Indian Peak (Bull Hog)/Atchison Creek(cultural clearance) - Hamlin Valley (Year 4)
Project ID: 4453
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: 105
Project Manager: Dan Fletcher
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Cedar City
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Hamlin Valley - Sagebrush Restoration (Year 4) would result in the immediate removal of pinyon pine and juniper from the sagebrush community on approximately 980 acres of BLM managed lands and a cultural clearance on 6,541 acres (BLM and SITLA). The project has been Prioritized into 2 projects based on funding. Note: This project is a continuation of Project 3934. Any funding that remains from previous phases of the Hamlin Valley project would be requested to be used for this project.
Location:
The project is located within Hamlin Valley, which is located north of Modena, Utah. Legal Description: Township 29 South, Range 18 West, Section(s) Numerous.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The need to protect resources and rehabilitate vegetation communities within the Hamlin Valley Resource Protection and Habitat Improvement Project Area has been recognized for many years. This area continues to be a high priority area for vegetation resource enhancement, resource protection and fuels reduction. The Hamlin Valley Project is located within the Hamlin Valley Sage Grouse Management Area (SGMA) and in close proximity to the Hamlin Valley Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA). Multiple project areas and treatment methods have been identified for the Project Area (Year 4) and are identified as follows: 1. Indian Peak (Bull Hog - 798 acres (BLM - 798 acres) 2. Atchison Creek (Cultural Clearance - 6,541 acres) Note: Refer to Attached Funding Table (Estimates Costs for Each Project) *Note: Indian Peak (Bull Hog - 798 acres) cultural surveys were completed in 2017 during the last phase (3934) of the Hamlin Valley project. **Note: Priority 2 - Atchison Creek (6,541 acres) is only identified for Archaeology Contract purposes to ensure that cultural clearances are completed for future project phases. Proposed management prescriptions/strategies for the sagebrush vegetation management area are based on departure from the ecological site, the potential for the community to respond to various treatment methods, as well as the desired future condition of the sagebrush/steppe vegetative community. The excessive juniper and pinyon pine encroachment into areas that were once dominated by perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs according to the Ecological Site Description is of concern throughout the majority of the Project Area. The extensive juniper and pinyon pine encroachment has been detrimental to sage grouse and other wildlife habitat throughout the project area. The Indian Peak (bull hog) portion of this proposal will tie in with the Indian Peak (chaining) project (3934) that was recently completed in December 2017. The Atchison Creek portion of this proposal will tie in with the Atchison Creek/Spanish George projects (3934, 3686 and 2076) that have occurred in 2015, 2016 and 2017. The implementation of Year 4 of the project would improve 798 acres of habitat immediately adjacent to the Indian Peak Chaining Project, which was completed in 2017. The treatment methods within the Atchison Creek area would be very similar to the Indian Peak Bull Hog project and the recently completed Indian Peak chaining project (3934). The elevation, precipitation, ecological sites, etc... are similar between the two project areas. In addition, the benefits would be similar to the Indian Peak project with the exception that there is a small community within the immediate vicinity of this project area. A bull project (3934) is currently occurring on public lands immediately adjacent to the community, which is expected to provide for a measure of fire protection. The Atchison Creek project is expected to provide further protection to the project area. The project area is also located immediately adjacent to the Hamlin Valley Priority Habitat Management Area (PHMA). The project is located within the Sage grouse Management Area (SGMA) as identified by the State. Proposed management prescription/strategies for the area are based on departure from the ecological site, the potential for the community to respond to the identified treatment method as well as the desired future condition of the sagebrush/steppe vegetative community. The excessive juniper and pinyon pine encroachment into areas that were once dominated by perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs according to the Ecological Site Description is of concern throughout the Project Area, which has been detrimental to sage-grouse and other wildlife habitat. The Indian Peak (Bull Hog) project has been flagged; however, additional islands (cultural, wildlife, sensitive plants) still need to be identified. In addition, the cultural resource inventory has been completed within the project area. The Hamlin Valley project (Year 4) would also tie into efforts that have been completed on BLM and SITLA lands immediately adjacent to the Indian Peak (Bull Hog) project. The NRCS is actively working with livestock permittees through the sage grouse initiative/farm bill to identify projects on SITLA and private lands that could be implemented at the same time as treatment on public lands in Year 5 (Chokecherry - Cultural). This is the primary reason to complete cultural within this area so that future projects in Atchison Creek (Year 5 - 2020) can be implemented.
Objectives:
The overall objective of this project is to remove pinyon pine and juniper and achieve a vegetation community that more closely resembles the sagebrush ecological site. The project is located in the Hamlin Valley Sage Grouse Management Area and adjacent to the Hamlin Valley Priority Habitat Management Area. The majority of the project is within a sagebrush ecological site and the project objectives are as follows: 1. Maintain adequate habitat components to meet needs of greater sage-grouse in nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitats in accordance with current guidelines and in coordination with UDWR and SWARM while providing for other wildlife values. 2. Manage to maintain/create large, un-fragmented blocks of sagebrush habitat with a variety of seral stages which would meet the seasonal needs of sage-grouse. 3. Improve health, composition, and diversity of shrubs, grasses, and forbs in accordance with Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and the Ecological Site Description. 4. Reduce pinyon pine and juniper density by 100% or in accordance with what is described in the Ecological Site Description. 5. The Composition by air-dry weight would be approximately 45-55% grasses, 5-10% forbs, and 40-50% shrubs. 6. Vertical canopy cover for grasses/forbs would be 20-40%, shrubs would be 15-45%, and trees would be 0%.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The project is focused on eliminating pinyon pine and juniper from the sagebrush ecological site. Improving this community and removing ladder fuels to minimize the potential for a sagebrush stand replacing fire is a high priority. Historically it is expected that sage grouse in the area had a greater distribution and population. Lack of natural disturbances such as wildfire have favored pinyon and juniper expansion and a subsequent decline in sage grouse populations and sage grouse habitat. It is expected if the project does not occur that juniper and pinyon pine expansion will continue to occur in the project area further limiting sage grouse habitat. There are homes within the vicinity of the Atchison Creek project area. It is expected that the treatment; specifically in the Atchison Creek Allotment would expand on the buffer that is currently being treated (bull hog) to the existing homes. The only other values at risk would be Range Improvement Projects. There is a significant amount of fences throughout the area that may be impacted by fire. Implementation of the project has risks/threats including annual precipitation fluctuations and invasive/noxious weed establishment; however, mitigation measures have been identified that will limit these threats/risks to the project area. The project is located at an elevation of 6,000 feet, which is expected to help counteract the impacts of drought. Typically, rangelands at this elevation receive adequate precipitation to promote vegetative growth and viability in the short-term and long-term. In addition, recent research Roundy, et. al. (2014) has shown that mechanical treatments to remove pinyon and juniper increase time that soil water is available. This research indicates that even four years after treatment, treated areas showed from 8.6 days to 18 days additional water availability at high elevation sites. Additional research by Young, et. al. (2013) also showed a relationship between tree removal and soil climates and wet days on these sites, which while providing more available moisture for desired vegetation could also provide moisture for weeds. Numerous studies have shown that increased infiltration rates and less overland flow improve both water quality and quantity. In addition, extensive pre-monitoring vegetative data collection has occurred within the project area. This includes extensive Sage Grouse habitat Assessments, Rangeland Health assessments (basal gap, canopy gap, line point intercept, shrub height, Rangeland Health Assessments), nested frequency, utilization, Proper Functioning Condition, etc... The primary threats that were identified through pre-monitoring within the project area included annual precipitation fluctuations, cheatgrass, the expansion of pinyon pine and juniper into the sagebrush steppe vegetative community and wildfire. A Landscape Forecasting project in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy has been completed. The objectives of this project were to 1. Develop maps of potential vegetation types and current vegetation classes within each biophysical setting by conducting remote sensing of satellite or aerial imagery. 2. Refine computerized predictive state-and-transition ecological models for the ecological systems by updating models or creating new models 3. Use computerized ecological models to forecast anticipated future condition of ecological systems under minimum management to quantify future threats 4. Use Return-on-Investment analysis to assess which strategies for which ecological systems yield the most advantageous results 5. Use computerized ecological models to forecast anticipated future condition of ecological systems under alternative management strategies 6. Determine current condition of all ecological systems (a broad scale measure of ecological system health) using the ecological departure using Fire Regime Condition metric and Fire Regime Condition Class. Ecological departure was be measured by comparing the current condition of vegetation to reference conditions. Additional metrics of ecological condition were developed to describe either different desired future condition or special vegetation classes The vegetative monitoring data and the Landscape Forecasting will be utilized to verify ecological sites, identify treatment methods, determine cost effectiveness, etc... to ensure the success of future projects. The second phase of the Landscape Conservation Forecasting project has focused on climate change to determine the long-term viability of vegetation treatments within the project area considering impacts of climate change. A Draft report for this phase of the project is expected by February 2018. The Landscape Forecasting project that has been completed identified that most of the poor ecological conditions (high departure values) in ecological systems were attributed to six types of problems that are substantial or widespread across the Project Area: (1) encroachment by juniper and pinyon pine trees; (2) annual grasses, primarily cheatgrass; (3) degraded or depleted shrubland understories; (4) exotic forbs; and (5) loss of aspen clone. The conclusion of the Landscape Conservation Forecasting project was that conditions within the project area after 25 years of "MINIMUM MANAGEMENT" (no active treatments or management) are forecasted to remain moderately to highly departed. In addition, the Return On Investment values are high or moderately high for most shrubland ecological systems within the project area. Sage grouse telemetry data has also been collected and will continue to be collected within the Project Area. This information will be utilized to identify future treatments and determine whether sage grouse are utilizing ongoing treatment areas. All of the information that has been collected will serve as a baseline to determine success/failure of the project for sage grouse and other wildlife within the project area on a short-term and long-term basis. Wildlife monitoring data including Breeding Bird Surveys, Raptor Nest Surveys and General Wildlife Use Surveys has been collected throughout the Project Area (Indian Peak (Bull Hog) in 2016 and 2017. These surveys will also be completed within the Atchison Creek project area in 2018 in preparation for project implementation in 2020.
Relation To Management Plan:
Hamlin Valley EA/FONSI/DR - June 2014 The EA/FONSI/DR recognized the importance of the Project Area with regard to improving the vegetation component within the Hamlin Valley Sage Grouse Priority Habitat Management Area. A variety of vegetation treatments were authorized that would improve/maintain Rangeland Health in accordance with the Ecological Site Description. The focus for management within this area is to improve greater sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat while maintaining the dominant aspects of the sagebrush community to ensure adequate cover is available. High quality brood-rearing habitat has been identified as a limiting factor for sage grouse in the Hamlin Valley population area. BLM Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan 2015 A. The project is consistent with the SGARMP (2015) goals, objectives and Management Actions that were identified in the Special Status Species section as follows: Special Status Species Goal: Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners. Refer to the following Objectives and Management Actions in the SGRMPA (Objectives: SSS-3, SSS-4, SSS-5) and Management Actions (MA-SSS-4, MA-SSS-6, MA-SSS7). B. The project is also consistent with the SGARMP (2015) objectives and Management Actions that were identified in the Vegetation section as follows: Refer to the following Objectives and Management Actions in the SGRMPA (MA-VEG-1, MA-VEG-2, MA-VEG-4, MA-VEG-5, MA-VEG-6, MA-VEG-8, MA-VEG-9, MA-VEG-10, MA-VEG-12 and MA-VEG-14). C. The project is also consistent with the SGARMP (2015) Management Actions that were identified in the Fire and Fuels Management section as follows: Refer to the following Management Actions in the SGRMPA (MA-FIRE-1 and MA-FIRE-3) D. The project is also consistent with the SGARMP (2015) Management Actions that were identified in the Livestock Grazing/Range Management section as follows: Refer to the following Management Actions in the SGRMPA (MA-LG-3, MA-LG-4, MA-LG-5, MA-LG-12, MALG-13, MA-LG-16 and MA-LG-17). The Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah was approved by the Governor in April 2013. The plan established incentive-based conservation programs for conservation of sage-grouse on private, local government, and School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration lands and regulatory programs on other state and federally managed lands. The Conservation Plan also establishes sage-grouse management areas and implements specific management protocols in these areas. The Utah Greater Sage-grouse Management Plan in 2009 identified threats and issues affecting sage-grouse management in Utah as well as goals, objectives, and strategies intended to guide UDWR, local working groups, and land managers efforts to protect, maintain, and improve sage-grouse populations and habitats and balance their management with other resource uses. Southwest Desert Local Working Group Conservation Plan 2009. The local Working Group has developed a Conservation Plan detailing the natural history, threats, and mitigation measures for sage-grouse in each conservation plan area; and conservation guidelines for any activities occurring in the area. In addition, the Project Planning Areas (PPAs) in the Great Basin Fire and Invasive Assessment Tool (FIAT) have identified Hamlin Valley as a high priority for Conifer Focus (Removal). Through this process the top FIAT PPAs, including Hamlin Valley, had the highest priority for sagebrush restoration, protection and conservation within the 5 Great Basin FIAT assessment areas. The highest priority PPAs is those that contain Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA), high breeding bird densities, conifer threats, wildfire and invasive species threats. The Project Planning Areas (PPA) prioritization will be used to develop an integrated multi-year program of work for all fuels and vegetation management projects and other related activities aimed to protect, conserve and restore sagebrush and sage grouse habitat. The priority PPAs will be used to inform and influence funding decisions by the BLM. Note: A conformance document has been completed to ensure that the Indian Peak (Bull Hog) project is in conformance with the Sage Grouse ARMPA (See Attachment). The Utah State Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 (Final) is a comprehensive management plan designed to conserve native species populations and habitats in Utah, and prevent the need for additional federal listings. Please refer to attached excerpts from the Utah State Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 that identify Strategy for Management (Pg. 41 and Pg. 50). Pinyon Management Framework Plan (PMFP) (1983) Although the Project Area was not specifically discussed in the RMP vegetation treatments were identified throughout the Field Office. Southwest Utah Support Area Fire Management Plan (May, 2006) The SUSAFMP identifies the area as a priority for conversion of encroached pinyon and juniper dominated communities to a sagebrush community with a diverse component of perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs. This would be consistent with the vegetative monitoring data that has been collected within the Project Area to identify the Ecological Site Description. National Fire Plan (2000), BLM National Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2004) The project is also consistent with the NFP. The goals and objectives of the NFP is to manage BLM administered public land to maintain, enhance and restore sagebrush habitats while ensuring multiple use and sustained yield goals of FLPMA. Goals/Strategies identified in the NFP include the following: 1. Provide guidance to ensure integration of sage-grouse habitat conservation measures for actions provided through the management in land use planning process. 2. Issue mandatory guidance on management of sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse conservation. 3. Enhance knowledge of resource conditions and priorities in order to support habitat maintenance and restoration efforts. 4. Complete and maintain eco-regional assessments of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitats across the sagebrush biome. 5. Provide a consistent and scientifically based approach for collection and use of monitoring data for sagebrush habitats, sage-grouse and other components of the sagebrush community. 6. Identify, prioritize and facilitate needed research to develop relevant information for sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat conservation 7. Maintain, develop and expand partnerships to promote cooperation and support for all activities associated with sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation. 8. Effectively communicate throughout BLM and with current and prospective partners on steps BLM will take to conserve sage-grouse and sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. 9. Facilitate the collection, transfer and sharing of information among all BLM partners and cooperators, as well as BLM program personnel. 10. Develop BLM state-level strategies and/or plans for sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation on BLM administered public lands. Southwest Desert Deer Herd Unit Management Plan (2012) The management goal of the Southwest Desert Deer Herd Unit is to increase the unit deer population. Habitat management objectives that are applicable to the Hamlin Valley Resource Protection and Habitat Improvement Project are (1) Maintain or enhance forage production through direct range improvements on winter and summer deer range throughout the unit to achieve population management objectives. (2) Maintain critical fawning habitat in good condition. Southwest Desert Elk Herd Unit Management Plan (2016) The management goal of the Southwest Desert Elk Herd Management Plan is to achieve a variety of healthy vegetative communities within the herd unit to maintain a diverse elk population in balance with available habitat. Habitat management objectives that are applicable to the Project are To (1) Continue to cooperatively work with the BLM, private landowners, and SITLA to implement landscape scale habitat improvements; and 2) Remove pinyon and juniper tree encroachment into all ranges and vegetative communities with a target of at least 3000 acres each year. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan (2009) Habitat Management Objective (B.e.), Under the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, design, implement, and monitor the effectiveness of habitat improvement projects to benefit pronghorn. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (2005) The priority habitat identified for this area was shrub-steppe, which was identified as a Priority A (High threat, high opportunity, and high value to birds statewide) habitat. Priority birds identified within this area include sage grouse, ferruginous hawk, sage sparrow, and Brewer's sparrow. Sagebrush restoration was identified as an opportunity within this area to address concerns with sagebrush die-off and potential for cheatgrass invasion.
Fire / Fuels:
There have been several very large fires in the Hamlin Valley area, especially in the last 10 years. There is a large fuel loading build up in Hamlin Valley and an alteration in fuel types. Pinyon and juniper trees have expanded and moved into areas once dominated by shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Without this project, fuel conditions are such that a wildfire may be difficult to contain, leading to an increased risk to firefighter and public safety, suppression effectiveness and natural resource degradation. Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) within the project area is predominately FRCC 3 which is where fire regimes have been extensively altered and risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. Treatments identified within this proposal, including seeding with more fire resistant vegetation, would help reduce hazardous fuel loads, create fuel breaks, and reduce the overall threat of a catastrophic wildfire, which could impact outlying residential properties and infrastructure. Treatments in and around the sagebrush areas would break up continuous fuels and reduce the risk of wildfire entering these sensitive areas. Removing pinyon and juniper in a mosaic pattern would also break up continuous fuels and reduce the risk of a high intensity wildfire. Because there is a greater risk of conversion of shrublands to annual grasslands under a high intensity fire, managed, pro-active treatments proposed would reduce the likelihood of cheatgrass invasion and help perennial grasses and forbs persist long-term. This portion of the project is near some springs on the east side of the valley and will be done in a mosaic design leaving stringers of trees for deer and elk to use as hiding and thermal cover.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The Project Area is located at 6,000 feet above sea level; therefore, it is expected that the opportunity to restore native species to the composition and frequency appropriate to the area is high. As discussed, this area is dominated by pinyon pine and juniper (Phase 2 and Phase 3). There is noticeable soil erosion throughout the area due to the absence of perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs. The project is expected to improve herbaceous understory, which will reduce water runoff and decrease soil erosion while increasing infiltration. Improvements to the Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (Standard 1 and Standard 3) are expected through project implementation. It is expected that Standard 1 (Soils) will improve by allowing soils to exhibit permeability and infiltration rates that will sustain/improve site productivity throughout the area. This will be accomplished by making improvements to the Biotic Integrity of the community by converting areas that are dominated by pinyon pine and juniper to a diverse component of perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs that is consistent with Ecological Site Description. Indicators will include sufficient cover and litter to protect the soil surface from excessive water and wind erosion, limiting surface flow and limiting soil moisture loss through evaporation, which will promote proper infiltration. As discussed, extensive Rangeland Health monitoring data has been collected throughout the project area. This monitoring data will be utilized as baseline data to determine the success of the treatment while providing for a scientific measurement of the indicators identified above. In addition, recent research Roundy, et. al. (2014) has shown that mechanical treatments to remove pinyon and juniper increase time that soil water is available. Even four years after treatment, treated areas showed from 8.6 days to 18 days additional water availability at high elevation sites. Additional research by Young, et. al. (2013) also showed a relationship between tree removal and soil climates and wet days on these sites, which while providing more available moisture for desired vegetation could also provide moisture for weeds. Numerous studies have shown that increased infiltration rates and less overland flow improve both water quality and quantity. There are perennial water sources in close proximity to the project area.
Compliance:
The NEPA/Final Decision documents were completed for the project area in June 2014. The treatment would be rested from livestock grazing for a minimum of two years following project implementation to ensure adequate rest and seedling establishment. The project was flagged in Fall 2015 and Cultural Clearances have been completed within the project area, which includes the following: 1. Bull Hog - 798 acres (Indian Peak). Extensive monitoring data (upland and wildlife) has been collected to provide baseline data to determine the success of the treatments.
Methods:
The BLM has identified an ID Team and invited cooperating agencies (UDWR, NRCS, SWARM, etc.) to assess the current condition and formulate a vegetation management prescription that achieves the Desired Future Conditions, management intent, and management goals and objectives within the project area. BLM will provide overall project oversight. BLM will also refine flagging of the treatment area (i.e. leave islands (cultural and wildlife) in cooperation with UDWR and SWARM. This area within Year 4 of the Project Area will be aerially seeded to meet wildlife habitat objectives in accordance with the Ecological Site Description. Seed will be requested through GBRC. Treatment methods have been identified for the Project Area (Year 4) and are identified as follows: 1. Indian Peak (Bull Hog - 798 acres (BLM - 798 acres) 4. Atchison Creek (Cultural Clearance - 6,541 acres Note: Refer to Attached Funding Table (Estimates Costs for Each Project) The majority of the Indian Peak (Bull Hog) Project Area is currently in Phase 2 and Phase 3 condition. Although sagebrush and perennial grasses are present in portions of the Project Area that are currently in Phase 2 condition the species vigor, composition and production are well below what should be expected for the site as revealed by the Ecological Site Description. A Bull Hog Treatment Method would be utilized to eliminate juniper and pinyon pine from the existing sagebrush and perennial grass community. Application of a diverse seed mix including perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs would be required throughout the project area. In addition, the Project Planning Areas (PPAs) in the Great Basin Fire and Invasive Assessment Tool (FIAT) have identified Hamlin Valley (which is within the project area) as a high priority for Conifer Focus (Removal). Through this process the top FIAT PPAs, including Hamlin Valley, had the highest priority for sagebrush restoration, protection and conservation within the 5 Great Basin FIAT assessment areas. The highest priority PPAs are those that contain Sagebrush Focal Areas (SFA), high breeding bird densities, conifer threats, wildfire and invasive species threats. The Project Planning Areas (PPA) prioritization will be used to develop an integrated multi-year program of work for all fuels and vegetation management projects and other related activities aimed to protect, conserve and restore sagebrush and sage grouse habitat. The priority PPAs will be used to inform and influence funding decisions by the BLM. The project area is dominated by Juniper and Pinyon Pine; however, this is not consistent with what should be expected according to the ESD, which states that the site should be dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush and a diverse composition of perennial grasses and forbs. The Indian Peak (Bull Hog) project area has been flagged and BLM will provide overall project oversight in coordination with NRCS, DWR, SWARM, etc... In addition, archaeology clearances have been completed by DWR contract with project oversite provided by the BLM Fuels Archaeologist. If the Atchison Creek (Cultural Clearance) project area is funded this same method would be expected to be applied to ensure cultural clearance within this area is completed.
Monitoring:
Pre-monitoring within the Project Area has been ongoing since 2014. Monitoring will continue to be completed by BLM, which may include some support from UDWR or other cooperators. Standard surveys have included: Wildlife Use Pattern Surveys (i.e. Pellet Counts), Wildlife Population Surveys, Key Forage Utilization, Nested Frequency (Trend), Line Intercept (Shrub Cover and Age Class), Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health Assessment, Photo Points, OHV Monitoring (to determine if new roads are being created), Breeding Bird Surveys, Raptor Nest Surveys, General Wildlife Use Surveys and Noxious weed inventory / monitoring. Pre and Post vegetation and wildlife monitoring data will be collected throughout the project area. This monitoring data will be compiled into an overall monitoring report that will help determine the level of success for the project in the short-term and long-term. This data will be utilized to support an Adaptive Management Strategy to determine if changes in treatment methods, seeding, etc... need to occur in order to meet measurable objectives. Refer to the 2016 and 2017 Indian Peak Allotment Monitoring Report. In addition, Key Management Area Trend within the Atchison Creek and Indian Peak Allotments has been attached for reference. There currently is inconclusive data to suggest that the sage grouse population size would increase if the treatments were completed in Hamlin Valley. Vegetation treatments were completed in Fall 2015 within the Chokecherry and Spanish George areas. These vegetation treatments consisted of lop and scatter (1,623 acres) and bull hog (1,423 acres). Vegetation treatments were completed in the Fall 2016 within the Atchison Creek, Jackson Wash and Spanish George areas. These vegetation treatments consisted of chaining (1,900 acres) and bull hog (1,622 acres). Vegetation treatments will be completed in the Fall 2017/Winter 2018 within the Atchison Creek, Indian Peak, Spanish George and Stateline areas. These vegetation treatments consisted of chaining (2,265 acres), bull hog (1,549 acres). Treatments have also occurred on private and SITLA lands in the last 5-10 years. Sage Grouse telemetry data has been collected since 2010 throughout Hamlin Valley. It is expected that this baseline data and future data will allow for correlation of whether sage grouse are utilizing treatment areas. Furthermore, it is expected that by improving Rangeland Land Health conditions and creating expansion sage grouse habitat through the elimination of pinyon and juniper in areas that should be dominated by perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs in accordance with the Ecological Site Description will lead to sage grouse habitat improvements and population increases. This will be verified through further data collection (telemetry, lek counts, RLH data, trend, utilization data, etc...). Similar treatments in others areas within the Color Country District Office indicate that sage grouse are utilizing the treatments almost immediately following the removal of pinyon and juniper, which is expected to also occur in Hamlin Valley. It appears that sage grouse are using areas immediately adjacent to the project work (i.e. Spanish George (3934 and 3696) and Chokecherry (2076). It is important to note that some areas that are treated throughout the Field Office may not have sage grouse move into them immediately; however, the importance of these treatments should not be underestimated. These areas have been identified by DWR, SWARM, BLM, etc... as important and may be identified as PHMA, GHMA or SGMA (Refer to attached maps). It is expected that all treatments identified would at the minimum serve as opportunity areas even if sage grouse do not move into them immediately following treatment. I will be adding maps to each one of my projects, which I hope illustrate this point further. A joint sage grouse telemetry project is occurring between BLM administered lands in Cedar City Field Office and the Shell Field Office (Ely, Nevada). In addition, CCFO is coordinating with SFO (Ely, NV) on their future vegetative treatment projects immediately adjacent to Hamlin Valley. This coordination is expected to continue to provide for habitat connectivity across jurisdictional boundaries. Through the Landscape Conservation Forecasting (LCF) project that was completed by The Nature Conservancy extensive ecological system data collection and modeling was completed. Through this project Twenty-six ecological systems were identified in the Hamlin Valley Project Areas, and they and their component vegetation classes were mapped to a high degree of accuracy and precision via interpretation of satellite imagery. Eleven of the ecological systems were selected for detailed modeling analyses based on their size, current and likely future condition (degree of ecological departure). Most of the poor ecological conditions (high departure values) in ecological systems can be attributed to the encroachment by juniper and pinyon pine trees within the Project Area. The Return on Investment within Black Sagebrush and Wyoming Big Sagebrush (According to the ESD) is the highest with the exception of the Utah Serviceberry. This appears to be the highest because the amount of acreage of Utah Serviceberry is minimal compare to other ecological systems. The following is an excerpt from the final report: "The relatively high ROI values of three sagebrush systems -- Black, Wyoming, and Montane -- generally reflect a combination of problems that are severe at present, and/or are predicted to become or remain so under MINIMUM MANAGEMENT. Predicted improvements under PREFERRED MANAGEMENT are moderate to substantial, though for very large costs. These three sagebrush systems are by far the costliest in both Project Areas, yet their ROI values are relatively high because their considerable costs are spread across their extensive areas -- these sagebrush systems are also the three largest in both Project Areas." Refer to the attached Landscape Conservation Forecasting Final Report.
Partners:
As discussed, the BLM in coordination with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Southwest Desert Adaptive Resource Management local working group (SWARM) and Utah Prairie Dog Oversight Group (UPDOG) have identified the project as a priority area for treatment. Partners including Utah State University Extension, NRCS, SITLA, The Nature Conservancy, DWR, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Iron County, SWARM, UPDOG, UPDRIT, Intergovernmental Internship Cooperative - Southern Utah University, Schell Field Office (Ely, Nevada) and Livestock Permittees and private landowners (homeowners) have been actively engaged in the project. In addition, The Nature Conservancy has completed a Landscape Conservation Forecasting for the Hamlin Valley PHMA. The BLM funded this project for a total of $125,000. A second phase of this project will be completed in February 2017. BLM has continually attended the SWARM meeting to update partners on current treatment progress as well as new treatments that are being proposed within the area. The BLM also coordinated with DWR, UPDOG, SWARM, USU extension, UPDOG, UPDRIT etc... during the NEPA process when treatments within the project area were being considered for authorization. The IIC has been integral to the success of pre and post vegetative and wildlife monitoring throughout earlier phases of the project, which is expected to continue. Livestock permittees within the project area have been coordinated with to ensure that the areas that are treated will be rested for a minimum of two years. The Indian Peak (Bull Hog) project area has been flagged and BLM will provide overall project oversight in coordination with DWR, SWARM, etc... The Atchison Creek (Cultural) project has been identified and the BLM Fuels archeologist will provide oversight to ensure contract specifications are adhered to.
Future Management:
Livestock grazing within the Indian Peak Allotment has been assessed through the permit renewal process. The Indian Peak Allotment has authorized livestock grazing on a year round basis; however, there are eight pastures within the allotment. A livestock grazing management system that incorporates the pastures has been identified within the allotment to eliminate repeated livestock grazing during the critical growing period. In addition, utilization has been collected on a continual basis within the allotment. Livestock use has been within established utilization parameters on a consistent basis. It is expected that the vegetative treatment will result in forage production increases that are consistent or greater to what has been identified in the Ecological Site Description. The identification of a grazing management system that eliminates repeated critical growing period use in anyone pasture on an annual basis is expected to provide for the long-term maintenance of the project.Furthermore, utilization has been collected on a continual basis and all indications are that utilization is well within acceptable parameters within the allotment. The current livestock grazing management system is expected to continue in the long-term. All areas seeded would 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 the Utah Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management. Vegetation treatments would continue to be monitored for utilization, cover and trend. Following the two year rest period, the grazing management system identified during the grazing permit renewal process would be resumed. Key Management Areas are typically established in grazing allotments to monitor trend where there is livestock use. The trend sites that have been established in the Project Area will provide for baseline monitoring data so that short-term and long-term treatment success can be monitored. Because trend within the treatment area that has been collected is baseline data, trend will be determined in subsequent years as data is collected. Trend will be collected at these sites for 3 years following treatment and then these sites will be incorporated into the overall range vegetative monitoring schedule and be collected every 3-5 years. The current trend at these Key Management Areas would be expected to be static to downward based on pinyon and juniper expansion within the Project Area. Following treatment it is expected that this will be reversed and an upward trend will occur. Future maintenance projects to protect investments made by UWRI/BLM have been addressed and allowed through the project planning document (NEPA). Adaptive management has been allowed for in the NEPA/Decision document. A large variety of treatment methods have been identified and authorized for use within the Project Area.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
As discussed, the majority of the project area is in Phase 2 and Phase 3 condition. The project is expected to improve health, composition, and diversity of shrubs, grasses, and forbs in accordance with Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines and the Ecological Site Description, which will be beneficial to livestock grazing. Furthermore, the project will be proactive in Improving vegetative communities and removing ladder fuels within areas that are dominated by pinyon and juniper, which will minimize the potential for a catastrophic wildfire throughout the area, which would be detrimental to livestock grazing. Currently, livestock management within the allotment is being minimally impacted by the current conditions within the allotment. As discussed, an effective grazing management system that limits critical growing period use is in place within the allotment. The majority of the treatment areas that have been identified are opportunity areas for livestock once treatment has been completed. These areas are in Phase 2 and Phase 3 condition and are minimally used. It is expected that once these areas are treated and there is forage available that livestock distribution will continue to improve throughout the allotment. It is expected that conditions throughout the allotment will improve post-treatment, which will benefit livestock within the allotment in the long-term. It is expected that the vegetative treatments will result in increased forage production that are consistent or greater to what has been identified in the Ecological Site Description.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$543,124.38 $0.00 $543,124.38 $21,000.00 $564,124.38
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Archaeological Clearance Cultural resource inventory (CRI) funding would be utilized for the Atchison Creek portion of the project area. This area encompasses 4,000 acres. Contract price would be $23.70/acre. $94,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services The Indian Peak project area would have two seed applications completed. $15,960.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Indian Peak (Bull Hog) Costs (mechanical equipment i.e. bull hog) 798 acres ($450.00/acre). $359,100.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Personal Services (seasonal employee) The Cedar City Field Office has provided seasonal employees to carry out monitoring (pre and post treatment) identified in the monitoring section. The pre-monitoring has been ongoing since 2013. $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2019
NEPA The Cedar City Field Office completed the NEPA/FONSI/Final Decision Record in June 2014. $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) Cedar City Field Office will provide permanent employees who will coordinate project design, layout, and oversee monitoring and inventory completed by seasonal employees and project inspection. Pre-monitoring has been ongoing since 2013. $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2019
Seed (GBRC) Indian Peak Allotment Chaining and Bull Hog Seeding Costs (1st Flight) - 798 acres @ $76.62/acre. $61,142.76 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Seed (GBRC) Indian Peak Allotment Chaining and Bull Hog Seeding Costs (2nd Flight) - 798 acres @ $15.19/acre. $12,121.62 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Archaeological Clearance Archaeological Clearance Contract Administration $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$94,500.00 $0.00 $94,500.00 $21,000.00 $115,500.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Includes Personal services, Archaeological clearance, Cadastral, Survey and Design, etc... $0.00 $0.00 $21,000.00 2019
DNR Watershed U004 $9,376.50 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Utah Wild Sheep Foundation S022 $1,999.43 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S025 $7,143.96 $0.00 $0.00 2020
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $284.59 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) S025 $2,035.92 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Safari Club International S026 $1,143.23 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $11,429.85 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Utah Archery Association S052 $287.02 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Utah Wild Sheep Foundation S022 $5,000.57 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 $17,856.04 $0.00 $0.00 2021
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S025 $715.41 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) S025 $5,087.58 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Safari Club International S026 $2,856.77 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $28,570.15 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Utah Archery Association S052 $712.98 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bald Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Bald Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Medium
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Low
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Dan, I am not sure that the way this is written and the way the budget is proposed that it is clear that archaeology is complete on the 798 acres. I think this $ has been expended and accounted for in a previous phase and should be removed entirely. Also maybe need to clarify the language both on the finance page and in the text regarding the two phases - make sure that Indian Peak costs and Atchison Creek costs are clear. Thanks!
Comment 01/23/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Vicki - Thanks for the comments. I went ahead and removed $18,912.60 that was identified as in-kind for the Indian Peak cultural clearance that occurred on the 798 acres in 2017. The cultural clearance was completed in the previous Hamlin Valley project (3934). I also placed a note in the project details section to highlight that cultural clearances were completed on the 798 acres. As stated, the Atchison Creek portion of the funding request would be for cultural clearance work. This is specified on the Project Details and the Finance page. The project details identifies the Atchison Creek (Cultural Clearance) as priority 2. I also identified a note that states the following: "Atchison Creek (6,541 acres) is only identified for Archaeology Contract purposes to ensure that cultural clearances are completed for future project phases." Let me know if this does not address your questions.
Comment 01/24/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Dan, I was happy to get out here on the summer tour this year and see all the great work you guys have been doing. A few questions/comments: 1) In terms of the cultural contract you list Atchison Creek in most places but refer to Chokecherry Creek in the Need for the project. Just want to make sure we know what we are ranking. Also could you elaborate on what treatments are planned for the Atchison Creek area and how they have similar, or different, benefits to those outlined in the proposal for the bullhog area? 2) What is the current level/threat of cheat grass in the project areas? 3) What immediate values at risk from fire are adjacent to the project area(s) 4) As in your other two projects you indicate that "Improper Grazing -- Livestock (current)" is a threat to both sage grouse and Lowland sagebrush habitats. What are the current grazing issues and how will this project(s) help to solve those issues? 5) Could you elaborate on how the current treatments tie in and build on the past work you have completed in the area? 6) Is sage grouse telemetry continuing so that you can show use of treated areas? 7) Has the telemetry work shown any increased use of these areas by sage grouse following treatment? 8) At some point in the proposal you mention that the PJ succession is Phase II and III, does treating it now save you money? OK you can be done cursing all my questions now as I made it through all three of your projects! Cheers!
Comment 01/24/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Mike -- Thanks for the comments, I was happy that everyone was able to come out on the WRI tour to see the work that has been completed. 1. In terms of the cultural contract you list Atchison Creek in most places but refer to Chokecherry Creek in the Need for the project. Just want to make sure we know what we are ranking. The correction has been made thanks for catching the mistake. 2. Also could you elaborate on what treatments are planned for the Atchison Creek area and how they have similar, or different, benefits to those outlined in the proposal for the bullhog area? The following has been added to the Need for the Project. "The treatment methods within the Atchison Creek area would be very similar to the Indian Peak Bull Hog project and the recently completed Indian Peak chaining project (3934). The elevation, precipitation, ecological sites, etc... are similar between the two project areas. In addition, the benefits would be similar to the Indian Peak project with the exception that there is a small community within the immediate vicinity of this project area. A bull project (3934) is currently occurring on public lands immediately adjacent to the community, which is expected to provide for a measure of fire protection. The Atchison Creek project is expected to provide further protection to the project area." 3. What is the current level/threat of cheat grass in the project areas? Cheatgrass is virtually nonexistent within the project area. Areas where cheatgrass are present are typically restricted to drainages within the project area. Vegetative monitoring data that is being collected in previous treatment areas within Hamlin Valley that have been treated since 2015 indicate that cheatgrass is a very minor component of the vegetative community. 4. What immediate values at risk from fire are adjacent to the project area(s) There are homes within the vicinity of the Atchison Creek project area. It is expected that the treatment; specifically in the Atchison Creek Allotment would expand on the buffer that is currently being treated (bull hog) to the existing homes. The only other values at risk would be Range Improvement Projects. There is a significant amount of fences throughout the area that may be impacted by fire. 5. As in your other two projects you indicate that "Improper Grazing -- Livestock (current)" is a threat to both sage grouse and Lowland sagebrush habitats. What are the current grazing issues and how will this project(s) help to solve those issues? I continue to have a poor understanding of the risk tabs in WRI. I think that there is always some risk of Improper Livestock Grazing within all our project areas. Livestock grazing management systems, season of use (proper), livestock numbers, etc... have been identified for all of the allotments. It is expected that there is always a risk due to changes in livestock management that may occur during a drought, fire, etc... The Cedar City Field Office has an excellent partnership with the majority of the livestock permittees and collaboration during drought conditions, fire, etc... has always been great, which is expected to continue. Do you recommend that I remove Improper Grazing -- Livestock (current) as a threat from all the projects? 6. Could you elaborate on how the current treatments tie in and build on the past work you have completed in the area? The following was added to the Need for the Project Section. "The Indian Peak (bull hog) portion of this proposal will tie in with the Indian Peak (chaining) project (3934) that was recently completed in December 2017. The Atchison Creek portion of this proposal will tie in with the Atchison Creek/Spanish George projects (3934, 3686 and 2076) that have occurred in 2015, 2016 and 2017." 7. Is sage grouse telemetry continuing so that you can show use of treated areas? Has the telemetry work shown any increased use of these areas by sage grouse following treatment? Yes data is continuing to be collected. The following was added to the monitoring section. "It appears that sage grouse are using areas immediately adjacent to the project work (i.e. Spanish George (3934 and 3696) and Chokecherry (2076). It is important to note that some areas that are treated throughout the Field Office may not have sage grouse move into them immediately; however, the importance of these treatments should not be underestimated. These areas have been identified by DWR, SWARM, BLM, etc... as important and may be identified as PHMA, GHMA or SGMA (Refer to attached maps). It is expected that all treatments identified would at the minimum serve as opportunity areas even if sage grouse do not move into them immediately following treatment. I will be adding maps to each one of my projects, which I hope illustrate this point further." 8. At some point in the proposal you mention that the PJ succession is Phase II and III, does treating it now save you money? Yes -- there are perennial species present in the areas identified as Phase II, which may allow for seeding rate cost savings. Thanks again for your comments, I hope that all of your comments have been addressed. If you have any questions let me know.
Comment 01/25/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
Dan, It might help to upload one of the maps of grouse use that I send out monthly. I think this project will help grouse in the summer months.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Dan, Thanks for the thorough comment response. Just wanted to tie back into your question about Improper livestock grazing (current). What I was trying to get at is if this an allotment where you have overutilization issues that the project might be dealing with. If we are meeting our standards somewhere then increasing forage is great for potential future AUM increases or something to that effect; however, it is not solving an immediate problem. I am sure in some cases these types of projects are solving current on the ground issues/conflicts, but it is sometimes hard to see the calf through the grass in the proposals.
Comment 01/25/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
Dan, Have SITLA or the landowner adjacent to this project been approached to see if they might want to participate in the project?
Comment 01/25/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Nicki - Thanks for the comments. 1. I agree the maps of grouse use that you send out will be helpful. I will work to get them uploaded to the data base. 2. SITLA is aware of the Indian Peak project because it was proposed last year and a SITLA Application for Range Improvement was submitted. SITLA lands were treated in November/December 2017 during the implementation of the Indian Peak (chaining) project. This SITLA section is located to the east of the proposed Indian Peak (bull hog) project. SITLA Application for Range Improvement will also be submitted for SITLA lands within the Atchison Creek project area in the near future. The funding request for this WRI proposal will be for cultural clearance work. 3. The livestock permittees are both aware of the project proposal (Indian Peak and Atchison Creek). It is hopeful that the permittee within the Atchison Creek Allotment will have the opportunity to apply for NRCS funding in 2019. In addition, private landowners (houses) in the Atchison Creek project are also aware of the project proposal. However, they will continue to be met with prior to finalization of the project design. Currently, a bull hog project is occurring on 463 acres immediately adjacent to the landowners with houses located at the end of the Deadend Road, which is north of the Arrowhead Pass Road. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Comment 08/24/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Dan- I am not sure you understood this or not, but the SITLA section 16 of T31S, R18W is being treated by Forest, Fire & State Lands.
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Dan, Same FEHA comments I usually make. Also, when flagging this project, keeping eyes open for PYRA, especially in the sagebrush ravines, would be good. There are PYRA lurking in Hamblin Valley, but we don't have a lot of good, recent data. Keith
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Keith -- Thanks for the comments. If the project is funded this year we will finish the final flagging this Spring/Summer. The final flagging will incorporate all of the wildlife monitoring data that has been collected to date within the project area (Refer to Attached Indian Peak Wildlife Monitoring Reports- Indian Peak Final Report 2016 and Indian Peak Wildlife Report 2017). Leave islands are expected to be identified through this process to ensure that thermal cover for big game is provided, leave areas for any FEHA, etc... We will continue to be diligent in our wildlife surveys throughout the project area to ensure we are minimizing impacts to wildlife. I will ensure that the wildlife team remains aware about possible PYRA presence in Hamlin Valley so they can continue to be on the lookout during surveys. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hey the maps match the details! Again looking forward to continued work in the area, past projects are looking great. In the spirit of trying to save $$ like I am thinking about with all the projects this year, wondering how much thought has been put into the area for arch clearance, could we sit down with a couple of folks and identify areas we know won't be treated for biological, social, topographical reasons? Last thought after reading all 3 of your projects similar to last year - I recognize the opportunity and similarities between projects that lead to so much cut and paste but please to the extent possible do what you can to create individual flavor for projects.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Gary -- Thanks for the comments. We are also thinking about saving $'s on cultural clearances. We will take a hard look at slope, drainages, etc... to minimize acreage that need cultural clearances in the Atchison Creek Project Area. If at all possible, I would like to take a team out and flag prior to the cultural clearance so that acreages can be minimized. I am hoping to get this done this Spring. I understand your concern over cut and paste. The projects are all very similar in nature. In addition, we have very similar design features (i.e. wildlife surveys, vegetation surveys, etc...) that we are implementing across all the project areas that were identified in the EA/Decisions. In addition, the Landscape Forecasting project that was completed by The Nature Conservancy was completed within both areas. I utilize all of this information for rationale for all of the projects and that is why the project really read the same. I will see what I can do.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Gary - Based on your comments, I am adding project priorities for all three of my projects so that ranking committee is aware. **Project priorities for my three projects would be based on NRCS funding availability (Parowan Stake/Paragonah Cattle - $400k+), cultural clearances that have been completed, livestock grazing (two year rest periods), etc... as follows: 1. Parowan Stake/Paragonah Cattle/Willow Spring (Bull Hog - 1,500 acres) 2. Parowan Stake/Paragonah Cattle (Chain - 1,500 acres) 3. Indian Peak (Bull Hog -- 798 acres) 4. Parowan Gap (Bull Hog) - 200 acres (BLM - 200 acres) 5. Willow Spring (Lop and Scatter - 750 acres) 3. Adams Well/Mortensen-Holyoak (Lop and Scatter -- 3,000 acres) 4. Atchison Creek (Cultural Clearance -- 6,541 acres) 5. Lizzies Hill/Mortensen-Holyoak (Bull Hog -- 2,000 acres)
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Danny Summers
I suggest including thickleaf penstemon in your mix. We've been able to acquire seed with sources near that part of the world that should be well adapted.
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Danny Summers
Also new research from Ott et al. (2017) suggest our sagebrush seeding rates are too low. He saw better success of sagebrush both seeding in the fall and up around 0.4 PLS lbs/acre. As you saw our presentatoin in Reno, we are seeing better sagebrush establishment seeding in the Fall rather than in the winter. We are recommending seeding all with the regular mix. We are continuing research on these questions moving forward.
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Danny - Thanks for the comments. I will add thickleaf penstemon and increase the ARTR application to 0.4 lbs/acre. I thought the presentation in Reno was interesting and would like to go with the latest research results. I may not get to making updates to the seed mixes until after the WRI proposal meeting on Tuesday.
Comment 01/03/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
Let's make sure on the in-kind values for NEPA and other in-house type work that we are being realistic with the costs involved AND more importantly, that we are only counting the in-kind value once on the first phase of these larger projects. I don't want to double count the in-kind values over these multi-phase projects. Thx
Comment 01/03/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Dan Fletcher
Tyler - Thanks for the comment. I have updated the in-kind costs on the NEPA. We have the DNA completed and I estimate it cost about $1,000 to complete. Project has been resubmitted.
Comment 08/11/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thanks for submitting your completion report early. Will you update your map page so that only the portions of the project that were completed are on the map? When you have completed that, please go back to the Completion Form and finalize your report again so I know that it has been completed. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
09/21/2020
End Date:
10/08/2020
FY Implemented:
2021
Final Methods:
The Indian Peak (Bull Hog) portion of the contract was not funded. The Atchison Creek (cultural clearance) was funded. A contractor completed a Class III invenotry of 1,868 acres of BLM administered lands and 159 acres of SITLA lands for a total of 2,027 acres. The area of potential effect (APE) includes the entire 2,027 acre survey area that is spread across four irregularly-shaped polygon located on lands managed by the BLM and SITLA on the east side of the Hamlin Valley, approximately 16 miles west of the town of Cedar City, Iron County, Utah. More specifically, the survey area is located within portions of Sections 10 and 15-23 of T31S, R18W; Sections 13 of T31S, R19W; Salt Lake Meridian; USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Steamboat Mountain (1971) and Steamboat Mountain SW (1971).
Project Narrative:
The overall objective of this project is to remove pinyon pine and juniper and achieve a vegetation community that more closely resembles the sagebrush ecological site. The project is located in the Hamlin Valley Sage Grouse Management Area and adjacent to the Hamlin Valley Priority Habitat Management Area. The completion of the cultural resource survey will allow for this project to actively compete for limited funding.
Future Management:
Subsequent vegetation treatment projects will be submitted through the WRI process to procure funding to treat the acreage (2,057 acres) that have been culturally inventoried. Leave islands will be implemented to provide protection to sensitive cultural resources as determined necessary.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
10628 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map