Center Creek Chaining Project
Project ID: 4667
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
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:
Project will address the need to remove Phase III pinyon-juniper trees through the use of a two-way "Ely" chaining. We will be aerially seeding a diverse seed mix within this project to increase the understory of perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs for wildlife and livestock. Project will treat approximately 835 acres.
Location:
Project is located south of the Center Creek Ranch within the Plateau Boulder WMU, this project is located on BLM and SITLA Properties, it is located in Garfield County. Project is located in T32 South R2 West, Sections 25, 35, 36 and T33 South R2 West Section 1.
Project Need
Need For Project:
This project will address the need to remove encroaching late phase II early phase III pinyon-juniper through a two-way chaining, helping to increase the understory of grasses, forbs and shrubs that are lacking. This will be done through a mechanical treatment using an "Ely type anchor chain that will remove trees, creating a good seed bed prep for the seeded species of grasses, forbs and shrubs. This area has little to no understory of perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs due to the mature pinyon-juniper trees within this treatment area.
Objectives:
Objectives for this WRI project will consist of removal of approximately 836 acres of phase III pinyon-juniper trees and aerially reseeding grass, forbs and shrub components within the Center Creek Project, this will be done through the use of a two-way chaining project, this will allow for the removal of over 70 - 80% of the pinyon-juniper within the treatment area. This project will address the reduction of increased soil erosion and the lack of herbaceous understory within the project site. Aerially re-seeding this site will increase the forage for wildlife species and domestic livestock in the future.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
This project will address the threats of increasing pinyon-juniper, decreasing plant understory, risk of wildland fire frequency, and increased possibility of invasive species increasing on the landscape. By implementing this project the risk of increasing pinyon-juniper species will be addressed, and improved grass, forbs and shrub species will be increased and removal of pinyon-juniper stands will allow for reduced fire hazard and improved rangeland use by wildlife and livestock. No action on this project will allow for increased invasive grass and noxious weed species, along with increasing size and structure of pinyon-juniper encroachment, increased soil erosion with no productive herbaceous understory or shrubs within this rangeland site. Phase III pinyon-juniper reduces the native understory of grasses, forbs and shrub plant species, reducing pinyon-juniper will allow for shrub, forbs and grasses species to respond within the treatment site. With a good treatment and a aggressive seed mix we can hold off invasive noxious weed and grass species such as Cheatgrass. Fire in this area is also a concern, over the last couple of years the BLM has treated several thousands of acres to help reduce the potential for wildfire in this area, this has been done through chaining and bullhog type work.
Relation To Management Plan:
The pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush areas lie within the sagebrush steppe type which is one of the key habitats identified in the Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy Plan: The proposed projects will address some of the habitat management strategies outlined in the deer and elk management plans for herd unit 25C (Plateau Boulder 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 to plan and implement improvement projects for the purpose of enhancing wildlife habitat and 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. *NRCS has also identified that the removal of pinyon-juniper trees is critical as it pertains to Greater Sage Grouse and the SGI Initiative working on Private, State and Federal Lands to reduce avian predation and elevated structures. *Utah has finalized it's Sage Grouse Management plan and enclosed are related goals and objectives from that plan that are associated with SGMA's (Parker Mountain-Emery): #1) Protection of habitat that provides year round use. #2) Ensure recruitment of a continuing population. #3) Enhance or Improve sage grouse habitat #4) Protect 10,000 acres on SITLA through habitat restoration practices. #5) Enhance 25,000 acres annually with a SGMA. #6) Increase 50,000 acres annually through management actions (prescribed grazing, invasive weed control, pj removal) #7) Removal of encroaching PJ along with improved water development in wet meadows ponds and spring sites. Richfield Field Office RMP (October 2008)-pg. 76 Goals and Objectives - Manage for a mix of vegetative types, structural stages, and provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife (including SSS) habitats. - Sustain or reestablish the integrity of the sagebrush biome to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of the Greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent wildlife species. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: a. Treat areas determined to need reseeding with a variety of plant species that are desirable for wildlife habitat, livestock, watershed management, and other resource values while maintaining vegetation species diversity. b. implement additional treatments to achieve Standards for Rangeland Health and desired vegetation condition. Vegetation treatments could be conducted on up to 1,472,000 acres over the life of the plan. These acreage figures include all vegetation and fire fuels treatments. Central Utah FMP: - Greater use of vegetation management to meet resource management objectives. - Hazardous fuels treatments will be used to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities. - Sagebrush/steppe communities will be a high priority for ESR and fuel reduction to avoid catastrophic fires in these areas. Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: - This places the shrubsteppe into a "key" habitat type - Shrubsteppe habitat should be a target for restoration and conservation. - Recommends where decadent pinyon juniper has increased into shrubsteppe due to lack of disturbance to disturb the decadent vegetation. Deer Herd Unit Management Plan (#25C/26 Plateau/Kaiparowits) - - LIMITING FACTORS: The major concern throughout the unit is encroaching pinyon pine and juniper forest. - HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES: Encourage vegetation manipulation projects and seeding to increase the availability, abundance and nutritional content of browse, grass, and forb species. - PERMANENT RANGE TREND SUMMARIES: Thick stands dominate much of the critical winter range limiting the winter carrying capacity for big game. There is a great potential to provide more forage for big game by treating the thick stands of PJ. ELK HEARD UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN (#25C/26 -Plateau, Boulder/Kaiparowits). - Unit Management Goals: Conduct habitat projects to curb the invasion of PJ on winter range areas. Return these areas to productive plant communities - Unit Management Objectives: Habitat -a. Develop cooperative programs... with emphasis on high use areas, especially where we can entice animals away from agricultural depredation problem areas. b. Encourage vegetation manipulation projects and seeding to increase the availability, abundance and nutritional content of browse, grass, and forb species. c. Discourage the encroachment of PJ into sagebrush... Seek opportunities to improve habitat through...mechanical treatments to improve habitat where p/j encroachment is occurring. - ACTIONS TO REMOVE HABITAT BARRIERS: Maintain and/or enhance forage production through habitat improvement projects throughout the unit on winter range to achieve population management objectives. Work with private and federal agencies to maintain and protect crucial and existing SITLA Management Plans: Correspond with the Utah Code Title 53C Chapter Five Section 101, 102 and 103 in accordance with Management of Rangeland Resources Utah Adminstrative Code R850-50-1100 Range Improvement Projects within the SITLA Property.
Fire / Fuels:
This project will have the ability to reduce fuel loading through the process of removing the pinyon-junpier trees with a two-way chaining treatment. The reduction of pinyon-juniper trees within this treatment will allow for improved understory of grasses forbs and shrubs that will be seeded during the treatment. Treatments 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. Several prior projects that reduced the likely hood of wildfire in the area and adjacent to this project, these projects consisted of clear cutting, burning and reseeding along with recent bullhog project that was implemented last fall by the Richfield BLM Fuels. 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 Antimony, Utah.
Water Quality/Quantity:
This proposed project is a two-way chaining and reseeding project, pinyon-juniper stands are typical Phase III, no understory really dense stand, little to no grasses, forbs and shrubs. By implementing this project we will have the opportunity to increase overland water quantity by reducing the mature stand of pinyon-juniper trees. Removal of these trees will result in improved stream flow,more water discharge for soil availability for desired plant and shrub species. Information from a study provided by the NRCS Wedinar estimated that 1 acre of pinyon-juniper trees (33% Pinyon, 9% Juniper 58% Inter-space over a 12 month period will utilize 280,000 liters of water per ac/trees/yr or 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. Also this project will address the objective listed in the Otter Creek-East Fork TMDL Study for water body 16030002-005 helping with the amount of possible sediment and phosphorous entering the East Fork of the Sevier River with one of the strategies is to convert 70,000 acres into improved herbaceous cover through restoration efforts.
Compliance:
Culture Resources will need to be reviewed or a survey conducted within the undisturbed treatment area associated with the Center Creek Chaining Project as it pertains to the two-way chaining aspect of the project. This will be contracted out through our State Purchasing guidelines and the Project Manager will work with Monson Shaver (UDWR) to coordinate this action. Project Manager will work with Monson Shaver to make sure all Culture Resource surveys are complete and SHPO has been consulted after the survey of the treatment areas are inventoried. The BLM portion of this project has been completed and the NEPA is final and ready to move forward NEPA/EA # DOI-BLM-UT-C020-2012-0009-EA
Methods:
This project will consist of using two (2) D-8 cats to pull and "Ely" anchor chain on the first pass, with the second pass pulling a "Smooth" anchor chain. In between chaining the project will be aerial seeded with a mixture of grasses and forbs. We would also like to use a dribbler attached to each D-8 cat to allow the planting of browse species. Travel corridors will be kept intact allowing for thermal and escape cover for wildlife in the area. Culture Resource issues will need to be addressed on this project, this maybe worked as a joint effort through UDWR personnel.
Monitoring:
Monitoring methods will be looking at the increase in forage production and growth on browse species as it pertains to the removal of encroaching pinyon-juniper trees in the treatment area by the use of the two-way chaining . This will be done with photo points and vegetation studies that will be taken over time. Possible monitoring site maybe established by GBRC Range Trend Crew within the chaining project location. Additional monitoring plans will consist of wildlife monitoring through UDWR bi-annual deer classification to monitor production and subsequent survival on the Plateau Boulder Unit deer and elk herds, along with implementing a rest rotational grazing system so the chaining treatment can be rested for two growing seasons after treatment then placed within a rotational grazing system.
Partners:
Partners for this project consist of the Richfield BLM, UDWR, and SITLA. All partners are supportive of this project and are willing to commit a lot of time and effort towards making this project a success. In addition the general public and sportsman that enjoy hunting and recreating in this area will also benefit from the Habitat Restoration Work that will be completed, the improvements made will last for several years to come. In addition the livestock permittee has been notified of this project and will be willing to deffer grazing for two growing season allowing the establishment of the seed species to mature and develop.
Future Management:
Grazing will be suspended for two growing seasons to allow the grass and forb species to mature and develop to handle grazing. In the future the two-way chaining portion will be managed on a rotational grazing system to adhere or coincide with the Richfield BLM Management Plans and SITLA grazing dates. UDWR, SITLA and the BLM has committed to improve habitat through restoration efforts to improve overall regional goals and objectives for wildlife and livestock grazing. Success will be determined by the Management Plans of the BLM, SITLA and UDWR along with the grazing permittees through proper grazing systems that allow for healthy rangeland communities. This project will increase the overall forage value and have a direct benefit to wildlife and livestock. This project will also add value to the mule deer, turkeys, sage grouse and elk within the Plateau, Boulder WMU, addressing winter range issues and providing additional forage and eliminating possible depredation issues to cultivated crops. Other future management of this project will be to address the need to remove small "pinyon or juniper whips" within the project site, this can be done with contracted hand crews, or even UDWR DH Program. We will be looking also at the need to address cheatgrass and noxious weed species if warranted, this will be done through spot spraying with ATV or scheduling the use and assistance of a CWMA spray day with local state, federal and cooperative groups to help out.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
This project will increase the understory of the treatment area dramatically, allowing for increased feed for grazing livestock on the SITLA and BLM Properties. Pinyon Juniper trees are very dense and little to no understory is present. This project will increase grasses, forbs and shrubs species for livestock due to native and no-native seeded species included in the mix. The chaining aspect will open up areas to sunlight, reducing overall pinyon-juniper stands and allow of the establishment of seeded species to occur. Domestic livestock will be grazed on a rotation type system after two to three growing seasons, improved distribution can a will occur due to improved understory.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$203,613.00 $10,800.00 $214,413.00 $2,000.00 $216,413.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Seed (GBRC) Seed Expenses for the Center Creek Chaining Project. Cost per acre Est.$94.39 $77,995.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 2020
Archaeological Clearance Contract with State Purchasing through Monson Shaver to conduct the needed inventories to clear the project treatment area. Estimated at 317 acres at $29.00/Ac $9,193.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Contract through State Purchasing the opportunity to hire a contractor to two-way chain the Center Creek Chaining Project. Est 835 acres @ $120/Acre. $94,800.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 2020
Contractual Services Aerially Seed the treatment site with a mix of grasses, forbs and shrubs. This will be by contract with a fixed wing. Est. $25.00/Acre at 835 acres. It will include both early and late flights. $20,875.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Materials and Supplies Materials and supplies to flag the treatment area, horse hire, survey materials etc. $750.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Personal Services (permanent employee) UDWR in-kind to help administer the project and complete the flagging and inventories for the two-way chaining. $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$57,500.00 $11,800.00 $69,300.00 $2,000.00 $71,300.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) NS6524 $613.18 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) NS6527 $3,677.20 $0.00 $0.00 2019
RMEF banquet funds NS6555 $1,225.42 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) NS6523 $3,677.20 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) In-kind services towards the project from DWR Employee $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2019
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 $11,322.80 $0.00 $0.00 2020
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $1,886.82 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $11,322.80 $0.00 $0.00 2020
RMEF banquet funds S055 $3,774.58 $0.00 $0.00 2020
BLM Fuels (Central) Funding provided by BLM towards this project, through Central Utah Fuels Program. $0.00 $10,800.00 $0.00 2019
Utah Trust Lands Administration (TLA) Funding towards the project from SITLA $0.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 2019
Habitat Council Account HCRF $20,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
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
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
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
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake N4
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Low
Habitats
Habitat
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
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Low
Project Comments
Comment 01/19/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Kendall. This sounds like a really good project, but I do have a few questions. First of all, can you address the project acres somewhere in the writeup - I don't see anywhere you have done that. Also, I see that this project is slated to benefit sage grouse and mule deer, but you may want to discuss that need as part of your needs and objectives. I am sure this project will benefit sage grouse, as it is close to water, within 3.1 miles of a lek, and maps out as brood habitat. As such, you may want to discuss the benefits a little bit more and describe why this is important. To benefit grouse, the chaining would probably need to be followed up with a hand-thinning, which would also improve your project points in the "future management" section. So you mention that trees will use 23% of water w/in 1 ac ft. Can you provide a reference for that? I don't see NEPA mentioned for this project - is it complete? Can you provide some verbage to that effect, please. I looked at the seed mix, and due to the sage grouse issues mentioned above, I think it would be good to add some more sage-grouse friendly forbs to your mix (penstemon, lupine, sweetvetch, yarrow, globemallow, milvetch, flax, etc.) and a few less grasses. Maybe reduce the intermediate and get rid of squirreltail. Check the ecological site....Please keep myself, the Richfield Biologists and the BLM archaeologist in the loop on this project as it moves forward. Thanks!
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Vicki, Thanks for your comments I have added them to the project details and made adjustments as you mentioned to the seed mix, along with adding the information about the NEPA that is complete on the BLM portion of the project Thanks Kendall.
Comment 01/19/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Oh, I forgot one thing - you mention that there is a big commitment from partners to see this happen - you may want to include some in-kind costs that reflect their commitment and that of the agency.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks Vicki for the comment, I have been in discussion with Bob Bate on this and he has been working with Shawn Peterson, we will be moving some funding from BLM Fuels to be utilized on BLM portions of this project, it may include monies for seed, aerial flight and the chaining. I have added it to the budget tab. Thanks, Kendall
Comment 01/25/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
Kendall, Is there anything that might keep this project from being successful? Also, in relationship to plans, are there any SITLA plans you can mention?Finally, what steps are planned for the future management if you don't see the expected response? Thanks!
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks for the comment Nicki, I have made the necessary comments within the database, this project will be weather dependent in the future, we feel good about the implementation practices we will use to treat this area. I have added some Plans from SITLA in the relationship to management Plan Section. Planning for future management will depend on the treatment we will be doing, as said before hope for great moisture, continue to control noxious weed species and remove small whips within the treatment, allow grazing to be deffered for a couple of growing seasons and working with the grazing permittee with BLM and SITLA allotments. Thanks again for your comment.
Comment 01/29/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
From a ranking standpoint I think adding some language about follow-up treatment of the whips (if that is the plan) in the next few years will help with showing a definite benefit to the Sage grouse in the area. Rankers like pictures too ;).
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks Clint for the comment, I have added that information into the project I will load the pictures of this project along with maps. Thanks Kendall
Comment 02/13/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Clint, I have loaded some picture of the site and have talked to Slate some changes have been made to the proposal as far as treatment area size, and seed. All updated. Thanks Kendall
Comment 02/01/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Kendall, This looks like a good cross boundary project right next to our Ranch Creek project. I will try to not be repetitive of others comments.1) Do you have measurable objectives for what you are expecting from the grass forb community following treatment? 2) You probably want to replace Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy with the WAP in your plans section. 3) Does this project assist with any objectives for one of the TMDLs on the East Fork Sevier River? 4) Wildlife monitoring for species listed benefitting other than deer and elk? 5) Any data on current vegetation trend in the project or similar areas close by? 6) Any information available on FRCC or fuels loading departures from range of variability? 7) Is there a pressing need to complete this project now for sage grouse or because waiting longer will result in more difficult or more expensive treatment? 8) Any coordination with sage grouse local working group and where does it rank in their priorities? 9) Any discussions with FS about how to expand project onto our side of the fence? 10) Any sense of the scale of forage improvement based on past projects? Are there issues on the current allotments related to forage production?
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Mike, Great Questions let me take a stab at some of them, we are looking to improve this area with the reseeding of herbaceous understory and shrubs, as of right now this project is lacking in them and anything we do will improve the site and treatment area. I have made the change in the data base to reflect the UCWCS. I have found some information on the East Fork of the Sevier River TMDL and made mention of those objectives in the plans, we have started working as a committee to put together the Otter Creek Watershed Plan and the first meeting was on 2/7/18, this plan will address watershed related concerns with measurable objectives. Wildlife monitoring will include deer and elk but working with the local PARM Working group the possibility of doing SG surveys maybe included. I will provide the fuel loading information and put it in the Relationship to Management Plans Section. We would like to complete this project sooner than later, the Richfield BLM Fuels has been doing several projects in the area and after this one the majority of the work will be completed. LETS GET IT DONE. We expect to see SG move into this area if the work is a success or at the least develop additional habitat for them to occupy, The local working group is aware of projects going on it the area and has been in support of them in the past. No discussion with the FS on this project, small amount of property effected and somewhat steep to treat. Working with the BLM and SITLA on the grazing issues and the forage that will come from this project will only enhance the grazing in the future. Thanks Mike for all your comments this year I appreciate all your help in making them better moving forward.
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Mike, I have uploaded the FFSL Risk Assessment for this project within the documents tab. Thanks, Kendall
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Kendall, please remove Utah milksnake from here (one old nearby record is, I believe, a mis-ID'd mtn king), and add Sonoran mountain kingsnake (which are well-known from this local area). The rimrock and talus just to the west of the project footprint constitute especially suitable wintering habitat, from which they will disperse during the growing season to forage and mate-search. Thanks.
Comment 02/08/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks Jimi for your help and expertise on this project, I have made the adjustments to the database. Thanks Again Kendall
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Danny Summers
See comment on introduced grasses from project 4625.
Comment 02/19/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks Danny, I will make adjustments and reload the seed mixes. I will also talk to Slate (SITLA) and Bob Bate (BLM Fuels). Thanks, Kendall
Comment 01/11/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
Kendall, will you fix the map so it doesn't include USFS lands. Assuming you're not planning on going onto their land.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Tyler, I have reloaded the shapefiles for this project making the adjustments you requested. Thanks
Comment 08/20/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form early. It looks great.
Comment 05/20/2019 Type: 3 Commenter: Monson Shaver
I have updated the finance tab to reflect the cost of EcoPlan Associates.
Completion
Start Date:
05/20/2019
End Date:
08/01/2019
FY Implemented:
2020
Final Methods:
Final methods for the Center Creek Chaining Project was to only complete the Culture Resource Inventory of the project so implementation for project #4959 could occur in the fall of 2019. UDWR Contracted with EcoPlan to complete the survey work on 347 acres, survey work was completed on BLM and SITLA properties.
Project Narrative:
This project was originally presented for a two-way chaining project to remove phase three PJ with little to no understory. Due to the amount of great WRI Projects along with some big price tags on some of them this project only received partial funding. With that in mind we were able to work with the BLM and SITLA to complete "only" the Archaeology portion of the project in FY19'. With the surveys completed we submitted another project for FY20' to complete the implementation portion of the project (Center Creek Chaining Project Phase II WRI #4959).
Future Management:
No future Management on this portion of the project will be needed, all Culture Resource Inventories have been accounted for and concurrences with SHPO have been completed. Implementation to take place in fall of 2019.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
9497 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map