Wood Hollow Bull Hog Treatment and Guzzler Install
Project ID: 4624
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2018
Submitted By: 154
Project Manager: Kreig Rasmussen
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Richfield Ranger District
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Wood Hollow is winter range for deer and elk. The area is adjacent to and just east of the Blue Peak chaining. Seeding and mastication of these 784 acres would extend the size of the Blue Peak winter range area. Treatment would be designed with a mosaic pattern to offer a forage to cover balance for big game and provide a vegetative understory for big game and eventually livestock. Treatment would help minimize big game use on adjacent agricultural lands and reduce soil erosion.
Location:
The project area is NNW of the town of Koosharem and SSW of the town of Burrville. Treatments would occur east of the Wood Hollow road heading east to the FS boundary.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The purpose of this project is to improve wildlife habitat; including big game transition and winter range and also to improve ground cover in the watershed. To accomplish this purpose, the Richfield R.D. of the Fishlake National Forest has determined there is a need to mechanically thin pinion/juniper from approximately 784 acres of sagebrush/grass/forb areas between the towns of Koosharem and Burrville. The pinion/juniper expansion in this area is having negative impacts to big game wildlife species (primarily Mule deer; which is a Fishlake National Forest Management Indicator Species) dependent upon this area and these ecosystems. Encroachment of a variety of species is occurring across many elevations and ecosystems. Encroachment of less desirable species creates an imbalance across a wide range of flora and fauna populations. We are seeing encroachment starting to create an imbalance in viable wildlife populations of many species. By doing vegetation treatments it is our desire to help close these wide gaps of imbalance occurring due to encroachment and return lands in our stewardship back to proper functioning conditions. On the ground surveys and site visits have allowed staffs from the Richfield Ranger District to see the lack of understory plants in the pinion/juniper complex in this area. Forage productivity has diminished greatly over the past century and the pinion/juniper expansion continues on a yearly basis into the more productive sage/grass/forb communities. This pinion/juniper expansion largely results from reduced occurrences of natural disturbance. As pinion/juniper has become dominate on the landscape and the loss of understory vegetation increases, big game and small game animals are experiencing a loss of foraging habitat. This compression of more pinion/juniper and less sage/grass/forb habitat has contributed to the overall decrease in Mule deer populations and other wildlife species on the mountain. This expansion factor also contributes to the issue of big game moving closer to higher elevation aspen and local agricultural crops in the valleys to find sustainable forage. Depredation of crops by big game in the valleys on the east side of Monroe Mountain has caused much contention between landowners and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. Void inter-space conditions are also causing soil erosion, downstream soil displacement causing wash creation and flood potential toward the town of Koosharem. Improving the habitat in these areas will result in multiple benefits, which include but are not limited to, improving habitat for wildlife dependent upon these various ecosystems, improving native species diversity, reducing hazardous fuel accumulations, reducing the risk for large scale, uncharacteristic wildland fires, which in turn creates a fire resilient environment with less risk to public and firefighter safety. These treatments will create a better balanced ecosystem diversity that will enhance population viability for a variety of big game, small game, neo-tropical migratory birds, upland game, raptors, small mammals, insects and key pollinator species. A reduction of pinion/juniper encroachment into sagebrush communities in this area will also help enlarge habitat use opportunities for sage grouse populations established in the area.
Objectives:
Mechanical treatments would be implemented on 784 acres utilizing mastication equipment or saws to cut and mulch pinion/juniper trees that are expanding into the sagebrush/grass/forb areas. This proposal and treatment method would help maintain the existing sagebrush and grass/forb communities in the area and it would allow for additional acres of sagebrush/grass/forbs to be restored. This would also help improve age class and species diversity and it would improve habitat for wildlife species dependent upon sagebrush/grass/forbs. Hazardous fuel loading would be reduced with a more fire resilient ecosystem being promoted while reducing the risk for large scale, intense wildland fires to communities and watersheds located on or adjacent to Monroe Mountain. Mechanical treatments using mastication equipment on terrain that could handle up to 35-40% slopes. To maintain these treatment areas, the desire is future naturally caused fires within or near the project area can be managed (if possible, not suppressed) and allowed to play the greatest feasible natural role in these ecosystems. A mosaic treatment pattern combined with travel corridors will be designed into the project to allow some hiding, thermal and migration cover for big game. This diversity will help create a mix of life cycle benefits for a variety of wildlife and insect species. Curl-leaf mahogany and other key brush species will be designed away from fire opportunities to maintain browse integrity. The District anticipates the pinion/juniper areas that currently have very little understory will likely need to be reseeded. The District will re-seed with a mix of brush, grass and forbs. Areas needing to be re-seeded would be temporarily rested from domestic ungulate use, for 2-3 growing seasons, to allow new vegetation time to establish. Another objective of the project is to install a Boss Tank Wildlife Guzzler kit within the project area. Water sources in the lower elevation pinion juniper zone prompting big game animals to cross BLM ground to the east, cross State Highway 62, to seek water in agricultural areas north of Koosharem. Vehicle/big game accidents are frequent north of town due to elk and deer crossing the highway seeking better forage and water. We plan to install a guzzler in treatment area on the Wood Hollow ridge line (see map). The guzzler should help minimize the need for big game to travel to the valley for water. There is also a guzzler proposed to be installed within the Blue Peak treatment 1.25 miles away. These two guzzlers in the area should be more effective providing water for wildlife needs. The species list we have included for this project includes big game, small game, non-game, eagles and livestock. Each of these species stand to greatly benefit from an improved vegetative treatment. With an improvement of vegetation (with a well designed seed mix) our objective for these species is to provide an opportunity to maintain viable populations on Monroe Mountain.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
On the ground surveys and site visits have allowed us to see the lack of understory plants in the pinion/juniper complex in this area. Forage productivity has diminished greatly over the past century and the pinion/juniper encroachment continues on a yearly basis into the more productive sage/grass/forb communities. Some areas within the project have lost a majority of the understory sage/grasses/forbs, but other areas have not completely lost the understory. If left untreated these areas with some understory of sagebrush/grasses/forbs left will eventually be gone as well. As pinion/juniper has become dominate on the landscape and the loss of understory vegetation increases, big game and small game animals are experiencing a loss of foraging habitat. This compression of more pinion/juniper and less sage/grass/forb habitat has contributed to the decrease in Mule deer populations and other wildlife species on the mountain. This encroachment factor also contributes to the problem of big game moving closer to higher elevation aspen and local agricultural crops in the valleys to find sustainable forage. Depredation of crops by big game in the valleys on the east side of Monroe Mountain has caused much contention between landowners and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. In some cases contention has been so high that landowners have taken it upon themselves to kill unwanted big game animals from their fields. If acres of national forest lands are returned to properly functioning condition it is possible that big game animals will spend more time on national forest lands and not as much on private lands. Persistent loss of prey species in PJ habitat because of habitat degradation gradually effects a wide variety of wildlife. Loss of understory plant life is a viable population threat to a wide range of insects, avian populations, mammalian populations and soil stability. The District expects that long-term cumulative effects from this project will be positive. The pinion juniper zone in this area has such a depleted understory from the invasion of pinion/juniper that the condition is overall "poor". The area serves as transition range and winter range for big game and because it is in poor condition animals fail to remain in this zone for the season of use that should be normal. Big game, because of the lack of good forage have a tendency to migrate to the lower part of the valley in the winter and return to the higher elevations in early spring before range readiness. Aspen restoration at a large scale on Monroe Mountain is in the implementation stage. Big game use on regenerating aspen sprouts has proven to be a problem on the mountain. Projects that will minimize and distribute ungulate pressure away from aspen regeneration are a positive strategy. The District will re-seed with a mix of brush, grass and forbs. The District has seen success (Dixie Harrow transects) in treatment areas, both fire and mechanical, on the Forest and BLM that have initially shown cheat-grass response, but after the re-seeding has time to establish, cheat-grass has decreased dramatically.
Relation To Management Plan:
This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986) (LRMP). The purpose and need for this project is consistent with Fishlake National Forest goals and objectives found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan. The proposed treatment units are within management areas 5A- Big Game Winter Range (majority of proposed acres) and 4B - Habitat for Management Indicator Species. This proposal is consistent with and it responds to Fishlake Forest Plan direction for wildlife management in areas 5A and 4B. The relevant goals and objectives are listed below: * Improve or maintain the quality of habitat on big game winter ranges. (Forest Plan IV-4) * Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals. (Forest Plan IV-4) * Manage forest cover types to provide variety in stand sizes shape, crown closure, edge contrast, age structure and interspersion (Fishlake LRMP p. IV-99) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Elk Management. This project will help introduce species diversity back into the Monroe Mountain area. A mosaic design is part of the implementation strategy to create a pattern of treated and un-treated acres that will create an increase of biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation should not be an issue for wildlife as care has been taken to have leave areas, old growth areas, and treatment areas in good juxtaposition across the landscape to promote species diversity. Implementation of this project will benefit those species that favor early serial communities and early serial vegetation (elk). This project will provide increases in habitat effectiveness and benefit species such as ungulates. Mosaic patterns created by the project will distribute ungulate herbivory across the landscape minimizing overuse to current key areas and allow newly treated areas to have favorable responses to treatments. There will be some short-term (3-5 years) temporary impacts to plant and animal uses of these areas during the implementation phase of the project; however, the overall outcome will provide much needed plant species diversity across the landscape that will last well into the future. Increased vegetation through implementation of this project that will be created through primary succession methods will greatly benefit elk. The Greater Plateau Elk Complex Elk Management Plan (2016) lists range improvements in the habitat objectives section. This project specifically addresses the components listed under range improvements in that it enhances forage production and habitat quality through direct range improvements on winter range within the unit. The Greater Plateau Elk Complex goes on to mention that "focus will be on high use areas especially where we can entice animals away from agricultural areas..." This project falls under the focus areas described in the plan as one intended outcome is to entice animals away from the agricultural production surrounding Koosharem, Utah. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Mule Deer Management Plan This project will help introduce species diversity back into the Monroe Mountain area. A mosaic design is part of the implementation strategy to create a pattern of treated and un-treated acres that will create an increase of biodiversity. Habitat fragmentation should not be an issue for wildlife as care has been taken to have leave areas, old growth areas, and treatment areas in good juxtaposition across the landscape to promote species diversity. Implementation of this project will benefit those species that favor early serial communities and early serial vegetation (deer). This project will provide increases in habitat effectiveness and benefit species such as ungulates. Mosaic patterns created by the project will distribute ungulate herbivory across the landscape minimizing overuse to current key areas and allow newly treated areas to have favorable responses to treatments. There will be some short-term (3-5 years) temporary impacts to plant and animal uses of these areas during the implementation phase of the project; however, the overall outcome will provide much needed plant species diversity across the landscape that will last well into the future. Increased vegetation through implementation of this project that will be created through primary succession methods will greatly benefit mule deer. And, the proposed project follows the habitat management objectives of the Monroe deer herd unit management plan (2015). The habitat management objectives state: "Maintain or enhance forage production through direct range improvements on winter and summer deer range throughout the unit to achieve population management objectives." Grazing Allotment Plan for Koosharem Allotment The amount of forage available to livestock in this allotment is expected to increase significantly as a result of this project. With the removal of pinion/juniper, the amount of grasses and forbs in the sagebrush is also expected to increase significantly. With increased forage, ungulate distribution is expected to improve. Many areas that are currently unproductive due to overgrowth will soon become desirable for future uses by ungulates. Utah Wild Turkey Management Plan Newly treated areas through fire or mechanical means will attract use by wild turkey which are abundant on Monroe Mountain. Insects and new growth will be readily available to support turkey populations. UDWR Wildlife Action Plan This project is geared toward meeting the goals found within this plan for a variety of wildlife species from large to small. The entire proposed project area is found within a UWRI conservation focus area. National Cohesive Strategy The resulting mosaic of early and late successional forests will work toward the goal of restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, one of the three goals described in the National Cohesive Strategy. State of Utah Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy This project aligns with the mission of the State of Utah's Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy. The project has developed a comprehensive and systematic approach toward reducing the size, intensity and frequency of catastrophic wildland fires on Monroe Mountain. The project reduces the risk of a catastrophic wildfire occurrence negatively affecting property, air quality and water systems. Monroe Mountain Cove Mountain CWPP Goal 1: Minimize the potential wildland fire threat to life safety (Monroe Mountain Cove Mountain CWPP). This project works to achieve Goal 1 of the Monroe Mountain Cove Mountain CWPP by reducing fuel loading and lowering the potential of wildland fire spread across Monroe Mountain. Sage Grouse Management The Parker Mountain-Emery Sage Grouse Management Area is located less than one mile east of the project area. This project aligns with the Parker Mountain Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan, October 1, 2006. Specifically, the project corresponds with section 2.5. in the plan, which states as follows: "Action: Treat areas where undesirable vegetation has become, or is at risk of becoming a factor in sage-grouse habitat loss or fragmentation." It also follows the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah, February 14, 2013. Specifically section 5.4.1: "Aggressively remove encroaching conifers and other plant species to expand greater sage-grouse habitat where possible." There is a documented lek (Hell's Hole) on the south end of Monroe Mountain and telemetry studies show migration from collared birds to sage brush at lower elevations on the east side of the mountain. As state above in the Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse this project will reduce numbers of acres of pinion juniper encroaching into sage habitats, therefor meeting opportunities to enhance sage grouse habitat. Bald Eagle Management Bald Eagles: Bald eagles are protected by the Utah Wildlife Code, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Although the bald eagle is no longer listed on the Endangered Species List, the species remains listed as a Species of Concern in Utah, a subset of the State Sensitive Species List. State and federal laws prohibit harassing, injuring or killing eagles, or damaging their nests. Midwinter surveys of bald eagles within the lower 48 states were initiated by the National Wildlife Federation in 1979. Wintering Bald Eagles utilize the project area and treatments would improve life cycle opportunities for them. California Condor Management California Condor: This project lies south of I-70 and is therefore within the 10j experimental non-essential area for the California condor. Treatments in the area would create new vegetation opportunities for big game which would create hunter opportunities which may create carrion for raptors of all kinds. We are to monitor if any of this species were to show up on Monroe Mountain. State of Utah Forest Action Plan This project addresses all three of the key goals laid out in the Forest Action Plan: conserve and manage working forest landscapes for multiple values and uses, protect forests from threats and enhance public benefits from trees and forests. Wood products will be available through firewood or post/pole permits. This project will also reduce threats to the surrounding public and private lands.
Fire / Fuels:
Enhancing the habitat in these areas will result in multiple benefits, which include but are not limited to, improving habitat for wildlife dependent upon these various ecosystems, improving native species diversity, reducing hazardous fuel accumulations and breaking up the continuous fuel bed of pinion/juniper that currently exist along the east side of Monroe Mountain. This treatment will promote a fire resilient environment that reduces the risk for large scale, intense wildland fires, with less risk to public and firefighter safety. Fire risk would be reduced in the Koosharem Watershed and the communities of Koosharem and Burrville. The communities of Koosharem and Burrville are located approx. 1 mile from the project boundaries. Existing wildfire risk index in the project area ranges from moderate-high to very-very low. The majority of this project is within fire regime III -- 35-100+ year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75% of the dominant over-story vegetation replaced); The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) is estimated to be both moderate (FRCC 2) and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime. The central tendency is a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances. The majority of this project would be in FRCC 3. This project will improve the fire regime condition class to FRCC 1 and FRCC 2. The District has seen success (Dixie Harrow transects) in treatment areas, both fire and mechanical, on the Forest and BLM that have initially shown cheat-grass response, but after the re-seeding has time to establish, cheat-grass has decreased dramatically thus reducing this potential increased risk of fire.
Water Quality/Quantity:
This project occurs in the Koosharem Creek watershed. Project treatments may result in short to moderate term impacts to water quality, but project design features will prevent long-term degradation. Treatments will considerably lessen the risk of catastrophic large scale high severity fires that could result in long-term watershed degradation. By maintaining watershed function, long-term water quality will be maintained or enhanced. By removing pinion/juniper it is anticipated that water quantity will be enhanced (seeps, springs, bogs--improved) in the short and long term. Risk of fire will be reduced within the Koosharem Watershed. Since the area suffers from a diminished understory of grass and forbs, the planned seeding will be an important factor to establish future soil stability and reduce the risk of erosion.
Compliance:
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider and disclose the effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. This project was categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). The applicable category of actions is identified in agency procedures as (6) Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities that do not include the use of herbicides or do not require more than 1 mile of low standard road construction. Examples include but are not limited to: (36 CFR 220.6(e)(6)): (i) Girdling trees to create snags; (ii) Thinning or brush control to improve growth or to reduce fire hazard including the opening of an existing road to a dense timber stand; (iii) Prescribed burning to control understory hardwoods in stands of southern pine; and (iv) Prescribed burning to reduce natural fuel build-up and improve plant vigor. This category of action is applicable because of the wildlife habitat improvement activity of thinning to improve sagebrush/grass/forb ecosystems and to reduce fire hazard. In summary, NEPA was completed and a final decision for this project was signed in July 2017. * Federally listed threatened or endangered species or designated critical habitat, species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat, or Forest Service sensitive species -- The Decision Memo concluded there would be minimal to no effects. * Flood plains, wetlands, or municipal watersheds -- The Decision Memo determined there would be no adverse impacts. * Congressionally designated areas such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or national recreation areas -- None are present within the project area. * Inventoried roadless areas or potential wilderness areas -- A portion of the treatment areas are within Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs). No new road construction will occur during implementation of this project. The District did a review and determined this project is compliant with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (294.13(b)(1), tree cutting for wildlife habitat improvement could proceed if it is designed to maintain or help restore ecosystem composition or structure to conditions within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period). The Intermountain Regional Forester also concurred this project is compliant with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (June 14, 2017 letter). * Research natural areas -- None are present within the project area. * American Indians and Alaska Native religious or cultural sites -- None are known to be present within the project area. During project scoping, the Hopi Tribe provided comments. Their recommendations are included in the decision. * Archaeological sites, or historic properties or areas -- None are known to be present within the project area. Consultation occurred with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (USHPO). The USHPO is supportive of this project. No issues with this project were raised during scoping. This project is in compliance with Executive Order 12898 because based on public comments there is no indication that this project would adversely or disproportionately affect American Indians, other racial minorities, or low-income groups. This project is also compliant with the Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan, the Endangered Species Act, the American Antiquities Act and Historic Preservation Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Bald & Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Methods:
Contract 784 acres to be treated with the "Bull Hog Mastication" method. Aquire seed from GBRC and contract seed to be flown on the treatment site prior to equipment entry. Contractors would be expected to follow established treatment boundary marking to ensure property lines and forage to cover are followed. Treatment boundary markings would be established by the Richfield Ranger District wildlife crew. A mosaic treatment pattern combined with travel corridors will be designed into the project to allow some hiding, thermal and migration cover for big game. This diversity will help create a mix of life cycle benefits for a variety of wildlife and insect species. Curl-leaf mahogany and other key brush species will be designed away from fire opportunities to maintain browse integrity. The guzzler will be the Boss Tank Wildlife Guzzler kit that is buried in the ground part way so water is accessible to small game, birds, insects, big game, non-game, etc. They come equipped with a sloping ramp on one side of the drinker that has a heavy duty open mesh type material that allows small mammals an opportunity to escape if they fall in the water. Bitterbrush seed introduction to the site would be applied through mechanical means by placing a container with a dribbler hole in the bottom on a piece of equipment. The seed would roll down the track or tire to be imprinted into the site.
Monitoring:
Throughout implementation of this project elk, deer, owls and goshawks along with range conditions will continue to be monitored annually, following USFS Wildlife and Range Protocols. Areas as needed would be temporarily rested from domestic ungulate use, for 2-3 growing seasons, to allow vegetation time to establish. We expect aspen to indirectly benefit from this project; therefore, aspen will also continue to be monitored. Approximately 120 to 140 long-term aspen transects will be used to monitor status and trend of aspen following implementation. Monitoring would be in conjunction and coordinated with aspen monitoring/research currently being done on Monroe Mountain by Dr. Sam St. Clair from Brigham Young University. Monitoring will address aspen regeneration/recruitment and understory conditions. Approximately 70 of these transects have already been established and are currently being monitored. To compliment this monitoring, 11 exclosures have also already been built at various locations across Monroe Mountain. California Condor: This project lies south of I-70 and is therefore within the 10j experimental non-essential area for the California condor. Treatments in the area would create new vegetation opportunities for big game which would create hunter opportunities which may create carrion for raptors of all kinds. We are to monitor if any of this species were to show up on Monroe Mountain. Invasive and noxious weeds are known to occur in the treatment areas; however, treatment areas will be seeded and monitored post-implementation. If noxious and/or invasive weeds are detected, the District will take the appropriate actions to control spread and eliminate the noxious and/or invasive weeds from the treatment areas. The District has seen success (Dixie Harrow transects) in treatment areas, both fire and mechanical, on the Forest and BLM that have initially shown cheat-grass response, but after the re-seeding has time to establish, cheat-grass has decreased dramatically. Since the area suffers from a diminished understory of grass and forbs seeding will be an important factor to establish future soil stability and forage opportunities. Fuels treatment monitoring will take place involving multiple repeatable photo points. Several Fuels Monitoring Plots have already been established within the project. Plots will be visited post 1 year, 3 year, and 5 year, monitoring vegetation response and ground cover. This will be accomplished by the Forest Service SCA Monitoring Crew.
Partners:
BLM across boundary work has already been completed adjacent to this project along and/or near the Forest Service boundary. This project is located approximately 1 mile west of a BLM Dixie Harrow project and will compliment previously accomplished treatments along the base of the east side of Monroe Mountain. We have consulted with the BLM about future treatments in the area. The BLM is also planning on completing more treatment in the future along the forest boundary adjacent to this project. The encroachment factor of the pinion/juniper also contributes to the problem of big game moving closer to higher elevation aspen and local agricultural crops in the valleys to find sustainable forage. Depredation of crops by big game in the valleys on the east side of Monroe Mountain has caused much contention between landowners and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. In some cases contention has been so high that landowners have taken it upon themselves to kill unwanted big game animals from their fields. If acres of national forest lands are returned to properly functioning condition it is possible that big game animals will also spend more time on national forest lands and not as much on private lands. During project planning the local UDWR biologists offered suggestions that were incorporated and offered support for the project. The Sevier County Commission are supportive of this project. Local ranchers are also supportive of this project. During project scoping, no opposition from the public was shared.
Future Management:
Invasive and noxious weeds are known to occur in the treatment areas; however, treatment areas will be monitored post-implementation. If noxious and/or invasive weeds are detected, the District will take the appropriate actions to control spread and eliminate the noxious and/or invasive weeds from the treatment areas. Implementation of this project will reduce the risk of catastrophic high severity wildland fire; thus reducing the risk to the public and firefighters. This also reduces the risk to private property. Health and public safety is improved. With this reduced risk, future management of naturally caused fires may be possible to allow fire to play greatest feasible natural role in the environment. As habitat is improved for ungulates (deer, elk, cattle, sheep) and additional forage becomes available, the Fishlake National Forest expects the flexibility and management of ungulates will improve; hopefully with less controversy. Maintaining healthy populations of wildlife while also responding to the needs of livestock permittees is expected to become easier. The District will re-seed with a mix of brush, grass and forbs. Areas needing to be reseeded would be temporarily rested from domestic ungulate use, for 2-3 growing seasons, to allow vegetation time to establish. If needed, the District will ensure the temporary resting of treatment areas, herding, and electric fences are incorporated into Annual Operating Instructions. These actions will help ensure that permittees are in the communication loop and will give them enough time to plan for the resources they need to continue their operations. Impacts to permittees will be minimized by the use of herding and temporary electric fences so that treatment areas can be temporarily rested while non-treatment areas can continue to be grazed. As future pinion/juniper encroachment occurs, maintenance/re-treatment of this project is expected to be implemented to maintain the integrity of this project and the anticipated continued pinion/juniper encroachment. Encroachment of a variety of species is occurring across many elevations and ecosystems. Encroachment of less desirable species creates an imbalance across a wide range of flora and fauna populations. We are seeing encroachment starting to create an imbalance in viable wildlife populations of many species. By doing vegetation treatments it is our desire to help close these wide gaps of imbalance occurring due to encroachment and return lands in our stewardship back to proper functioning conditions. Consulting with BLM personnel has been done to learn of future projects in the area that will help enlarge the foot print of our pinion/juniper treatments.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Forage productivity has diminished greatly over the past century and the pinion/juniper expansion continues on a yearly basis into the more productive sage/grass/forb communities. As pinion/juniper is thinned, understory vegetation increases, wild and domestic ungulates will experience an increase in foraging habitat. Through mechanical thinning, pinion/juniper encroachment is addressed and sagebrush, grasses, and forbs are promoted. This in return moves the sage/grass/forb ecosystems in this area on a trajectory toward improved forage conditions thus improving ecosystems for both wildlife and livestock. Portions of the project are currently not being grazed due to the lack of understory and pinion/juniper encroachment. This project has the potential to improve distribution of domestic livestock into new areas within the Koosharem Allotment. The amount of forage available to livestock is expected to increase significantly as a result of this project. With the removal of pinion/juniper the amount of usable grasses and forbs in the and sagebrush is expected to increase significantly. With increased forage, ungulate distribution is expected to improve. Many areas that are currently unproductive due to overgrowth will soon become desirable for future uses by ungulates. This project area combined with the Blue Peak project area was presented last summer (2017) to the WRI Water Improvement proposal group as project that would add water pipeline and troughs to select locations to maximize ungulate distribution. It was not funded. However after these projects add acres of forage through mastication and seeding we hope to see an opportunity for wider undulate distribution.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$9,750.00 $0.00 $9,750.00 $5,000.00 $14,750.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Materials and Supplies Wildlife Guzzler kit and installation $8,500.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2019
Materials and Supplies Guzzler fencing materials and installation $1,250.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$9,750.00 $0.00 $9,750.00 $5,000.00 $14,750.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
RMEF banquet funds NS6555 Boss Tank Wildlife Kit purchase and delivery and USFS install. $9,750.00 $0.00 $0.00 2018
United States Forest Service (USFS) FS install of guzzler kit and fencing $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bald Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Black-tailed Jackrabbit
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Bobcat
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Cougar
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Medium
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Data Gaps - Persistent Declines in Prey Species NA
Mountain Cottontail R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Low
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/30/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Seeing how this project and Kelly's Pine Canyon project language is identical in places and the projects are very similar I would suggest in the future combining the proposals. You spent time in the Management plan section citing Sage grouse plan and habitat objectives that this project is meeting but don't claim SG as species benefiting. I would think that there is the potential for grouse use in this area if conifers were removed. Add them if you think they may benefit or if not consider removing the plan from the plan section. You'd know best! Another quick question. Why so much sanberg bluegrass? Cheatgrass competition? I know it can be one of the few native grasses that can compete with cheatgrass because it has similar growth form/pattern. If not I worry it might compete with some of your other cool season perrenials at that rate.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
One reason we are applying for them separate is the Koosharem to Pine Canyon will be a combinations of "force account" FS equipment and personnel doing the PJ mastication. The Blue Peak treatment is proposed to be a "force account" rental of equipment and FS personnel operating equipment. The Wood Hollow project is proposed as a contract for the larger bull hog equipment suited to treat Phase 2 and 3 PJ. All three have similar objectives but the type of equipment and personnel will vary enough to make it easier if they are stand alone proposals and implementation packages. Taking credit for the old chaining may be a stretch-however if it had not been treated we would be asking for a larger sum of money to treat older PJ, very poor understory, habitat. Because the old treatment still retains some habitat integrity it is cheaper to re-treat that start from the beginning. I felt that should be reflected in a match "in-kind" because it still has value to the project and proposal.
Comment 01/31/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
Kreig, I could use some clarification on a few items to help me rank your project. 1) what stage is the P-J and are all 783 acres of this stage? 2) What are the threats to the success of this project? Cheat grass? Drought? Consumption of seed by wild ungulates? 3) In the Relation to Plans, you list the objectives your actions will address for some plans but not others. Could you please make sure that objectives are listed for all the plans you mention? 4) Monitoring: How important is aspen in this project? Are there aspen stands in the project? If so how many monitoring transects will be in your project area? 5) Future management: With the heavy wild ungulate pressure that you describe, how will you ensure that browse will not take out your new growth? Is this a concern for the project? Thanks Nicki
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
Referencing your questions: 1) Most of the PJ in the proposed area are Phase 2 and 3 with a component of Phase 1 coming along as new growth. To rank it out by percentages I would guess that Phase 3 is at 30%, Phase 2 at 60% and Phase 1 at 10%. 2) The risk of our project not being a success is very minor. Precipitation or the lack thereof will be the final determining factor. Our pre-seed and masticate PJ. With equipment twisting and turning on site combined with mulch from the bull hog process we hope the seed will be successful. A BLM project adjacent to this area has been successful in seed mix establishment over cheatgrass. Cheatgrass is still present on the treated site but is a small component. We hope to see the same results. We will introduce bitterbrush seed via a dribbler system onto a track of the dozer or other equipment to imprint it into the soil. 3) Relation to Plans. Thanks for the advice on this matter. I will add to this section. 4) There are no aspen stands in the project design. 5) This area is not used by livestock. Wild ungulate pressure is certainly a concern and a major reason we are trying to treat a large number of acres with different types and phases of projects on the east side of Monroe Mountain. As we increase improved vegetative conditions with treatment acres wild ungulate use will be dispersed over a larger area helping reduce congregated use on small areas and adjacent agricultural fields.
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
I have also modified the Condor language in our other proposals removing the part about hunting being a benefit and only that we will monitor to see if they come to Monroe Mountain fulfilling our obligation to the USFWS.
Comment 02/02/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Kreig, I think the reference to condors is presumptuous. They spend 95% of their time in the Zion Unit. Will the guzzler be designed to be accessible to charismatic microfauna? Will the drinker have an escape ramp? Keith
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
We did not use condor as a species from the drop down list because of the discussions last year. However we are obligated in our NEPA documents and project wildlife documents to address the condor since these projects lie south of I-70 making it part of the 10j experimental area for the condor. For this reason we leave it in our discussion but avoid it in the species benefit list. Seems this logic worked for those concerned last year.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
The guzzler will be the Boss Tank Wildlife Guzzler kit that is buried in the ground part way so water is accessible to small game, birds, insects, big game, non-game, etc. They come equipped with a sloping ramp on one side of the drinker that has a heavy duty open mesh type material that allows small mammals an opportunity to escape if they fall in the water.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
It looks like you have been addressing some of the above comments already in the proposal, be sure to respond here indicating you have done so so you don't miss out on the points for responding to comments.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
Ok Thanks. Hopefully getting them all answered.
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
Due to the lack of snow in the area I have spent some time out in the proposed project area this week to look closer at PJ phase distribution, understory, deer and elk winter use, etc. I have modified the price of the per acre bull hog treatment in the finance section to $395/acre. Kendall sent shared with the bids from last year and $435/acre was the low bid with one a little higher and one about double. With the pattern I want to create and some travel corridors combined with the average PJ phase distribution I think I will be okay (barring bids are higher this year based on unknown costs of the contractors). I have also modified my seed mix quantity of bitterbrush. I am going to keep a small amount in to manually apply in selected areas.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Same question about bitterbrush seed method as listed on the Blue peak project. Also how confident are you in your cost estimate on bullhogging - it is on the high end of the sprectrum of what we typically see, is this PJ really the thick nasty Phase 3 stuff? Just want to make sure we aren't asking too much in proposals as we know we are going to have to send some home based on how much $$ has been asked for in the region this year, and cutting down on the budgets could help us fund more projects.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
Bitterbrush seed introduction to the site would be applied through mechanical means by placing a container with a dribbler hole in the bottom on a piece of equipment. The seed would roll down the track or tire to be imprinted into the site. I checked with Kendall Bagley about where the costs have been on bullhog work. This is in the range of the higher costs that he has seen lately. As I have gone out to look at the site a little more and studied closer on Google Earth-the estimate is probably high compared to the thicker nastier stuff they are getting high dollar for. Do you have a good idea what the "average cost" of bull hog would be?
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Very nice project proposal Kreig! I have a couple of quick comments. I think the seeding costs are way high @ $132/acre. Maybe have Danny or Kevin at GBRI look at it and see if you can't pare it down. Our bullhog costs have been in the range of $300-$350, unless it is out in the middle of Hamlin Valley. Thanks Kreig!
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
Due to the lack of snow in the area I have spent some time out in the proposed project area this week to look closer at PJ phase distribution, understory, deer and elk winter use, etc. I have modified the price of the per acre bull hog treatment in the finance section to $395/acre. Kendall sent shared with the bids from last year and $435/acre was the low bid with one a little higher and one about double. With the pattern I want to create and some travel corridors combined with the average PJ phase distribution I think I will be okay (barring bids are higher this year based on unknown costs of the contractors). I have also modified my seed mix quantity of bitterbrush. I am going to keep a small amount in to manually apply in selected areas.
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Krieg, Seems like a good series of projects you and Kelly have in this area. As Clint mentioned in the future it may make sense to tie them together since they have similar objectives and are in the same watershed. A few questions/comments 1) I have been tasked with ground truthing WAP Habitat threats this year. Remove Data Gaps - Persistent Declines in Prey Species as Data Gap threats are meant to be addressed by research and not implementation. Improper Forest Management as defined in the WAP does not seem like an appropriate threat for the Rangeland Habitats you are working in. Given that your project is addressing fire frequency and Problematic native plant species you can probably score higher by adding these threats. 2) There are big game range trend sites in similar habitat close by, do they support the poor existing condition of your site? 3) Do you have measurable objectives for how you want the vegetation community to look following treatment? 4) Any Values at risk from fire besides wildlife habitat? 5) Does the project help fulfill any objectives for water quality plans? 6) Any discussion of treatment on private lands to south. 7) I would ask that you review your list of species benefitted. For species benefitted if they are included I would expect that the proposal contains information about population status in the project area, an objective to improve or maintain that population status and monitoring (preferably not funded through WRI) to determine that objectives outcome. Clearly you can, and do, make the tie to elk and deer. With your proximity to the PHMA you could probably make a case for sage grouse. From a ranking perspective what do all those other species really buy you? 98) Did I see a comment response above that said there is not livestock grazing here because you talk about grazing management in the proposal?
Comment 02/14/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
In response to your comments 1) I have been tasked with ground truthing WAP Habitat threats this year. Remove Data Gaps - Persistent Declines in Prey Species as Data Gap threats are meant to be addressed by research and not implementation. Improper Forest Management as defined in the WAP does not seem like an appropriate threat for the Rangeland Habitats you are working in. Given that your project is addressing fire frequency and Problematic native plant species you can probably score higher by adding these threats. Thanks for the advice. I have added some info in the "threat" language of the proposal. 2) There are big game range trend sites in similar habitat close by, do they support the poor existing condition of your site? One indicator I have been monitoring for this site is when we do our post season deer counts (mid-Nov through mid December) we are counting fewer deer in the old chaining. This is a chaining where herds of deer should be counted. In the past decade numbers of deer counted in the old chaining has been less than a dozen. However in nearby newer treatments on FS and BLM ground we see more deer and elk than ever before. Now this is a no brainer because as I have always said "If you treat it and they will come", however this area of old chaining should be providing great cover and forage for big game helping disperse the ungulate pressure across the entire watershed area. In the condition it is in today it doesn't offer as much habitat integrity as it is capable of doing. The old chaining area, if in "better" condition can offer a better altitudinal variance in vegetation diversity in spring and in fall and winter conditions. 3) Do you have measurable objectives for how you want the vegetation community to look following treatment? We have 52 line intercept transects in our harrow treatment areas on the BLM and FS lands (many of which are on the east side of Monroe Mountain). We have monitored them a regular basis to determine grass, forb, brush types, bare ground, rock, etc. We intent to establish new transects in the Blue Peak and Wood Hollow treatment areas to monitor success of seeding and cover. 4) Any Values at risk from fire besides wildlife habitat? As more acres are treated on the east side of Monroe Mountain and near the communities of Koosharem, Burrville and Greenwich we feel as we improve wildlife habitat with vegetation manipulation through mastication, harrowing, chaining or fire we reduce the risk of wildfire. Wildfire would not only threaten private land but increase the risk of a "type conversion" to noxious weeds and invasive grasses on a landscape scale. We are intent on pre-seeding and mechanically treating in the lower elevation PJ habitat as not to cause an influx and conversion to cheat-grass. 5) Does the project help fulfill any objectives for water quality plans? The two projects I am proposing (Wood Hollow Bull Hog and Blue Peak Chaining re-treat have a distinct opportunity to dramatically slow soil erosion on the lower PJ-Sage community that lack in understory. As I mention in my project discussions recent summer rains have started to move much more soil and congregate more run-off that has caused some threats to the community of Koosharem. Seeded treatment areas will help keep rain and snow water on site and help produce habitat for a variety of fauna. 6) Any discussion of treatment on private lands to south. Brent Hatch, landowner of many acres of foothill country south of Koosharem to the Box Creek road has Dixie harrowed some land as well as the BLM adjacent to the FS. 7) I would ask that you review your list of species benefitted. (Have added and adjusted) Thanks for your insight to make our proposals better.
Comment 03/05/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
In the funding section, will you separate the in-kind amounts that you have listed under UWRI and Habitat Council into their own funding line according to the actual funding source (USFS or DWR etc)? Thanks.
Comment 03/06/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Kreig Rasmussen
Complete Thanks
Comment 08/21/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This is just a reminder that completion reports are due August 31st. I have entered the expenses in the Through WRI/DWR column on the finance page. Please do not make any changes to numbers in the Through WRI/DWR column. Any "Through Other" or "In-kind" expenses will need to be entered by the PM or contributors. Be sure to click on the finalize button on the completion report when you have your completion report ready to be reviewed by WRI Admin. Don't forget to upload any pictures of the project you have of before, during and after completion. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
06/19/2018
End Date:
06/30/2018
FY Implemented:
2018
Final Methods:
Boss Tanks Guzzler kit was funded by WRI sources. We picked up kits it Elko, NV and delivered the kit to the site. We rented a mini excavator to help prepare the site for the guzzler. We also used a Fishlake NF mini-excavator and a Bobcat with a 6-way blade for site preparation. Guzzler kit was installed and site was fenced to prevent livestock but allow wildlife.
Project Narrative:
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and The Mule Deer Foundation have come to the Fishlake NF for several years to hold their annual work day and Summer Rendezvous. With their help we have installed 17 guzzlers over the past 8 years. We had the site prepared with the tank set and the apron site prepared for laying out the fabric. On June 23 we had approximately 48 volunteers including some local Dedicated Hunters, arrive on the site to help install not only this guzzler but a second one. The two guzzlers were approximately a mile apart. We had to split the equipment and labor to accomplish the guzzler install and fencing all in 6 hours. The project was completed and was rain ready when the volunteers left that evening.
Future Management:
Approximately 550 acres of mastication and hand thinning of PJ on Wood Hollow ridge was completed in the month of August 2018. This was our future management project but was able to be completed this season because of extra Forest Service Fuels money. We will monitor the use of the treatment and guzzlers with trail cameras and visual transects. Some seeding will occur in treatment areas late fall. Livestock will be restricted from using this area for a minimum of two years. Very few cattle every use the area because it is low elevation and most cattle when turned into this spring pasture migrate to mid-elevation where feed and water are readily available.
Map Features
N/A
Project Map
N/A