood rearing habitat treatments, a low rate of active ingredient that results in partial kill of sagebrush is most desirable. Soil texture and depth, sagebrush vigor, precipitation regimes, and other environmental conditions will affect the resulting percentage of sagebrush killed. Pretreatment data measuring these various factors would help guide the best application rate.

Caution should be exercised in applying these observations and treatment techniques to sites with different elevations, annual precipitation, subspecies of big sagebrush, or soil
substrates. It is also critical that sage-grouse seasonal use patterns of the landscape be identified and delineated prior to implementation of sagebrush treatment projects because
sagebrush removal in areas where wintering or nesting habitat is a limiting factor may have devastating consequences.

Because we have well documented treatment responses from our treatments in the early 2000's we are confident we can create a project that will have long term benefits for the Parker Sage-grouse, wild and domestic grazing ungulates and other sagebrush obligate species.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

As sage becomes large and decadent they outcompete understory vegetation for water and nutrients.  Over time, these understory species become less productive and vigorous and eventually die out.  Treating these sagebrush stands releases understory grasses and forbs from competition, which increases plant vigor and rangeland productivity.
The Parker Mountain hosts one of four huntable populations of Sage-grouse in the state of Utah. In addition the Parker has contributed to recovery populations of GRSG in the Strawberry Valley, West Box Elder County and the Sheeprock Mountains SGMA's. You may correctly observe that the Parker provides a "nursery stock" of GRSG for other areas in our state. The Parker also contains the most productive GRSG habitat in Southern Utah. 
The Parker also has a huntable herd of pronghorn that have provided an incredible amount of recreation for our sportsman in the last 50 years. This pronghorn herd has also contributed to transplants and augmentations to pronghorn herds in Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Mule deer use the Parker for all phases of their life cycles and elk use the Parker extensively during the winter months. 
Livestock grazing is also a sustainable use on the Parker Mountain. As you travel the Parker it is often possible to  delineate where the treatments took place twenty years ago by observing where livestock choose to graze. Even after twenty years the areas inside the old treatments have a more nutritious understory than the adjacent areas that were not treated.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.