Church Hills/Little Long Canyon Bullhog Maintenance Project
Project ID: 4640
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2020
Submitted By: 60
Project Manager: Kendall Bagley
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Southern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
This project is designed to expand bighorn sheep winter range and improve habitat for other open-land wildlife by reversing the encroachment of pinyon and juniper 3,837 acres of sagebrush habitat on the east slope of the Canyon Mountains. Pinyon and juniper would be removed using up to four (4) Fillmore Forest Service Bullhog driven skidsteers with Fecon heads. This project will be completed in house using Forest Service Seasonal Employees.
Location:
This project is located on the east side of the Oak Creek WMU, and northwest of Scipio, Utah. All treatment areas will take place on Forest Service and SITLA Properties.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The western edge of the Little Valley section of the project is adjacent to cliffs that provide escape habitat for bighorn sheep. As the recently established population of bighorn sheep expands, we feel it necessary to insure adequate suitable habitat exists south of Oak Creek Canyon to focus this population on the southern end of the range away from domestic sheep allotments on BLM land to the north. This project will occur in area that has been modeled as potential bighorn winter range and is being used by bighorn on the northern end of the area proposed for treatment (D. Smedley, pers comm), but due to PJ encroachment habitat effectiveness is declining overall. This project is intended to improve and expand bighorn winter range. However, along the more gently sloped eastern side of the Little Valley project area and the Church Hills project area, implementation should also enhance crucial winter habitat for deer, elk, pronghorn, wild turkey, and sagebrush nesting birds and increase forage for livestock. This project will also prolong the useful life of the initial habitat treatment and provide a crucial fire break for subsequent prescribed burns that will be imperative for maintaining bighorn sheep habitat values. We will be using Bobcat driven skidsteers to remove encroaching pinyon juniper trees wherever terrain is suitable. The pinyon juniper trees are within the recommended size limits of the bobcats skidsteers and treatment using this method will be highly efficient. Lop and scatter using chainsaws may be used on areas too steep for treatment with bobcats. The under-story within this project is still in fairly good condition with a good representation of perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs. We are proposing seeding by adding dribblers to the bobcats to take advantage of the opportunity to add species and diversify the under-story during tree removal.
Objectives:
Objectives of this project are to reduce pinyon-juniper cover (encroachment) to 15% or less within the project boundary, although PJ cover may vary from <5% adjacent to cliffs to possibly >15% on the more gentle areas used by wintering deer and elk where retaining some thermal/hiding cover may be desired. By accomplishing this objective we hope to increase visibility for bighorn while maintain and/or improve a diverse under-story of shrubs, grasses and forbs that will benefit deer, elk, turkeys, sagebrush adapted migratory birds and provide more forage for livestock. The objective for plant species composition is for cover estimates to be within 60% of NRCS Upland Stony Loam (Mountain Big Sagebrush) Ecological Site. Current Objective Perennial grasses 15% 29-31% Annual grasses 29% <20% (incl. exotics) Perennial forbs 2% 4-6% Shrubs 19% 24-26% An additional objective, crucial to the Forest Service, is reducing fuels in this area to minimize the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The biggest threat to this habitat will be addressed by the project, namely conversion to PJ woodland and loss of productive sagebrush/grass communities. Due to the need for high visibility this is a greater threat in bighorn habitat, but it also applies to big game and other species dependent on sage-brush. Re-colonization by pinyon-juniper trees at some point is just a reality, but by removing as many trees as possible from important habitat we should be able to prolong the life of this project for many years to come. However, to maintain habitat value, particularly for less common raptors such as furruginous hawk, it will be necessary to leave some older more mature trees as cover and to provide shade and nesting sites. Also, the level of PJ encroachment is at a point where treatment is cost-effective and with a high probability of success. When the Williams Canyon range trend study was read in 2017 the estimate was that 50% of Utah juniper were in the 8-12' range, which is at the edge of what can be treated efficiently with skid steer mounted fecon heads. Waiting even a few years will greatly increase the cost of treatment and lower the likelihood of success. We also have the option of doing this project in house with the Forest Service versus waiting and having to use a more expensive and more invasive treatment like chaining and seeding the areas due to the trees becoming larger in size and crowding out the understory of grasses, forbs and shrubs. This site is on the edge of the Clay Springs fire scar, and parts of it burned during that event. Fire is a reality on the Canyon Mountains and it is highly likely this area will burn in the future. Cheatgrass already makes up roughly 20% of the understory in scattered locations and will quickly invade following wildfire fire or other major disturbance. The remaining understory is the best defense against annual weeds and once this is lost the site will probably be dominated by annual grasses and forbs. Another risk is that implementation could be delayed or even halted by adverse weather in the fall/winter and may have to be finished up in the spring if possible.
Relation To Management Plan:
The pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush areas lie within the Lowland Sagebrush and Mountain Shrub Steppe and Gamble Oak Habitat type which is one of the key habitats identified in the WAP (Wildlife Action Plan). The proposed projects will address some of the habitat management strategies outlined in the bighorn sheep, deer and elk management plans for herd unit 21 (Fillmore Oak Creek Unit ) including: *Continue to improve and restore sagebrush steppe habitats critical to deer according to DWRs Habitat Initiative. *Maintain habitat quantity and quality at a level adequate to support the stated population objectives while at the same time not resulting in an overall downward trend in range condition and watershed quality. *Work cooperatively with land management agencies and private landowners and or grazing permittee to plan and implement improvement projects for the purpose of enhancing wildlife habitat and livestock range resources in general. *The project also helps fulfill the state mule deer management plan section IV Habitat Goal: Conserve and improve mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges. *The proposed projects will address the following goals and objectives of the Division of Wildlife Resources most recent strategic management plan: *Resource Goal: expand wildlife populations and conserve sensitive species by protecting and improving wildlife habitat. *Objective 1: protect existing wildlife habitat and improve 500,000 acres of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state. *Objective 3: conserve sensitive species to prevent them from becoming listed as threatened or endangered. *Constituency Goal: Achieve broad-based support for Division programs and budgets by demonstrating the value of wildlife to all citizens of Utah. *Objective 2: improve communication with wildlife organizations, public officials, private landowners, and government agencies to obtain support for Division programs. *UDWR SR critical big game winter range are important browse communities that need to be enhanced and improved. The Division will employ a variety of methods to achieve this including prescribed grazing, prescribed burning, reseeding and seedling transplants, also mechanical treatments. Priority areas will include sagebrush-steppe and mountain browse communities. Falls within the rangeland focus area for WRI wildlife species for mule deer and elk. Utah Wildlife Action Plan, 2015 Publication Number 15-14, State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Effective 2015-2025 -- Promoting and funding restoration that reduces the uncharacteristic and surpluses of older age class, including: Dixie/chain harrow, brush mowing or other treatments that reduce the older age class and stimulate the younger/mid age classes; herbicide or mechanical treatments single tree mulching/cutting of invading conifer. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer. Section IV Statewide management goals and objectives. This plan will address Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2013 (p11-12). Strategy C. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. Strategy f. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages. Fillmore Pahvant/Oak Creek Deer Herd Management Plan Unit #21 (2015) - Habitat Management Objectives -- Encourage vegetation manipulation projects and seeding to increase the availability, abundance, and nutritional content of browse, grass, and forb species. Strategies: Habitat Protection, Improvement and Maintenance - Reduce expansion of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinyon-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop & scatter, bullhog and chaining projects; maintain summer fawning areas by increasing beneficial habitat work in summer and transitional habitat areas.(p3-4) Utah Wild Turkey Management Plan Newly treated areas through fire or mechanical means will attract use by wild turkey which are abundant on Oak Creek Management Unit. Insects and new growth will be readily available to support turkey populations, also the availability of more water in the Church Hills and Long Canyon areas. 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. *This plan is consistent with the Fishlake National Forest Plan for wildlife habitat enhancement and fuels management to improve habitat, reduce fuel loading, and protect against catastrophic wildfire. *Other project have been completed by the Forest Service and UDWR in past years within the Long Canyon and Whiskey Creek HUC 12 area. *Project within the are also benefit the management plans objectives of the lower Sevier River Watershed, as this will reduced sediment run off and create a healthy rangeland communities. *Management Plans are also in conjunction with NRCS overall goals of healthy rangelands and communities, improving watersheds and reducing erosion and sediment. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment *FFSL CWPP Process is a local Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a collaborative plan created by the fire department, state and local forestry, land managers, community leaders, and the public.The planning process maps values at risk, and requires actions to reduce risk, such as prescribed burning, fuel reduction, or other measures that adapt a community to better confront their wildfire threat. *Area is also part of the Millard RWPP FFSL Plan which was implemented in 2014, there are Wildfire Codes and Ordinances associated with this plan. Project would also be relevant to NCS Goals and supported through the FS National Cohesive Strategies. CAT FIRE Objectives and Strategies: In 2013, the State of Utah developed the Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy (CAT FIRE) in response to the severe 2012 fire season. Reducing the catastrophic wildfire requires attention to three interdependent goals identified in the National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy -- Restore and Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Wildfire Response. These goals have been embraced throughout the development of the state's CAT FIRE strategy. Mitigation of hazardous fuels can change fire behavior making it easier to suppress. The effects of the mitigation, however, are not limited to life and property safety but will also affect forest health, water quality, vegetative species abundance, etc. As we continue to implement projects across the landscapes in Utah, the only way to truly be successful is to integrate existing programs, utilize local and federal partners and continue to educate the general public to create the desired shift towards more resilient communities and ecosystems. We have also added to the documents tab the Millard County Plan that addresses these types of habitat projects along with edits from the State of Utah Resource Management Plan.
Fire / Fuels:
This project falls within the canyon range/oak creek boundary, most of the oak creek range was burned during the clay springs fire. By implementing this project we will have the ability to reduce fuel loading through the process of removing the pinyon-juniper trees with a late phase I to early phase II type treatment, reduction of Pinyon-Juniper trees within this treatment will allow for improved understory of grasses forbs and shrubs that is present but has been suppressed by the encroachment of pinyon-junipers. Treatment like this have been proven to prevent wildfire from spreading during an event, this treatment will create several barriers or buffers between treated and non treated areas that is critical for controlling or containing wildfires. The majority of the the project area has been classified by the Utah wildfire assessment as high to very high threat of fire danger. This project will help protect valuable infrastructures, from Catastrophic Wildfires, such as homes, summer cabins, outbuildings, hay sheds, livestock corrals and mostly the community of Holden and Scipio respectively which has over 900 residents combined, treatments like this one will protect the water supply resources of existing springs and water sources used for grazing livestock and wildlife. The size of the treatment is around 3,655 acres and is within less than two miles of several structures including homes, and out buildings, and within five miles of Holden and Scipio, UT. This treatment will reduce fuel loads and improve critical habitat for mule deer, elk and turkeys in the future, along with providing additional forage for livestock within the Little Long Canyon and Church Hills Allotments on the Oak Creek WMU. I have added the FFSL Risk Assessments (Documents Tab) for each of the treatment areas, this will give an overview of added risks associated with doing nothing within these sites, also addresses flame length, suppression risks, potential for additional damage to residents and property, utilities, roads, and percentage that is in different stages of risk (high, medium, low etc).
Water Quality/Quantity:
This proposed project is a Bullhog and reseeding project, to remove encroaching pinyon-juniper stands that are typical late phase I to early Phase II. In its current state this project site has a fair-to-good understory of grasses, forbs and shrubs. By implementing this project we will have the opportunity to increase overall water quantity by reducing reducing the water used by encroachment of pinyon-juniper trees. Removal of these trees will result less bar soil, higher organic matter, better infiltration, and reduced overland flow, all of which ultimately will provide a favorable environment for native and important introduced plants, reduce erosion, reduce sediment loads, and help improve stream flow. It is estimated that 1 acre of pinyon-juniper will utilize during the year 23% of the water within a 1 acre foot. Quality of water will not be overwhelming the first year but in and over time it will become improved. This type of treatment will benefit the soil over the long term, due to increasing plants that will utilize the excess water, overland flows of rills will be filled in, chance for overland flooding will be minimized allowing for springs and seep to start appearing and improved rangeland conditions will benefit overall.
Compliance:
All of these treatment areas are under the Forest Service Category Exclusion which allows for them to be retreated as the initial consultation has been complete and all NEPA documents have been consulted with through SHPO. These are maintenance projects within Forest Service Boundaries. See information in the documents and images tab.
Methods:
The Methods that will be used within this project will be to implement this project in house using four (4) Bobcat driven skidsteers that are owned by the Fillmore Ranger District. Seasonal fuel crews will be used as operators. The Bobcats will be able to remove the pinyon-juniper trees with a Fecon Head attachment, this will allow for the trees to be mulched with the layer of mulch spread out on the ground thus reducing the competition of water taken up by the pinyon junipers trees, allow for increased water in the future for the existing plants and shrubs within this rangeland community. In addition, seed will be planted using a dribbler type setup and will be attached to the bobcat to be seeded on the project site allowing for additional inter-seeding of forbs/browse species that are lacking within these treatment sites. Some already present mature trees will be left to provide cover and shade for wildlife and livestock. Forest Service crews may also use chainsaws within the project boundary to lop and scatter juniper on terrain too steep to safely remove trees using bobcats.
Monitoring:
The Williams Canyon range trend stud (21A-8) is located within the Little Long Canyon section of the proposed treatment area. It was read in 2017 and will provide a base-line for tracking changes in vegetation and animal use. Monitoring plans will also include UDWR bi-annual classification to document production and survival of deer, elk and pronghorn populations. USFS will also monitor vegetation prior to and after livestock grazing in accordance with Fishlake NF Plan objectives and the need to make adjustments to grazing management. review if needed within the treatment area a rest or late rotational type grazing system through working with Also Project Manager will work with the Fillmore Forest Service Range Conservationist (Lannce Sudweeks) and the Wildlife Biologist (Sean Kelly) to establish a set of vegetation and photo points within a transect to collect pre and post treatment data. UDWR may ask for the GBRC Range Trend Crew to set a permanent vegetation transect for future monitoring of this project that will be read or surveyed for vegetation data every five years depending on their workload, in which this data can be uploaded in the proper forms. We will also be monitoring the new encroachment of pinyon-juniper trees within this project out three-seven years and removing all whips that may be left during the treatment, this maybe done in house using the Forest Service Fuels Crew.
Partners:
Partners for this project will include the Fillmore Forest Service, and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, also the grazing permittees on both the West Bench Allotments. In the past the local Sportsman Groups of the MDF, RMEF, SFW, UBA, SCI and NWTF have participated in these these of projects, funding has been provided for the benefit of wildlife populations along with a need to increase grazing opportunities on public lands. Projects like these succeed with great partnerships along with participating State and Federal Agencies.
Future Management:
Future management of this project will be conducted by the Fillmore Ranger District, who will be looking at these types of treatments as a way to reduce fuels within previously treated areas use in house equipment and fuel crews saving money in the long run and completing the implementation as directed within the Forest Service Resource Management Plan. Management of livestock grazing within the Church Hills and Little Long Canyon Allotments will be utilized in a rotational type grazing system, the Fillmore Forest Service will work with the Whiskey Creek and West Bench Grazing Associations to best handle the timing and duration of the grazing periods within the treatment areas and make adjustments based on existing conditions. Rest and deferment of grazing will be documents on the Annual Operating Instructions developed and signed by the permitees each spring prior to turnout. This project will also provide a defensible fuel break which will enable us to seriously consider prescribed burning as a habitat improvement tool moving forward. The UDWR has GPS collars on bighorn sheep in this unit and we will be able to use location data to monitor bighorn use of these treatments.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Livestock grazing will not be deferred from this project because the understory is still in relatively good shape and only incidental seeding is proposed. Removal of the smaller pinyon-juniper trees will decrease competition for water and resources with perennial grasses and forbs, and lead to more available forage in the treatment areas. This will allow for cattle to be in better condition coming of the summer range, better weaning weights from the calves going into the fall along with increase grazing distribution across the allotments due to these treatments and the encroaching pinyon-juniper trees being removed. Other sustainable uses associated with this project is the value of hunting big game and upland game on the Oak Creek Unit. This area is critical to mule deer, elk and turkeys, the Oak Creek is a great unit for limited entry mule deer along with general season elk hunting. This unit always has great access for turkey hunters in the spring. Many people use this area for recreational purposes such as ATVing, horseback riding, and spending time on weekends and holidays camping and enjoying this portion of the Oak Creek Unit. Local residents will also cut wood, fence stays and cedar posts in this area.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$211,922.00 $0.00 $211,922.00 $232,000.00 $443,922.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
NEPA Cost Estimates for the Fishlake Forest Service to provide the NEPA Study and Documentation. $0.00 $0.00 $35,000.00 2020
Seed (GBRC) Estimated costs for the dribbler seed as the Bobcats are doing the work. $10,122.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Materials and Supplies Expenses associated with the fuel that will be needed to completed the project, fuel will be provided through State Contracting. 15,000 gallons at $3.00/gallon. $45,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Personal Services (seasonal employee) Expenses for the Fillmore Fuels Crew (4 employees for 7 months est. $5,200/Employee) to complete the project, this will be done through a Cooperative Agreement with Fillmore Forest Service and UDWR.. $145,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Other In-kind associated expenses coming from the Fillmore Forest Service Fuels Crew towards this project. Est. 7 months, to cover the four (4) Bobcats ($180,000), vehicle mileage ($7,000), and misc. supplies, parts and repairs to the bobcats ($10,000). $0.00 $0.00 $197,000.00 2020
Archaeological Clearance Cover Expenses for the Arch Survey for the SITLA acres Only. Forest Service acres are complete. $11,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$161,010.42 $0.00 $161,010.42 $232,000.00 $393,010.42
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) In-kind services from the Fillmore Forest Service. $0.00 $0.00 $232,000.00 2020
DNR Watershed U004 $1,645.73 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Federal Aid (PR) P651 $4,937.22 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Federal Aid (PR) P651 $64,006.79 $0.00 $0.00 2020
UWRI-Pre-Suppression Fund U006 $37,591.30 $0.00 $0.00 2020
DNR Watershed U004 $8,797.97 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Federal Aid (PR) P651 $14,980.32 $0.00 $0.00 2021
DNR Watershed U004 $29,051.09 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bighorn Sheep N4 R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Chukar R3
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Chukar R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Chukar R3
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
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
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/31/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Hi Kendall. I guess I have quite a few questions on this project, as several items are not clear to me. First of all, it looks like a portion if this is on private land and you mention NRCS in some of your planning language, but it does not appear that NRCS is a partner on this project. Can you please clarify, and list other partners. DItto for SITLA? In looking at the map, these trees look like mostly scattered phase I, with several "leave" trees that may be phase II. If this is the case, will the seeding be effective, given so little disturbance? If we are adding seed to the project, would we not want to rest the project from grazing to protect the investment? You mention that USFS crews will be doing this project, can you give some additional information on the Finance page, as to how these costs were calculated (i.e. 4 employees for 4 months @ 7800 wm). I think that would help all of us determine the cost-benefits in relationship to what you are doing. Thanks Kendall!
Comment 01/31/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Vicki, Thanks for the comment, moving forward I have reloaded the shapefile and removed the Private and SITLA portions from the project. I met last week with the FS and we would like to see if SITLA would be interested in partnering with us on this project, I will follow-up with Slate this week. As for the budget we have updated that showing the information you requested. NRCS is not a partner in this, as the project will be done in house by the FS Fuels Crew, although some information pertaining to the NRCS does show up in the Relationship to Management Plans Section of the project. Moving forward on the implementation of the project if the crew does leave a few trees they will be bigger mature trees from the previous treatment as for the seed it will just be a dribbler mix and the seeder will be attached to the back of the bobcats, grazing will not be deferred in this project and the seed should be fine. I have addressed your comments in the project proposal Thanks Kendall
Comment 02/01/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Kendall, I think we are halfway there. Questions and comments 1) So how close are we to the tipping point on this? 2) So could you elaborate more on how you calculated the $164,360 in kind for the four bobcats? 3) Is there a reason why you went with the bobcat and FS crew over a lop and scatter contract? I think Schoppe got like $40 an acre on his big lop and scatter contract in John's Valley last year or the year prior. 4) Could you elaborate on how this project address the Disease -- Alien Organisms Threat for Bighorn? In the need for the project you indicate that the understory is in good condition, but Improper Grazing -- Livestock (current) is listed as a threat. What are the issues with current livestock grazing and if there are issues why is there no rest in the future management? 5) Wildlife monitoring other than deer and elk?
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Mike, Thanks for the comments I have been in touch with Sean Kelly and we are going to both comment on this together. #1) We are looking at this project especially in the Little Long Canyon Areas of the project that we need to do something right away, we are seeing the understory being stressed in this area, trees are quite a bit more mature and bigger than on the church hills portion of the project but both are in need of treatment. #2) I worked with Bryce Monroe on this and I believe that we cam up with this figure based on the rental of these types of machines,. (4 bobcat machines with fecon heads at $6,850/month for 6 months) #3) We felt that due to the fuel loading from considering a LS project in the areas and the past history of the Oak Creeks having several large Catastrophic Fires on them we would not like to keep the fuels on the ground rather use a mechanical treatment to mulch and reduce the fuels. Thanks Mike. Sean will address the #4-5 questions. We did change the threat for Big Horn Sheep to (not listed) see comment from Sean.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Great point on the fire situation up there, we have had some fun over the years doing fire rehab on some tough sites there.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks Gary for the comment, we hope this treatment will help reduce the fuel loading and improve additional habitat for wildlife and livestock. Kendall
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Mike, thanks for the comments. #4) We have an issue on the southern half of the Canyon Mountains with areas being unsuitable for bighorn sheep due to brush and PJ encroachment. One of the concerns we have for this bighorn population is the domestic sheep allotment just north of the Forest. By improving habitat on the south end we're hoping to encourage this BHS herd to stay as far south as possible and reduce risk of contact with domestics. Since this is more of an indirect threat, we changed this to "unlisted" in the proposal. While it does sound contradictory, there is a fairly good understory and we do see a threat with livestock grazing. As Kendall mentioned, this area is at the point where if we do something now we can preserve the understory without reducing or eliminating grazing. But we've almost waited too long. Without treatment we anticipate a fairly severe reduction in suitable grazing acres over the next few years with the remaining areas receiving heavier use and because of the way this allotment is set up managing grazing is a challenge, which is one reason we're so supportive of this project as a District. No two year rest period was recommended because there is an existing understory and the seeding was intended more to diversify the understory and not to re-establish it. Also, logistically and politically it may be difficult to implement a full 2-year rest period on this allotment. Hope this helps. Thanks again for the comments!
Comment 02/05/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
#5) We have a transect running along the edge to the treatment area to monitor raptors and passerine birds
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Kendall, You mention benefits to "a variety of wildlife species from large to small", but list only game. The one species on the WAP is big horn sheep, but do we really expect them to drop to these elevations? In reality, some "small" species (juniper dependent) will suffer. I commend you desiring to leave some larger trees standing, as this is an area with a good population of FEHA year-round and BAEA and RLHA in the winter. Keith Day (Comment was sent through email)
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Keith, I haven't seen Dave's telemetry data but bighorn have been observed in similar elevations and distance from classic 'escape cover' on the north end of the range, with the main difference being lack of tree cover due to frequent wildfires in that area.
Comment 02/04/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Just an update, as of last week Dave has verified that based on his GPS collar data bighorn are using the more open northern section of the Little Valley treatment area, but not extending down into the more wooded section, which we hope to improve as habitat for this species.
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
If you don't consider the in-kind cost and only look at the WRI ask the treatment is about $50 acre assuming they really get through all the acres - do you have a sense of if it is realistic to see it all get done, or is this one where we have identified all that we want to do but will just work until the $$ is gone and see where we got to?
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Gary, This is the treatment we intend to complete, it is a big task but meeting with Bryce Monroe, Lannce Sudweeks, Sean Kelly and Brian Monroe we are hopeful to finish this project within the scope of work and time frame set for the project. Kendall
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Kendall, I think you only have to put up with me for one more project after this. Another nice proposal sir. Looks like $115/acre now versus $300 plus in a couple years when you have to bring the bigger machines in? You would know better than the fish guy. What about Bighorn sheep management Plan objectives? Firewood might be an additional sustainable use with the lop and scatter. I would review your future management on this one.
Comment 02/19/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Mike, thanks as always for the comment, I have added the bighorn sheep plan as well as Sean Kelly from the Forest Service adding information pertaining to Bighorn Sheep habitat from the Forest Management Plans. I would also agree on the sustainable use for wood cutting of the left over lop and scatter. We will be using bullhogs on this project may not be much left after that. Several residents from the surrounding areas use this area to cut cedar post, stays and fire wood. Thanks Mike as always for your comments, makes our projects better in the long run. Kendall
Comment 02/19/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Nice, a chukar project ;). Nice clear measurable objectives, thx.
Comment 02/19/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Clint, Thanks, for the comment, we are excited to implement this project. The Fillmore Forest Service has put a lot of time and effort into it. Chuckers for days if this is funded. Thanks Kendall
Comment 02/21/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Kendall, you list impropoper grazing (current) as a threat to a variety of species, but then you indicate that grazing will not be withheld after the seeding. I am having a hard time wrapping my head around all of these - can you please address this in more detail? Why would you not defer grazing, when you are seeding it?
Comment 02/21/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Vicki, Thanks for the comment, I did look at the threats to species and removed them from the HIG species. We had them in there last year but over the last couple of years; the Forest Services has been involved with the Whiskey Creek Grazing Association on moving livestock on a more regular basis and has shifted the management of the Church Hills Allotments around to benefit wildlife. As far as the seeding taking place, we are just adding bitterbrush and small burnet in as a dribbler mix when doing the application. We have found good success as far as adding browse species this way on the Mytoge Project the last few years and feel good about applying this method here. With this small amount of seed being put out, we feel that deferring the grazing will not affect the seeding. Thanks for the comment. Kendall
Comment 03/06/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Gunnell
Kendall, any concern about burying the bitterbrush seed if the dribbler is on the back of the bobcat? Do you think it will still be imprinted well? Any potential option of using the ATV bitterbrush drill to better place that seed?
Comment 03/06/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Kevin, We have done this on the Mtyoge Mtn Project and have had some success, I would be willing to try the ATV seeder in some areas. There is really thick sagebrush and older trees from previous treatment but we could find a location to seed. Good idea. Thanks
Comment 01/11/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
Hey Kendall - I accidentally deleted one of your polygons. Sorry about that :) You'll need to upload it again.
Comment 01/16/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Tyler, I just reloaded the shapefile,
Comment 08/15/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. It looks great. Thanks for uploading pictures!
Completion
Start Date:
10/16/2019
End Date:
08/31/2022
FY Implemented:
2023
Final Methods:
Final Methods for this project included the USFS Fillmore Field Office completing 3,837.99 acres of Bullhog Mastication within Forest Service and SITLA Properties. This was completed using tracked bobcat skid-steers provided by the Fillmore Forest Service. All materials, labor and supplies where provided, the labor came from Forest Service Fuels Employees, they implemented this project over the winter months when snow was present and the risk of fire danger was low. This project was managed by Bryce Monroe with the Fillmore Forest Service, who provided a great amount of in-kind labor towards this project.
Project Narrative:
This project was implemented by the Fillmore Forest Service Fuel Department, the need for this project was to reduce encroaching pinyon and juniper trees with the use of tracked skid-steer machines. Bryce Monroe (USFS) was the overseeing the project, the project was completed over several years, the UDWR and WRI provided funding to the FS through a Good Neighbor Agreement, the UDWR provided fuel for the project as well as providing some seed that was used on the machine as a "dribbler mix". This seed mix consisted of Alfalfa, Bitterbrush, Small Burnet and Sainfoin. This project occurred on FS and SITLA properties, before any implementation could occur a Culture Resource Survey was completed. This type of project shows how great partnerships can get great work done and work across boundary lines and to improve wildlife habitat. We appreciated the support form WRI, USFS and DNR Watershed to complete this great project.
Future Management:
Future Management of this project will relay on the Fillmore Forest Service, they will be monitoring the treatment areas looking for encroaching pinyon and juniper saplings within the treatment area. If present small saplings will be removed with loppers or chainsaws, this maybe done in house by the Forest Service or by the use of UDWR Dedicated Hunters. Areas that where opened up from encroaching pinyon and juniper will allow for increased forage for livestock and wildlife such as mule deer, elk and wild turkeys. The additional forage of grasses forbs and shrubs will allow for improved spring, summer and wintering habitat to be present within the Church Hills and Long Canyon Areas.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
7734 Terrestrial Treatment Area Bullhog Skid steer
7734 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (secondary/shrub) Ground (mechanical application)
Project Map
Project Map