Beaver WMA's Habitat Restoration
Project ID: 3432
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2018
Submitted By: 523
Project Manager: Curtis Roundy
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Southern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
New fence construction of the South Creek WMA, lop and scatter of 300 acres of encroaching pinyon and juniper on the North Creek WMA and 381 acres of broadcast seeding and chain harrow on the South Creek and B-Hill WMA's.
Location:
The Beaver County WMA's are located on the west face of the Tushar mountain range in Beaver County, approximately five miles East of Beaver, UT.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Beaver North Creek WMA was historically dominated sagebrush-steppe ecosystem which is being encroached on by pinyon and juniper trees, thus decreasing the quality and quantity of available mule deer, Rocky Mountain elk, Rio Grande wild turkey, and other sagebrush obligate species habitat. In addition the South Creek and B-Hill WMA's consist of decadent sagebrush stands with increasing cheatgrass invasion that offer less desirable habitat for sage-steppe species. More favorable perennial grasses, forbs, and new shrubs are largely void from the area in its present state. Lop and scatter of pinyon and juniper on the North Creek WMA will further improve understory development of grass, forbs, and young shrubs. Broadcast seeding and chain harrow treatment of acres on the South Creek and B-Hill WMA's will increase desirable species. In addition, fencing of the South Creek WMA will protect habitat restoration efforts and allow for proper future grazing management. The habitat transition will greatly benefit mule deer, elk, wild turkey, and sagebrush obligate species in the area as well as improving watershed range conditions.
Objectives:
Overall goal of improving critical mule deer and elk winter range on Beaver WMA's by fencing and mechanical methods. 1.) Fence the South Creek WMA to assist in grazing administration and protect habitat restoration efforts. 2.) Restore approximately 381 acres of even age class decedent sagebrush and cheat grass dominated areas by reducing the shrub canopy cover to ~25% while increasing plant vigor and creating multiple age classes present on the site, as well as increasing the grass canopy cover to 20-30% and increasing the forb canopy cover to 5-10%, by utilizing methods of seed broadcast and chain harrow. Plateau herbicide application likely to follow in future phases, to treat the threat of cheatgrass invasion and dominance. 3.) Remove approximately 300 acres of encroaching pinyon and juniper encroachment on the Beaver North Creek WMA by reducing pinyon and juniper canopy cover to 0% within the treatment polygons by utilizing handthin lop and scatter methods.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The understory on the South Creek WMA is in poor condition due to years over over utilization. Sage are decadent even age class stands with cheatgrass further establishing in the understory. Although somewhat better conditions exist on the B-Hill unit; stands are still even age class with a limited understory of grasses or forbs. Diversity is low. Failing to restore these ares will further decrease the diversity and value to wintering mule deer, elk, small mammals, and avian species. Likelihood of catastrophic wildfire also increases as areas convert to cheatgrass and sage stands deteriorate . Pinyon and juniper invasion on Beaver North Creek WMA could out compete desirable shrub, grass, and forb species. Failure to treat will decrease the overall diversity and health of these ecosystems. With this treatment it is stated that there will be an overall benefit to Sagebrush obligate species. Although in the end this is expected to be the case, there will also be a temporary negative effect during the window that the sagebrush will take to bounce back from the treatment. The conditions that exist currently threaten total loss of sagebrush due to decadence if something isn't done to help recruit younger age class and reset the growth curve in this area. There is a risk in the sagebrush not responding as quickly or as expected that you could have a negative effect here, but is not really very likely to be the case based on what we saw in similar projects adjacent to this area. It is also noteworthy that we will be opening up more sagebrush with this project on the North Creek WMA with the lop and scatter that is planned and this will directly and immediately benefit these sagebrush obligate species while the other treated areas are in recovery. Cheatgrass invasion is of some concern post treatment. Proper timing and methodology will decrease that likelihood. As previously stated, future Plateau herbicide treatments are anticipated as part of this project. A similar project was done in 2010-2011 on the Beaver North Creek WMA with very good results.
Relation To Management Plan:
As identified in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan, there are 8 key habitats. This project will directly benefit two of the habitats listed Mountain Sagebrush and Mountain Shrub habitats and will also benefit the species that use these habitats. This project will contribute to the overall improvement of a minimum of 15,000 acres of elk range as outlined in the Beaver Elk Unit Management Plan. The project will facilitate improve the Beaver elk herd winter range. The management goal of The Beaver Deer Unit #22 Management Plan is to manage for a population of healthy animals capable of providing a broad range of recreational opportunities, including hunting and viewing. The WMA's are listed as critical winter range for mule deer. This project will improve habitat conditions for wintering mule deer. Conducting mechanical and natural treatments to improve big game and turkey habitat is listed as a objective in The Beaver WMA Management Plan. This project will meet that objective. This project also falls in line with the statewide Management Plan for Mule Deer (2014). Specifically dealing with part of their habitat needs this plan calls for the removal of Pinyon and Juniper encroachment and asks for the development of grass/forb/brush rich plant communities to help with their life cycle needs. This project is also in line with the Utah Statewide Management Plan for Elk (2015). In this plan it specifically mentions the needs for creating healthy watersheds and projects have included pinyon-juniper removal, controlled burns, reseeding efforts after wildfires, conifer thinning, etc., which have allowed for increased perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs to be established for the benefit of elk. This project is allowing our WMA's to come up to the standards set forth in the Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180) and Utah's Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health which address watersheds, ecological condition, water quality and habitat for special status species. This is directly tied to this project in that it lies in the drainage basin of the beaver river, which is a 303D State Listed Water body for TMDL and Phosphorous loading into this system, and this project will help eliminate erosion leading to this rivers TMDL listing. This project also ties in well with the National Fire Plan (2000). In this plan they state that one of their main objectives is Reducing hazardous fuels (dry brush and trees that have accumulated and increase the likelihood of unusually large fires) in the country's forests and rangelands By tying in with the other project work that has been done in the area this project also ties in well with the Health Forest Restoration Act of 2003 which states protecting forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands from unnaturally intensive and destructive fires is one of its objectives. This project connects a long line of projects that would prove to be effective fuel breaks in the event of a major wildfire event. This project will prove helpful in the Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water QualityTMDL Section(Beaver River Watershed TMDL Management Plan) By reducing the amount of bare ground within this drainage we will in effect reduce the amount of sediment loading in this watershed.
Fire / Fuels:
Removal of pinyon and Juniper trees will reduce the chances of a catastrophic wildfire. Also key to this project would be the suppression of growth and spread of cheatgrass post treatment. Cheatgrass is known for its frequent fire cycles, and by slowing the spread of this invasive grass you also lessen the chance of a fire happening in this area. This project would reduce the risk of a wildfire. This project is an FRCC class 2 currently and by treating with the prescribed methods we are hoping that it will move towards a FRCC class 1. This project is also going to protect several values at risk in the area including but not limited to the WUI interfaces between the North Creek WMA and the small community that rests below it on the hill as well as the WUI interface with the B-Hill unit and the town of Beaver. Another Value at risk in this particular area is the transmission lines and infrastructure that runs around and through these WMA's.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Completion of this project would reduce flooding and runoff from heavy rainstorms by depositing woody debris in the gullies to slow and hold back the water. Currently with the pinyon and Juniper on site there is a lot of bare ground available for erosion. By planting this treatment with a varied seed mix of grasses, forbs and shrubs the ground cover will be greatly increased, which will decrease the erosion. (Long Live Ryan Shakespear)
Compliance:
1 Archaeologist, No survey required for previously disturbed ground., Feb 3 2015 / 2 PMArchaeology, If required; Archaeology will be done in-house, Jan 2 2015 / 6 NEPA, N/A, Jan 2 2015
Methods:
Contractual Services to survey and construct a new fence of the South Creek WMA. CAT rental, seed broadcaster and chain harrow utilized to treat approximately 381 acres of the B-Hill and South Creek WMA's. Treatment will be done in a mosaic pattern to retain sage stands in good condition and create desirable edge habitat. Chained areas will be 2 way Ely chained. Contractual lop and scatter of approximately 300 acres of the Beaver North Creek WMA to eliminate encroaching pinyon and juniper. Project design and admin will be completed by UDWR habitat biologist. Chaining will be completed by UDWR seasonal employee and habitat staff.
Monitoring:
DWR range trend sites are directly adjacent to these project area's and additional sites based on availability may be requested. Photo points will be established, and the division of wildlife photo point/line intercept monitoring protocol will be followed in accordance with the Beaver WMA Management plan. District wildlife biologist and habitat biologists will routinely monitor seed establishment and wildlife utilization during annual deer and elk classification/Spring Range Assessments. There is currently a permanent site for this monitoring established on the North Creek WMA, and a site will be established on the South Creek WMA to evaluate utilization and Range Assessments. We will use the NRCS UT 2 Rangeland Health indicators to determine overall rangeland health and help us to determine utilization.
Partners:
UDWR is currently working with the Fishlake National Forest on lands to the east where some prescribed fire is proposed for implementation. On a recent tour with representatives from Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife group, as well as members of the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative they said they are in support of our previous treatment in the area which is similar to this proposed project. Forestry Fire and State Lands in conjunction with private landowners, BLM, and USFS have all been doing work in this area and it has been a collective effort to plan and implement these projects to do the most good for the watershed. There have been many different projects implemented in this area over the past few years and this project although not as large in scale as some will serve to in essence connect the dots and apply many of the things that we have learned in the other project to the landscape to create a healthy rangeland.
Future Management:
The South Creek WMA will be fenced as part of this project allowing the DWR to administer grazing as a tool in the future. Currently the grazing that is taking place on the South Creek WMA is unregulated trespass grazing. Grazing will be withheld for a minimum of two growing seasons on South Creek and B-hill WMA's. Future plateau herbicide treatments are anticipated as part of this project based on the response of the North Creek WMA to a similar treatment. Grazing will be evaluated annually and may be used as a tool to reach habitat objectives for the WMA's in the future, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis with preference for the forage to be available for wildlife. The Beaver north Creek WMA is not currently grazed. Wintering mule deer and elk utilization is high on these WMA's. It is also worth noting that the Beaver WMA management plans will be revised in 2017-2018 and this plan will address some of the future management goals for the newly acquired portion of the South Creek WMA and will line out how it will be managed into the future.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
This area is currently open range with no fences and since it is a fence out county there has been trespass livestock grazing the southern portion of this area. Once the work has been done in these area it is expected that the area will be used mostly to benefit wildlife since that is the purpose of our WMA's. Although this area is not planned to be part of a regular grazed pasture by livestock all of our WMA properties are reserved for use as a potential grass bank if needed.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$150,731.00 $0.00 $150,731.00 $2,000.00 $152,731.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Archaeological Clearance Contracted Arch Clearance 381 acres at $22/acre (using contractor based on recommendation from Monson due to high site density in other clearance within close proximity to this project) $8,382.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Contractual Services New Fence Construction- South Creek WMA 26,400 ft/$2 per foot $52,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Contractual Services South Creek WMA Boundary Survey $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Personal Services (seasonal employee) Seasonal Employee - CAT/Chain Harrow & Flagging $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Equipment Rental/Use D8 CAT haul and rental for two weeks - chain harrow $19,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Materials and Supplies Dyed Diesel Fuel - Chain Harrow $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Seed (GBRC) Seed -GBRC $29,524.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Contractual Services Lop & Scatter 300 Acres at $70/acre $21,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Contractual Services Aerial Seeding $15/acre primary - $10/acre secondary 381 acres $9,525.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Personal Services (permanent employee) Project admin, flagging, implementation $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2018
Motor Pool Truck Mileage-project admin for seasonal employee. $1,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$65,467.00 $0.00 $65,467.00 $2,000.00 $67,467.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2018
Habitat Council Account HCRF $65,467.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Elk R2
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Low
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Habitats
Habitat
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Very High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Low
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Low
Project Comments
Comment 01/09/2015 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Trail, I suggest raptor nest surveys before removing trees. Keith
Comment 02/10/2015 Type: 1 Commenter: Trail Kreitzer
The trees that would be removed are unlikely in a state to support raptor nests and with Fall implementation I would anticipate the we would be beyond most raptor stips. If indeed we do implement during a raptor nesting window surveys can be done.
Comment 01/26/2015 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Sage grouse habitat in any of this? More species that benefit? See some of the other South Beaver Projects for a more comprehensive list of management plans that support this effort.
Comment 01/28/2015 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Trail,Can you elaborate on: 1)What Phase PJ is in and how that area is departed from what you would expect? 2) Why you think area invaded by cheat grass hasn't crossed a threshold? 3) How the fencing and treatments will change livestock management in a way that prevents overutilization in the future? Is the current fence the management problem or do you need to change grazing strategies in there?
Comment 02/10/2015 Type: 1 Commenter: Trail Kreitzer
PJ on the Beaver North Creek WMA is primarily in phase 1. I did a 110 lop and scatter my first year with the Division 5 years ago and those areas responded really well. The trees in the areas I did not treat have really taken off and established beyond what I had anticipated a crew of Dedicated Hunters can handle. They could potentially threaten the habitat in the future and treatment now will be more cost effective. 2.) The areas proposed for chain harrow are old growth decadent sage brush with very limited recruitment or age class structure. There is a cheat grass competent in most of these areas and I believe at this point we are fortunate to not have had a fire that move us into a cheatgrass dominated area. Treatment methods; chain harrow, broadcast seed and anticipated herbicide treatment will move the area into a more desirable fire resistant state. 3.) In recent years as part of a land trade the UDWR acquired an larger SITLA parcel adjacent to a piece we already held. Prior to obtaining that piece the parcel we had was likely to small for us to justify fencing it. With both pieces now we have a much a larger and more significant land parcel. Fencing will allow us to manage grazing. It's anticipated that post treatment we will not graze it in order for it to respond and after we will monitor the WMA annually to evaluate the use of grazing to help us achieve the goals and of the property.
Comment 01/13/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
2017 Curtis, just a couple notes. 1) Usually I would say that cutting down sagebrush wouldn't really benefit sagebrush obligate birds, but this project has a small acreage of sagebrush management, so I think the immediate drawbacks would be minimal. Longterm, it would definitely help sagebrush songbirds. 2) You have wild turkey listed as a benefiting species. This description doesn't really provide any support for turkeys. There wasn't really a mention of an existing population (unless I missed it) or existing habitat nearby that would benefit from the tree removal. Could you add that information?
Comment 01/23/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Curtis Roundy
I added some comments to address part number (1) of your question into the threats/risk section of the project details. Overall there will be an expected long term benefit, and a short term negative impact to these species of songbirds and sagebrush obligate species, with the benefits long term outweighing the negative short term effects. (2) to address part 2 of your comment there is a population of turkeys that has used this area for the past several year primarily during the nesting and brood rearing season and go back and forth between the foothills and the agricultural fields in the area and use these habitats in passing. The treatment that we would be doing here would allow for insect attracting plants, as well as young tender succulent plants that would aid in brood rearing for this population helping them to thrive and do well during this critical stage of their life cycle. Overall thanks for your comments and helping me to make this project the best that it can be, thanks as well for your support for the project.
Comment 01/25/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: David Smedley
Curtis, I like the project. I have looked at the area and visited with the Forest Service about it. The project is quite a ways from any known areas that have sage grouse use and I think it will be a very beneficial for wildlife.
Comment 01/25/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Curtis Roundy
Thanks for you support of this project. I am excited to do good things for wildlife in this area, and think thins will prove to be beneficial to a variety of wildlife.
Comment 01/25/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Curtis! I thought this sounded like déjà vu even before I saw I had commented on it once before. Nice photos showing existing condition. Looks like you need that fence bad. Ugly. Speaking of, I did not see the fence feature on your map features. How large is the area to be fenced? What waterways are adjacent to your treatments and are they 303D listed or do they have TMDLs? Any ideas of fuel loading, FRCC and values at risk for fire? Any other plans to tier to (County, watershed, state-wide deer and elk, etc.)? It looks like there are already range trend sites within or adjacent to your treatments areas, do they support your assessment of existing condition? Will they continue to be monitored post-treatment? Also it is a little unclear what monitoring will be conducted for elk, deer and turkey. Any specific work this can tie to on immediately adjacent BLM land and were they coordinated with? I am a little unclear on what the future of grazing will be in these allotments (although it looks like South Creek could be rested for a good long time if that photo is representative). How do the WMA plans guide future management?
Comment 02/14/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Curtis Roundy
Michael, Thanks for your comments on this project. In regards to the fence feature I went in and added it to the mapping so it is now shown. The acreage that would be fenced with this project is 675 acres. To address your question about adjacent waterways all of our WMA's are in some way connected to the Beaver River and it is listed for TMDL and is mostly addressing phosphorous loading as well as temperature issues. As far as I know Range trend has no plans to discontinue checking these sites within the area and their findings are in line with the assessment of conditions, and they agree that the area is in a degraded state. To help clear up the monitoring for deer and elk; the district biologist has a route that utilizes two of these WMA's for winter counts for both deer, elk, and Turkey use and he will be our monitor for the use levels. During his spring visit to the area it is standard that both he and I spend a day looking at the habitat vegetation usage and monitoring the WMA's according to what is in the WMA plan. As for grazing in the future following the two years minimum of rest to allow our seeding to establish, we will be following our normal course of action as is lined out in the Beaver WMA management plan which states that grazing will be used as a tool to benefit wildlife habitat if it is deemed that grazing is needed to improve habitat conditions for Mule Deer Winter Range and the plan has metrics set up for measuring when this is needed. This project is directly adjacent to several different projects that have been ongoing for the past few years on both BLM and USFS lands. Part of this project came to be directly from coordination that took place with several partners. The WRI field tour was held in this location and several people at that time commented on how the North Creek project was successful but that we missed out on the opportunity to lop and scatter the trees on the lower section. Because of the success of the project on the upper section we decided to put together this project to hopefully gain the benefits on the B-Hill and South Creek WMA's that were gained from the same treatment type on the north creek WMA. Without making the reply too much longer the WMA plan has guidance built in to continue managing these properties into the future with the benefit of wintering Mule Deer as the driving factor in future decisions. I have also addressed the comment for the fire/fuels section in the project details section.
Comment 02/05/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Quick couple of comments re: threats to spp & habitats. 1) It sounds like Improper Grazing -- Livestock (historical) is a relevant one to your habitat and maybe some of the species. 2) Also I suggest adding Problematic Plants - Native Upland. These would be the junipers & pinyons. Thanks for picking the ball back up on this one, and not letting the idea fade away.
Comment 02/13/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Curtis Roundy
Jimi, Thanks for the comments I will go in and make some of the suggested changes to help improve this project overall.
Comment 02/06/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Slate Stewart
Looks like the area could use some help. I am going to through a lot of questions at you form my GIP days thinking just as thoughts. 1.) You mentioned "mule deer and elk utilization is high on these areas". Are the conditions due to wildlife more so than livestock use? 2.) With high wildlife utilization, any ideas or thoughts on how to help create some rest during the two following growing seasons to protect the seeding and help ensure establishment and investment, especially during the first year fall and spring? 3.) Have you had any conversations with the BLM or private landowners to talk about an agreement to fence a larger area of multiple ownerships to create a larger pasture that could add to the overall grazing management of the entire allotment? 4.) Any treatments happening on the adjacent private lands to expand the acreages? 5.) Are the fencing materials and labor expenses coming from the habitat council, DWR, or WRI funds?
Comment 02/13/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Curtis Roundy
Slate, Thanks for the comments. Addressing your question on utilization, the state of South Canyon is certainly caused by overgrazing of trespass cattle due to not having a fence. Although there is a high concentration of wildlife in the area, directly adjacent WMA's with fencing have a significantly better plant community and plant health and vigor is much higher on these locations. As far as rest from wildlife for the two growing seasons this is going to be very difficult. There have been several large projects within a few mile radius of this project that would all be in the rest stage of their respective projects during this window and for this reason we are hoping that this project will not be over utilized during the initial growth/establishment phase of the project. As for coordinating with BLM and Private Landowners for an agreement to fence a larger area to be frank we have not. We are not looking for this area to be included in a grazing allotment in the future, we are looking forward to this being a reserve to help hold wildlife over during winter months and for this reason we haven't considered making it part of a bigger grazing allotment pasture. Most of the treatable federal acres directly adjacent to this project have been previously treated and this project would tie in well to these to make more usable area for wildlife for the winter as well as potentially more feed on the federal acres to help alleviate the need for trespass grazing on our land that would be fenced off with this project. As far as where the fencing materials come from the answer is habitat council dollars is usually the money that would pay for fencing in this case but we haven't been allocated money for it yet. I hope this answered all of your questions. Thanks again for your interest in this project and for you comments to help make it the best project that it can be.
Comment 05/09/2017 Type: 2 Commenter: Monson Shaver
Curtis, I updated your Arch cost to 22$/acre.
Comment 08/20/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
I updated your expenses with the full amount that was spent on that project. The other charge to the project was the arch. When you are uploading features go ahead and upload an affected area for the areas that were only surveyed for arch. Thanks.
Comment 01/23/2017 Type: 3 Commenter: Monson Shaver
High site density in Section 31 is a concern. Consider contracting this project at the same rate. M.
Comment 01/23/2017 Type: 3 Commenter: Curtis Roundy
Thanks for the comment I have made the changes to reflect your recommendation.
Completion
Start Date:
07/10/2017
End Date:
06/28/2018
FY Implemented:
2018
Final Methods:
This project didn't exactly go as planned. We ran into some major issues with the treatments that we planned due to archaeology being present in volume on the landscape. We wanted to chain harrow and that treatment type along with other types of treatments that require a heavy hand on this landscape is not allowable due to the archaeology. Therefore in an attempt to spare funding for a possible building of a fence that we decided was top priority we were only able to complete a portion of the lop and scatter portion of the project through a dedicated hunter project. Then due to funding constraints once we bid out the fence construction, we weren't able to build the fence but we were able to complete a survey of the property and legally have this survey listed with the county in preparation for the future where we would like to build the fence on the South Creek WMA.
Project Narrative:
We started this project by issuing a lop and scatter project in the fall of 2017 through the dedicated hunter program. We then assessed what else could be completed with the remaining funds. By this time we had the report back from the archaeology surveys and we realized that there was too much avoidance areas within this area to even attempt a chain harrow on the land. Next we thought that we could build the fence with the money that we were going to use to complete the chain harrow and seeding. We put out a contract and it came in over what we had left in our budget. We then decided to contract and have the Land Survey completed with the remaining funds. This was completed and we didn't have remaining funds enough to do any of the other desired tasks. We will re-apply for funding to finish the fence during the next fiscal cycle. We will also take a closer look at the areas that we were going to chain harrow in and see if we might be able to clear some of the trees from these areas in an attempt to help grow as much feed for wildlife as possible. (Note that on the map the affected area is the area that was cleared for archaeology, as well as surveyed and staked out for a fence in the future.)
Future Management:
We will continue to manage these WMA areas for the benefit of wildlife. We also have annual utilization monitoring that is done by the DWR habitat and wildlife biologists to determine if we are over-utilizing these habitats and if so what we need to do to allow for healthy winter ranges. If we see issues then we will use them as triggers to try and do more to improve these areas. We also plan to put together a future lop and scatter project proposal as well as a part of the proposal will be to completely fence off the South Creek WMA to preserve the resources in this area for the use and benefit of wildlife.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
7131 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
7137 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map