Telegraph Flat Saline Soils Stabilization
Project ID: 4153
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: James Bradshaw
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: GSENM
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
We are seeking funding to support upland restoration of vegetation on approximately 1150 acres of sagebrush rangelands. We will improve a total of 1150 acres of range vegetation on slight-to-moderately saline soils by chaining and/or harrowing, and seeding a decadent sagebrush rangeland.
Location:
The project are is between Kanab and Big Water, UT near the Southern Boundary of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument (GSENM). The total project areas is 1150 acres located on Telegraph Flat near Kitchen Corral Wash.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Upland areas of Telegraph Flat project area (~1150 acres) consist of dense, mid-to-late successional stands of sagebrush with little grass and forbs in the understory. Sheet flows have concentrated in areas with bare understory and where slopes change abruptly and have formed a series of active headcuts and an active, deeply incised 1.4 mile gully from Telegraph Flat to Kitchen Coral Wash near the southern end of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument just north of Highway 89, between Kanab and Big Water. The goal of this project is to restore upland vegetation using reseeding combined with mechanical treatments to increase understory vegetation and reduce sediment and salt transport from upland areas in the project area and prevent additional gully formation and headcutting. Rangeland health assessments from two monitoring location within the project area indicate that the soils in the project area are not exhibiting permeability and infiltration rates that sustain or improve site productivity (Standard 1) and desired species are not maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved (Standard 3). Overall, this project improve watershed health to begin meeting rangeland health standards and will also improve livestock forage and wildlife browse. NOTE: The project area shown in the map is approximately 2700 acres, however the treated portion is within the Semi-desert Loam ecological site and is approximately 1150 acres.
Objectives:
1) Increase roughness of soils to reduce erosion and decrease sediment and salt transport to washes, streams, and rivers within the Colorado River watershed 2) Restore percent canopy cover of grass to 15%, forbs to 5%, and shrubs to 15% 3) Reduce headcutting, gully formation, and gully incising
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Gullies occur when rills converge in a concentrated flow of surface runoff. Decreased vegetation reduces surface roughness leading to increased velocity in overland flows and can cause gully incision and widening. The proposed project area will not likely restore to a natural, more desirable state without the implementation of methods proposed in this project, and headcutting and gully formation will continue and/or worsen. In addition, GSENM implemented erosion control measures in FY17 to stabilized the active portions of the headcuts and plans to finish headcut stabilization in FY18, and improving the watershed cover will help prevent the loss and/or degradation of these stabilization structures.. The project area is critical winter habitat for mule deer, and is primarily used as a transition area for migration. The homogeneous age class of shrub vegetation provides very little nutritional value in its current state. Additionally, this class of vegetation is susceptible to wildfire, and under the right conditions could lead to an intense fire that would destroy mule deer habitat. Removing all sagebrush could have a negative impact on shrub-steppe obligate species. By using a chain, harrow, or combination chain/harrow some shrubs remain intact so that some of the habitat is left in place for these species.
Relation To Management Plan:
The GSENM Management Plan states that priority for restoration will be given to projects where Monument resources are being damaged. Additionally, GSENM will manage uses to prevent damage to soil resources, and ensure that land management policies protect water resources. In the proposed project area, soil resources are being lost due to excessive erosion. This soil loss leads to degraded water quality from sediment and salt loading. Thus, this project area has the characteristics that make it a priority for restoration. The Kane County Resource Management Plan states that a goal of the county will be to achieve and maintain the highest reasonably sustainable levels of watersheds. Kane County supports multiple uses and sustained yield management on federal and state lands. The Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan states "Mule deer thrive in early successional habitats, where forbs, grassy plants and shrubs dominate. These environments are not as stable as forest habitats, and they rely on fire or some other type of disturbance to return them to an early successional stage. If they are not disturbed, they become more stable plant communities dominated by large trees and large shrubs. Tree-dominated habitats offer mule deer a place to retreat from severe weather, but these areas offer little in the way of food. That is why it is important to provide a mosaic or pattern of habitats that can provide food, cover and water." This project would move plant communities to earlier successional states and restore community functionality by providing a diversity of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that are available during critical seasons throughout the year. This restoration project is within a large enough area that would benefit mule deer, includes mosaic patterns to increase patchiness and edge effects, and would be conducted in an area with high potential for success. The Kanab Field Office RMP states, with regard to vegetation and soil resources: "[vegetation] treatments would be conducted in areas where the desired vegetation community has been invaded or has reached and undesirable monoculture. Although short term losses of vegetation would occur, over the long term these actions would help to remove undesirable species, increase species diversity and age class, improve vegetation composition and structure, and increase vegetation cover and ecological condition. Under the Approved RMP soil resources will also benefit from vegetation treatments. Although vegetation treatments are initially surface disturbing, over the long term vegetation treatments will improve soil stability and improve soil condition by improving the vegetation that helps bind it together."
Fire / Fuels:
This project will reduce fuel loading by decreasing the density of continuous sagebrush in the project area. This is a proactive treatment to reduce the potential occurrence of a high intensity wildfire that could increase the risk of shrubland conversion to annual grasses post fire.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project area is dominated by decadent sagebrush with very little understory and there is active headcutting and gully formation. Soils within in the project area are easily eroded and also contain varying degrees of soluble salts. Without the proposed project this area will continue to erode, degrading water quality by increasing sediment and salinity loading. The project is located within the Buckskin Gulch water quality assessment unit. This assessment unit currently supports all designated beneficial uses. Restoration of active head cuts in this assessment unit would be beneficial to maintaining the "currently supporting" status. The adjacent Paria-1, Paria-2, and Paria-3 water quality assessment units are impaired due to not meeting Temperature, Total Dissolved Solids, and/or O/E Bioassessment standards. The Buckskin Gulch unit and Paria units converge in Arizona and eventually flow into the Colorado River. Reducing sediment and salt loads in the Buckskin Gulch unit would be beneficial to the Colorado River by not adding sediment and salts to the contaminant loading already present in the Paria River.
Compliance:
Archaeological clearances have been completed for adjacent areas treated in past years but the current area will still need to be inventoried. Adjacent areas have moderate-to-high site density so this cost will be reflected in the proposed budget. NEPA for this project was completed August 17, 2006 in the UT-030-04-010-EA--Five Mile Mountain Sagebrush Restoration Project document.
Methods:
Decadent sagebrush areas would be treated with a harrow or chain, or a combination harrow and chain. Treated areas would be broadcast seeded with a mix of grasses and forbs to stabilize soils, and improve forage for wildlife such as mule deer and pronghorn.
Monitoring:
Vegetation Monitoring Plans: Rain gages located within and/or near the project area will be read monthly and data will be summarized into project files annually. Several frequency plots will be established within the project area. Frequency studies will be read prior to treatment and yearly for 5 year. Data will be summarized annually and placed into project files. Success will be determined by the site having 25% or greater frequency of seeded species by Fall of 2022.
Partners:
Partners on this project will the Bureau of Land Management Kanab Field Office, Cedar City Fuels, and UTDWR..
Future Management:
All areas seeded will be rested for a minimum of two complete growing seasons or until the seedlings become established and set seed. Once seeding establishment has been confirmed, BLM may authorize grazing according to the Utah Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Vegetation will continue to be monitored for utilization, cover, and trend and uses will be adaptively managed to maximize the continued success of the restoration.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The project area is within the Vermillion grazing allotment and is within an old vegetation treatment. The majority of this allotment is lacking understory and available forage. This project will improve rangeland conditions in the treated portion of the allotment. Implementation of this project would improve overall livestock performance and improve the economic stability of the permittees due to an increase in the quantity and quality of grasses and other herbaceous forages important to livestock grazing.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$283,674.00 $0.00 $283,674.00 $20,000.00 $303,674.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Aerial Seeding 1150 acres @ $15/acre $17,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Seed (GBRC) Seed mix 1150 acres @ $58.67/acre $67,474.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Mechanical Chaining and/or Harrowing 1150 acres @ $135/acre $155,250.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Archaeological Clearance Archaeological clearance 1150 acres @ $38/acre $43,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) Project layout, contract preparation, and contract administration for mechanical treatment, seeding, and archaeological contracts. $0.00 $0.00 $17,000.00 2019
NEPA NEPA was completed for the project area in 2006. $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$285,000.00 $0.00 $285,000.00 $20,000.00 $305,000.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
BLM Fuels (Color Country) $285,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/18/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
James, Has any effort been made to document nesting of shrub-steppe birds in the project area? Will you be taking efforts to maintain some nesting habitat for these species? How large is the mapped treatment block - complete removal of existing vegetation within the area mapped will have a big impact on bird and small mammals communiities.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: James Bradshaw
Added a statement to describe that some shrub habitat will be maintained from the methods used for species that need it.
Comment 02/01/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
James, Looks like a good project. Some questions comments. Could you specify how many acres are actually being treated in what you are asking for funding for in this proposal? Is there existing data that shows the state of the vegetation community there and is departed from ESD or desired conditions? It looks like there are some range trends studies immediately adjacent to the proposed project that might help with that. If the sagebrush stands are all late seral and out of whack might you be addressing the Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity. The erosion threat is well articulated, but are there threats/risks to the mule deer herd and/or habitat if treatment is not completed. The Relation To Management Plan section could be beefed up with other plans that support the proposed treatments. DWR, Counties, DEQ, etc. not partners? Not consulted? What water quality issues in the Paria and Colorado does the project address? If current vegetation community is undesirable what changes in management can we make to prevent it from converting back once we treat? Any sense of scale of improved forage? I dig the gully monitoring. Would be cool to upload some current condition photos of those. Any wildlife monitoring?
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: James Bradshaw
Incorporated rangeland health evaluations from two points within the project area; added Fire Frequency and Intensity as a criteria to address; beefed up management plan section and consults with partners; beefed up water quality info; added that area will be adaptively managed for grazing once rest period is complete and added photos.
Comment 02/06/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
I agree with this - "What water quality issues in the Paria and Colorado does the project address?" Any impairments listed there, failures to support beneficial uses including aquatic organisms? If the project will address some of these issues, what SGCN fishes and Key Habitats impacted by these same issues are present in/beside the Paria or adjacent Colorado? (Off-site benefits are perfectly claimable, if there's a credible connection e.g. via flowing water.)
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: James Bradshaw
Added more on water quality section
Comment 02/07/2017 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hi James - Glad to see another monument staffer putting projects in here we are getting tired of Raymond and Cameron (just kidding we really like them). A couple of ideas that might help you pick up a few more points. 1st it is great that you tie to the monument plan and have great connections to it - What other plans (federal, state, county, etc.) might also have bearing on this project? Also I think UDWR would be highly interested in partnering on and helping design this project if funded to ensure we are doing the most good for the most species. Finally a general comment, but it wouldn't hurt to get a hold of the ranking criteria and associated narrative and just give the project a once over to see if you note a place or two that you could add just a little more detail to address what the criteria is looking for. Might gain you a few points. It was emailed out to the UPCD mailing list not too long ago, but if you aren't on that list you could probably get it from Raymond or Cameron and if not I'd be happy to email it to you just contact me at garybezzant@utah.gov
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: James Bradshaw
Tied project to several other management plans, added DWR as a partner--Cameron will consult with them prior to project.
Comment 02/06/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
James. I would ditto the comments above, even though they are from 2017. Additionally, I have some questions about your budget. The seed mix proposed is only for 575 acres, but your budget shows 1150 acres? The cost difference is about $50,000. Please clarify what $ you will need for seeding. The $ requested for a seed flight is a little bit high - on average we have been paying between $10-$15/acre. When you are calculating in-kind for the NEPA, only those portions of the costs incurred or may have been incurred as a portion of the entire NEPA should be claimed. The last comment I have on the budget is that you mention in your write-up that some of the archaeology is done, but then you have requested arch funds for the entire acreage? Confirmed support from partners for this project, as well as coordination with the Color Country District Fuels Staff will increase points and the liklihood of this project getting funded. Thanks James!
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: James Bradshaw
Fixed the seed mix acrages and cost difference. Fixed the price for seed flight. Fixed In-Kind for NEPA and other administrative functions. Added more information on archeological clearance that is needed. Added Sean Peterson as a collaborator fuels.
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Danny Summers
Your seed workbook is about a year out of date. Download the latest version and update your mix. This prices are probably close, but the more current version will be a better estimate.
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: James Bradshaw
We updated to the newest seed mix sheet. Thanks for your comment.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
5952 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map