Hogs Heaven Watershed Enhancement Project
Project ID: 4781
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2021
Submitted By: 917
Project Manager: Stan Gurley
PM Agency: Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands
PM Office: Southwestern Area
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Improve watershed, range conditions, wildlife migration corridor, and wildlife habitat using mastication following aerial seeding on 2,076.8 acres.
Location:
15 mile northwest of Orderville, Utah. Adjacent to North Fork of Virgin River.
Project Need
Need For Project:
1. Currently the North Fork of the Virgin River is listed as high Priority 303d water body because of elevated levels of E. coli. Utah department of Environmental Quality has linked the elevated levels back to fecal bacteria from livestock and wildlife. The levels of E. coli are posing a threat to recreational uses in the river and could potentially contaminate drinking water further downstream. By increasing the amount of available forage away from the north fork, the goal is to reduce the amount of animals near and in the north fork and reduce the amount of fecal matter that makes into the north fork. Upland health is key to riparian health. 2. Livestock production is the primary use of the private land. Because of the PJ encroachment livestock production is limited by forage and prefer the forage found in the riparian area. The upland areas have become invaded by pinyon and juniper trees, resulting in a lack of forage. The lack of forage drives livestock to the irrigated pastures along the riparian area. 3. Big Game use this area as transitional range. Large numbers of mule deer pass through this area in the early fall and spring as mule deer and elk transition from winter to summer range. Improving range conditions will theoretical will improve body condition for wildlife. Improved body condition will improve survival and condition of the animal once it reaches its winter range. Elk use the area heavily in the late fall and in some winters. Depending on snow depth, Elk can be found in this area throughout the winter. In the words of Wade Heaton "We aren't going to have healthy wildlife populations without private landowners, and that includes general season landowners". Every unit management plan also calls for working to private owners to improve wildlife habitat. This area has been identified in Utah's new Big Game Migration Corridor Plan as an extremely important corridor for migrating mule deer. Utah is working to develop a Migration Initiative Program and this area has been identified recently as critical mule deer migration habitat. Big game migration corridors have become a national priority with several states developing Migration Initiative programs. The Department of the Interior has also signed a Presidential Secretarial Order (SO 3362) which directs federal agencies within the department to work with states restoring and conserving migration corridors and winter ranges (see #16 management plans for more details). Working with USFWS, we will likely apply for special migration corridor funding under SO 3362 to off-set WRI costs. See the full SO 3362 in the attachments sections for more details. Non-game species including California Condor and Golden Eagles potentially occur in this area according to the UDWR Heritage Database. These species will benefit from the open space created and the expected increase in prey species in these areas. The project falls within an identified Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) with lowland riparian habitat listed as a priority habitat type for conservation (BHCA #48: Virgin River). Priority bird species listed in the BHCA are Abert's Towhee, Lucy's Warbler, Bell's Vireo, Gray Vireo, and several waterfowl species. The Virgin River and associated contributing streams provide critical riparian habitat in a desert setting. Improving upland will directly benefit lowland riparian habitat in many ways. These private mesic lands and surrounding private rangelands are critically important to the health of wildlife populations. Research shows that 60--80% of wildlife is dependent on mesic habitats (e.g., wetlands and riparian areas; Thomas et al. 1979, Patten 1998, Belsky et al. 1999, Peck and Lovvorn 2001). If true wildlife conservation is to take place on a sustainable level, public wildlife managers must engage private landowners. Working on the adjacent rangelands will have direct positive impacts to riparian areas. Improving range conditions on adjacent uplands theoretically should improve the conditions of the riparian and water quality in the north fork. Currently the Range Land Health is poor because of the encroachment of pinyon and juniper trees into historically grass and brush uplands. Return these uplands to desirable forage for wildlife and livestock will help reduce the use of the riparian areas. Because this area has been identified as a critical migration corridor for mule deer habitat we feel that this projects importance should be elevated because of the overall impact of the habitat to these species of wildlife. Another qualifier for elevating this project is that the project falls within an identified Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) as previously discussed. The project will also address several conservation needs for several bird species not captured in the species section of this proposal.
Objectives:
1. Decrease present of E. coli in the North Fork of the Virgin River, to a allowable amount for Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ). Removal from the 303d classification is a long-term goal. 2. Increase forage for livestock, including browse (bitter brush) for sheep in treated areas by a minimum of 10%. 3. Increase mule deer usage of transitional habitat and hold over time of migrating. This data can be determined through the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Migration Initiative. 4. Increase or maintain elk use on the private ground, while reducing the negative impacts to private land owners and their operations.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
1. Currently a contentious relationship has developed between land mangers and private landowners. Working with the private landowner and UDWR to provide solutions is intended to sooth tension by providing options for livestock producers. Increasing the forage will also improve landowner tolerance for wildlife use on the property. 2. Total Daily Load will continue to increase if management changes aren't made to the current operation. Masticating and seeding will provide options for livestock operators to manage their usage. As stated in Utah State University Extension bulletin "good soil and water conservation practices on upland areas represent the first, and perhaps the most critical step for the protection of riparian areas." This what the goal of the mastication work is. Improve the uplands, improve the riparian and water resources. 3. Currently the landowners/livestock producers are tolerant of wildlife use of their property. Wildlife, especially mule deer and elk use these properties in migration as transitional habitat. Increasing forage, and land productiveness, will help offset conflicts with private landowners/livestock producers, while increasing the forage for wildlife and contributing to a diverse plant community. 5. Fire is a threat if left untreated due the dense stand of pinyon and juniper, that could threaten older age class ponderosa pine forest and private structures in the area. 6. Sheet and Rill erosion contributes to the amount of sediment from the late phase II pinyon juniper sites that lack under story. With the mastication, mulch will cover the bare soil while seeds are established. Decreasing soil erosion and moisture lost, while increasing soil moisture holding availability and cover of the soil. In areas in or near the treatment sites that have been cleared and seed have proved to be very successful (see pictures for details). This project will increase and maintain the availability of a diverse suite of vegetational communities. A healthy landscape has a diversity of vegetational states within an ecological site. A diverse landscape benefits a larger community of wildlife species and people. A diverse landscape is also more resistance and resilient to disturbance. By allowing this landscape to continue to move further into a dominant PJ woodland it increases the risk of its resistance to disturbance and its resilience to bounce back and and heal after a disturbance. 7. This project will directly and indirectly effect positively high interest game. Mule deer and elk are found in the project area. Mule deer could use this area for a staging area in their migration, as has been seen on other projects on the Parowan Front allowing them to be in better condition as they enter the winter range and as the deer return in spring and summer. Elk will use this area from the fall to spring, if weather does not force them to lower elevations. In consultation with the wildlife biologist over this unit, he would prefer that the elk and mule deer remain in these areas longer, because it would give managers a chance to manage them, rather when they enter Zion National Park and management is not an option. 8. A species of greatest resource concern that has been documented in the area is the California Condor. Condors summer near Kolob Reservoir (12 miles West), the open areas will increase the visibility of condors as they search for carrion. The anticipated increase in herbivore use would theatrically increase the number of carcasses available to the condors also. Working with Hawk Watch that monitor condors on the Zion we were told "that any improvements to unglates with benefit condors and their populations". With these treatments condor habitat will be improved. 9. These private mesic lands and surrounding private rangelands are critically important to the health of wildlife populations. Research shows that 60--80% of wildlife is dependent on mesic habitats (e.g., wetlands and riparian areas; Thomas et al. 1979, Patten 1998, Belsky et al. 1999, Peck and Lovvorn 2001). If true wildlife conservation is to take place on a sustainable level, public wildlife managers must engage private landowners. 10. As previously stated, because this area has been identified as a critical migration corridor for mule deer habitat we feel that this projects need and importance should be elevated because of the overall impact of the habitat to these species of wildlife. Another ecological qualifier for elevating this project is that the project falls within an identified Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) as previously discussed. The project will also address several conservation needs for several bird species not captured in the species section of this proposal. 11. Native fishes in the Virgin River are of special concern. These species may include: virgin spinedace (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis), desert sucker(Catostomus clarkii), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), and flannelmouth sucker (Catostomus latipinnis). The virgin spinedace and flannelmouth sucker are both much reduced from their original Virgin River habitat. Both are managed under conservation agreements. Water quality improvements have the potential to benefit these fish species on site and downstream.
Relation To Management Plan:
1. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Plan "Support all habitat objectives and strategies in this plan to protect and improve mule deer habitat..." "Explore additional opportunities to provide incentives to landowners that provide habitat for mule deer." * "Work with university extension to increase landowner participation in the Watershed Restoration Initiative program." "Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that have been taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats, ensuring that seed mixes contain sufficient forbs and browse species." "Continue to support and provide leadership for the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, which emphasizes improving sagebrush-steppe, aspen, and riparian habitats throughout Utah." This projects falls in the Crucial Mule Deer Habitat Priorities . 2. Deer Herd Unit Management Plan, Deer Herd # 29, Zion *"A major proportion of both summer and winter habitat for deer on this unit is on private land. Therefore, it is paramount to work with private landowners to maintain both summer and winter habitat. Currently, there is one CWMU of 13,000 acres (Mt. Carmel - Zion) in the Muddy Creek drainage on the east portion of this unit. Other landowners have expressed interest in a CWMU and they may be organized in the future." * "Reduce expansion of Pinion-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinion-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop & scatter, bullhog, and chaining." * "Work toward long-term habitat protection and preservation through agreements with land management agencies and local governments, the use of conservation easements, etc. on private lands and working toward blocking up UDWR properties through land exchanges with willing partners." 3. Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan *"Continue to provide incentive programs for landowners that will encourage elk populations on private land such as the CWMU, Landowner Association, and WalkIn Access programs." * "Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk habitat.' * "Coordinate with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize elk habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration. i) Identify habitat projects on summer ranges (aspen communities) to improve calving habitat. ii) Encourage land managers to manage portions of forests in early succession stages through the use controlled burning and logging. Controlled burning should only be used in areas with minimal invasive weed and/or safety concerns." 4. Utah Statewide Bighorn Sheep Management Plan * "Improve or maintain existing water sources and develop new water sources as needed to improve distribution and abundance of bighorn sheep." Note: These lands are used from domestic sheep summer range. Expanding bighorn sheep habitat is not goal of this project but improving water sources for bighorn sheep is a result of the project. 5. Zion National Park, Virgin River Comprehensive Management Plan/Environmental Assessment * "To protect and enhance free flow and water quantity, promoting the river's ability to shape the geologic landscape by reducing impediments to free flow, improving hydrological function, and ensuring flows that are largely natural." * "To protect and enhance river-related natural resources and ecological processes. The natural function of riparian areas, wetlands, and floodplains of the Virgin River and its tributaries would be maintained and restored; restoration activities would strive to return habitat to natural levels of complexity and diversity; water quality would be maintained at the highest possible levels; and achievement of this goal would benefit fish, wildlife, ecological processes, geologic values, and recreation." 6. Zion National Park General Management Plan * "Maintain the resources, including plant and animal communities, at healthy and viable levels consistent with natural processes." 7. TMDL for Escherichia coli (E. coli) in the North Fork Virgin River Watershed * "Common sources of E. coli include excrement from livestock and wildlife as well as faulty septic systems." Note- the objective is to remove intensive grazing from the riparian area by improving the uplands and taking a watershed approach to the issue. 8. Virgin River Watershed Management Plan * "Key concerns in the North Fork Virgin River Include: (1) Maintenance of minimum flow; (2) threatened and endangered species; (3) wastewater disposal and septic system density; and (4) recreation." 9. USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Strategic Plan * "Project addresses habitat threats for a priority species within a PFW priority area (Plateau Focus Area) for restoration work." 10. Utah Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy * "Reduce fire risk by managing and removing invasive species." 11. Intermountain West Joint Venture Habitat Conservation Strategy * "Support existing public-private partnerships to implement sagebrush habitat conservation, at regional, state, and local scales." "Remove encroaching conifers to functionally restore sagebrush habitat." 12. Utah Wildlife Action Plan * "Lowland sagebrush is a key habitat identified in the WAP." * "WAP identifies inappropriate fire frequency as a threat to lowland sagebrush habitat. This project will reduce future fire risk and act as a fire buffer to adjacent higher risk areas." 13. State of Utah Resource Management Plan "Actively remove pinyon-juniper encroachment other ecological sites due to its substantial consumption of water its detrimental effects on sagebrush, other vegetation, and wildlife." "Conserve, improve, and restore 500,000 acres of mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges." "Work with landowners, federal government and private organizations to conserve valuable wildlife habitat and winter range along urban interface." "Develop mechanisms and policies to incentivize private landowners throughout Utah to conserve valuable wildlife habitat throughout Utah." 14. Kane County Resource Management Plan "However, Kane County encourages vegetative treatments for maximum yield of forage and rangeland health." "Goals include making sure there is quality forage, water, cover, space and security sufficient to support productive populations. This includes conserving habitat for migratory birds, maintaining vegetation treatments that benefit wildlife, prioritizing treatments to improve habitats and coordinating predator control." 15. Southwest Working Third 5-year Review-2012 for California Condor "The recovery strategy for the California condor is to focus on: maintaining habitat for condor recovery and to provide foraging habitat" 16. SECRETARIAL ORDER NO. 3362: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Subject: Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big-Game Winter Range and Migration Corridors Sec. 1 Purpose. This Order directs appropriate bureaus within the Department of the Interior (Department) to work in close partnership with the states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming to enhance and improve the quality of big-game winter range and migration corridor habitat on Federal lands under the management jurisdiction of this Department in a way that recognizes state authority to conserve and manage big-game species and respects private property rights. Through scientific endeavors and land management actions, wildlife such as Rocky Mountain Elk (elk), Mule Deer (deer), Pronghorn Antelope (pronghorn), and a host of other species will benefit. Additionally, this Order seeks to expand opportunities for big-game hunting by improving priority habitats to assist states in their efforts to increase and maintain sustainable big game populations across western states.
Fire / Fuels:
This project will decrease the risk of high severity wildfire by reducing fuel loading and promoting the growth of understory vegetation, which are critical to maintaining ecosystem resilience. As demonstrated by the nearby Brianhead fire during the summer of 2017, treatments like these can break up the continuity of fuels and act as fuel breaks. This project will do the same if a fire ignited nearby where fuel loading is heavy in phase 3 pinyon and juniper invaded sites. The current fire regime condition class is moderate (2), and would be reduced to low (1) immediately after treatment. The habitat type has been identified in the 2015-2025 Utah Wildlife Action Plan that lowland sagebrush is a key habitat and the threats associated with this key habitat are inappropriate fire frequency and intensity. This project will help to achieve this goal. Reducing the threat of wildfire is important because of the critical nature of this habitat to mule deer and elk. Completing this project and reducing the risk of fire will help to protect important sagebrush steppe and mountain brush habitat that is critical for priority species including, but not limited to, mule deer and elk. This project will also help to protect the springs and wetlands. If a high severity fire were to move through the area water soil infiltration would decrease, erosion will increase, and the potential for water to get into the aquifer will decrease and spring flows may decrease.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Reducing the amount of pinyon/juniper will increase and prolong stream flows, while reducing erosion caused by bare soil. The species planted will help stabilize the soil and reduce erosion. Kormas et al. found that drainage's dominated with juniper experience "snow water equivalent peaks higher, snow melts out earlier, and more water is lost to evapotranspiration in catchments when compared to sagebrush steppe vegetation". In a study from 2008, Deboodt, et. al (2008) mentions that juniper trees can use up to 30 gallons of water a day, when adequate moisture is present. It also states that Vegetative modeling has shown that 9 to 35 trees per acre can utilize all the precipitation delivered to a site in a 13-in annual precipitation zone. In their study researchers monitored two watersheds 12 years prior to treatment (cutting). After the treatment analysis indicated that juniper reduction significantly increased late season spring flow by 225%, increased days of recorded groundwater by an average of 41 days , and increased the relative availability of late season soil moisture to soil depths of .76 meters. It was also noted that managing vegetation for water yield may be obtainable at a much lower precipitation threshold than what was previously understood. Baker, et. al (1984) found a 157% increase in stream flows over a 147 ha pinyon and juniper treatment. Recent research Roundy, et. al. (2014) has shown that mechanical treatments to remove pinyon and juniper increase time that soil water is available. Even four years after treatment, treated areas showed from 8.6 days to-18 days additional water availability at high elevation sites. Roth, et. All (2017) stated snow pack is deeper and last longer in the open site at the low and mid sites (4-26 and 11-33 days, respectively). Additional research by Young, et. al. (2013) also showed a relationship between tree removal and soil climates and wet days on these sites, which while providing more available moisture for desired vegetation could also provide moisture for weeds. Numerous studies have shown that increased infiltration rates and less overland flow improve both water quality and quantity. Reducing pinyon and juniper trees, according the available research should increase snow pack, and time that snow pack is on the ground, increase spring flows, and increase soil moisture. It is expected that similar results will happen in this area after the treatment takes place. Water quality will improve as sediment will less likely to flow into the North Fork because of the mulch provide by the masticated trees and the seed establishment. The reduction of E.coli will be the result of livestock not being in the pasture during irrigation, and alternative forage sources will be provided allow an option for livestock and wildlife another forage source out the riparian area. During the two growing seasons that livestock will not be on the private land, important data will be able to be gathered to help determine what is the source of E.coli.
Compliance:
This project will be meet all standards and specifications of NRCS. All environmental and cultural evaluations and clearances will take place as part of the NRCS standard. All practices will be installed using the State of Utah contracting, allowing site mangers to author, oversee, and inspect the projects.
Methods:
This treatment will include aerial seeding, mastication, follow-up seeding, fencing, and grazing management. Aerial seeding will be done with a diversified mix of grasses and forbs before mastication in early fall. Due to the nature of the terrain the option to use fixed wing or helicopter will be determined by the contractor. Seed will be obtained from the Great Basin Research Center (GBRC). Mastication will be completed with at least three (preferably multiple), mobile, tracked or wheeled, hydraulically or PTO driven, mechanical mulching/shredder (Bullhog) shall be furnished on a fully-operational basis, with a competent, fully-qualified operator, and shall be capable of mulching/shredding live trees up to twenty-six (26) inches in diameter at twelve inches above ground level measured on the uphill side, per state contract. Grazing management will be no grazing for 2 growing seasons in treated areas, grazing will be monitored and grazing agreements will be signed prior commencement to the project.
Monitoring:
Water quality will continue to monitored by UDEQ during the months of April-November. Comparing data from 2006 to current will allow us to see if water quality has improved with treatments and, grazing and irrigation practice changes. NRCS will contract practice 645-Upland Wildlife Habitat Management, which will require two years of rest from livestock grazing and a stubble height of 16" following two growing seasons of rest from livestock grazing. A grazing management plan will be included but will not be a contracted item. A UDWR range trend site will be proposed determine effects from livestock and wildlife utilization. Producer has agreed to have a site established. This will provide long term data and trend of the site. Using the data from the migration initiative collared deer movements can be monitored. This will show if there is hold over in these treatment areas, if hunting pressure is affecting the deer, if weather changes timing, or duration of migration, and use of private lands verses public lands.
Partners:
Private Landowners will contribute their assistance from the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to the project. Utah Division Wildlife Resources hold the data associated with the migration initiative and a will potentially set up a vegetation trend monitoring site on the project. A Farm Bill Biologist will also contract and implement the project, as well as continue to plan it. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) will continue to monitor water quality and produce annual reports. UDEQ will also be a major part of the change in classification as water quality improves. Natural Resource Conservation Service-is working with the landowners to plan and carry out the project. Through Environmental Quality Incentive Program potential funding will be available. Utah Department of Agricultural and Food is a firm supporter of the project and encourages this project to be funding in an effort to improve working relations between land managers and landowners. USFWS will be providing funding/planning/implementation support and is one of the project managers working closely with Stan Gurley from NRCS/UDWR on work directly tied to private land. USFWS, working with the UDWR, will likely be applying for grant funding through a public-private partnership between the Department of the Interior (DOI), the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), and ConocoPhillips. This funding comes because of Secretarial Order 3362 which is to improve the habitat conditions in big game migration corridors and winter range areas. This project is an identified migration corridor. Zion National Park-supports efforts to reduce E. coli in the North Fork of the Virgin River. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service is a supporter of the project and encourages it completion to for other non-game and sensitive species found in this unique habitat.
Future Management:
Currently there is nothing keeping livestock from utilizing irrigated riparian areas during irrigation. Because of the lack of forage in the uplands and the PJ invasion the forage is lacking. The mastication and seeding will provide at the very least an alternative forage for livestock and wildlife that is not in the riparian pastures. There is some fencing that has formed a buffer along the stream, but the pastures receive heavy pressure from livestock and wildlife. Future management will include grazing the uplands throughout the year, then using the riparian pasture as a gathering pasture after irrigation is done for the year. This will reduce the amount of fecal matter washed into the stream and create a better buffer to stop run off into the stream. The private landowners will enter into a contract with USFWS. As part of the landowner agreement with USFWS the landowner agrees to leave the habitat restored in place for a 10 year period and during that time will work with the USFWS biologist to monitor and access needs, success, and any needed adaptive management.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Private lands are primarily for livestock production. Both cattle and sheep are grazed on respective private lands. Increasing the forage will allow for better management and decrease the threat of over utilization. Wildlife is abundant in the area and of high interest to public and private stakeholders in the area. Wildlife viewing and hunt takes place on the property and on the adjacent public land. There is also yurt that is for rent during the summer and fall. The rental business depends has become successful because of the natural beauty and the wildlife in the area. The project site and surrounding area is an extremely important asset to the state of Utah for tourism. The Zion Narrows trail head runs through the property and treatment area. The Zion Narrows is one of the worlds premier hiking destinations people from all over the world. THE LANDOWNER PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC FOR TRAIL ACCESS THROUGH THE NARROWS. A large stand of ponderosa pine exists on the private ground and there is interest in harvesting timber. This area is part of the Zion Mule Deer Herd Unit. The area provides highly sought after general season hunting opportunities for mule deer. The private land is NOT open to hunting but provides very important habitat that helps sustain the areas mule deer herd.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$1,203,048.70 $0.00 $1,203,048.70 $4,000.00 $1,207,048.70
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Archaeological Clearance Due to size of this project, archaeology needs to contracted. 2,076.8 ac @ $21 $43,612.80 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services Seed Flight 2,076.8 ac @ $10.00 $20,768.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Seed (GBRC) Primary seed mix $204,107.90 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services Mastication of PJ $934,560.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Personal Services (permanent employee) Planning, contracting, and supervising project $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 2021
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$1,074,384.58 $0.00 $1,074,384.58 $6,677.48 $1,081,062.06
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
UWRI-Pre-Suppression Fund U006 $262,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $345,692.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $3,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) $257,034.10 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 2021
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) T156 Secretarial Order 3362 Migration and Winter Range proposal process. Proposal has been submitted. $100,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $2,677.48 2021
DNR Watershed U004 $98,958.48 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Kane County Soil Conservation District T173 $7,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
California Condor N1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
California Condor N1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Cougar
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Medium
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Flannelmouth Sucker N3
Threat Impact
Agricultural / Municipal / Industrial Water Usage Very High
Flannelmouth Sucker N3
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mourning Dove R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mourning Dove R2
Threat Impact
Storms and Flooding Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Virgin Spinedace N2
Threat Impact
Agricultural Pollution Low
Virgin Spinedace N2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Very High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Project Comments
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Stan, Condors and bald eagles winter along SR 9 - feeding on road-kill, mostly. Not sure it they get up in to the treatment area, but I suppose they could. Not sure how tearing our p/j will benefit dusky grouse, which is a forest/mountain brush species. Did you mean NW of Orderville? Keith
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
It could be that they wont get up there, and maybe they will. Producer has seen condors on the property. Opening up the area will increase the amount visibility. Yes that should have read NW of Orderville, and I have fixed it. I have removed dusky grouse from the species.
Comment 02/20/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Keith, I am a Conservation planner for UDAF I have spent a tremendous amount of time on the north fork drainage. I myself have seen condors utilizing the rangelands near Navajo lake and south. I would assume condors fully utilize all rangelands from highway 9 to highway 14. The land owner has seen condors soaring the cliff edges and the open benches in nearby areas. Interesting enough this video by the UDWR about condors in Southern Utah specifies the best place to view condors is near Kolob Reservoir which is 12 miles from project location. As the bird flies "Condor" in this situation that is easily obtainable. This project will increase the opportunity for condor utilization within the area. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sHW7LhxRSs
Comment 02/16/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Stan! Your project and a cup of coffee. What a way to start my Saturday:-)Are those all different landowners on those pieces? Impressive. A few comments/suggestions: In terms of Ecological thresholds what is the risk of not completing the project right now? Is it all Phase III? I get the socio political threshold aspect as you highlighted now? So it looks like the river is on BLM land are the landowners the BLM permittee? I am just trying to connect the dots between riparian use and the project. Also any coordination with BLM on grazing management and potential treatments? In Future Management don't you guys have agreements you sign with landowners to prolong the life of the treatments? Review the scoresheet for what we are looking for in Future management -- really boils down to how will the WRI investment be protected and maintained. Under other sustainable uses how do the potential timber stands on the private benefit from the treatments? What about hunting? What about E coli potential impacts to tourism. The Narrows hike is right downstream. Values at risk from fire? Monitoring for wildlife listed as benefitting other than mule deer?
Comment 02/20/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
I am glad that this was the project you chose on a Saturday morning. I hope you found it as enjoyable as the cup of coffee. So there are only two landowners in this project, but the land is scattered. The PJ is late phase II or early phase III, the pictures help illustrate it. The social aspect is tense and doesn't look to be improving. Yes the bottom is BLM and the landowner is the permittee. I have talked with the KFO, but there is no NEPA and they have plenty on their plate to add more. So from what I understand the bottoms were part of land trade, to try to fix the E. coli problem from a while ago. I have been told it is also the only irrigated BLM land in the USA. NRCS doesn't not have long term agreements with producers that have contracts with us. We have life spans with that are tied to every practice, meaning that they can just come back and apply for funds again until that lifespan is over (usually 5 to 10 years). Removing the PJ around and from the area will reduce the threat of large scale fire that would destroy the ponderosa pine stand. There is an interest to log the pondersoa pine and sell it. Hunting is differently a sustainable use, and private land owners and public should enjoy better hunting with the improvements. The narrows hike actually starts upstream from this property and as of summer of 2018 was affected by the stranded relationship between the park and landowner. VAR would in several structures, some of which hold historical value, scenic beauty (in some peoples eyes) would be threaten as they go down the narrows trail. There is the possibilities of getting monitoring data from USFWS and Zion NP to see if the condors are using the area more, once the treatment takes place.
Comment 02/22/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Stan, sounds like a great p/j project, but I am having a hard time making the connection between the ecoli issue and this treatment. I get that there will be less overland flow following the treatment, but it sounds like there may be more to this than just overland flow. What can be done at the source point, if there is extensive grazing on the riparian area.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Vicki! Thanks for asking this question, because I am not sure too many people quite understand how I think this will help fix the E coli problem. This is something I remember learning back in scouts. You don't put the latrine near the kitchen. Let me explain. So right now the majority of high quality forage is in the riparian area, (surprise, I know). There is little to no forage on the up lands surrounding the riparian area. So what do we expect livestock and wildlife to do? Go to the food source, which happens to be irrigated meadows in the riparian area. The whole idea is we provide high quality forage out of the riparian area, allowing livestock and wildlife more options. According to UDEQ wildlife and livestock are the reason for the E coli problem. I am looking at the forest, instead of the tree.
Comment 11/15/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: PAUL FUHRMANN
Stan, read with interest the Hogs Heaven Project summary in recent Cedar City News and signed up to track Watershed Restoration Initiative. This December will be a semi retired resident of Kane County near Kanab transplanted after 30 years in the consulting world in riparian habitat restoration design primarily in sediment driven streams many with similar water quality issues. A steep learning curve for sure to understand Utah ecoregions. Primary impact was grazing access to streams where vegetation was grazed and cold water induced defecation especially in warm seasons. A couple of projects involved exclusion designs and crossings that helped reveg efforts but wanted to but never included "solar powered nose pumps" to pull water from streams. Not sure if that would complement your reveg plan or would require exclusion from stream reaches. Looking forward to Utah and arid understanding land issues. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_005863.pdf
Comment 11/16/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Paul Thanks for your interest in the project. As a partner biologist with the NRCS, I am aware of and have planned multiple projects with extensive water systems. Contrary to what Aspen wrote, there is nearly 20 water sources, not including the perennial streams. Most of these are fed by springs and others are catchments. Aspen did allude to, but not accurately is that we are in the process of trying to exclude livestock from the irrigated meadows till late in the season after irrigation is nearly complete, possible as a gathering pasture. I will keep your information because we are always looking to put heads together (figuratively, of course with COVID) to improve ideas. Thanks again.
Comment 03/12/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Gunnell
Stan, I'm back to get nit-picky on your mix again. Overall I think it is good, but I question the need for some of the introduced species, specifically intermediate wg, at this elevation. It can be very aggressive and become dominant over time in these systems. I'm 'meh' about the crested and think the orchardgrass is a good choice. We don't use it often, but Timothy might fit this site. You might also consider big bluegrass as an addition. We also may want to substitute some of the forb species for higher elevation species (e.g. Palmer for Rocky Mt penstemon). If grazing is going to be a primary use and the objective is to pull livestock from riparian areas, focusing on some of the introduced legumes and removing some of the more expensive species may also be appropriate. I'm also not sure that winterfat is appropriate for this ecological site. I love the plant, but it's kind of a bugger to mix and seed, so if it's not going to perform it may not be worth the effort/cost. There's my $0.02.
Comment 03/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Your $.02 is always welcomed. I was able removed intermediate, but the land owner would like the crested wheatgrass. I have switched out Palmers for Rocky Mountain penstemon, and removed scarlet glodemallow to help with cost. This is also a mule deer and elk project, thus why the heavy forbs. I increased the alfalfa. The winter fat was kinda an experiment, and yes it is not in the ESD. I will request that separably so you don't have brother mixing it and we will try it in a few select locations. I have added with big bluegrass.
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Mr. Gurley, A fine looking private lands project sir. A couple of suggestions and a clarification. 1) This project also supports the following objective from the Virgin spinedace CAS - "Enhance and Maintain Habitat - Enhancement projects will focus on specific factors that contribute to Virgin spinedace habitat degradation including: agricultural activities, mining activities, recreational use of riparian zones, and activities that affect water quality." 2) You may want to include your fine discussion of BLM participation in the comments from last year into the Partners Section of your proposal. Finally, I just want to clarify that the riparian areas are indeed their own pasture and that post-project producers can contain livestock in the treated upland pastures and limit time in the riparian areas.
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Thanks for the input and I will include this. As of right now one producer will not be able to control grazing in riparian pasture, but we are working to ensure this. As for the other producer, they use a herder that is with the livestock 24/7 and have always and kept the livestock out of the riparian area. We hope to fence off the irrigated portion and let them use it as a gathering pasture after irrigation has ceased for the season.
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Last thing I swear. UDWR also conducts annual monitoring for spinedace, flannemouth sucker and desert sucker just downstream from the Narrows in Zion NP.
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
I will get with the Washington Co Field office see if I can get a hold of some of this data.
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Stan, I know you have been knit picked to death on this but I can't help myself. Looking over the seed mix I wonder if you have enough pounds of seed to meet the objective of drawing animals away from the riparian zones. Especially the grasses that livestock would choose.
Comment 01/31/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Scott, thanks questioning it. PLS/acre may seem low, but a few things to consider is the elevation, and variety of seed in the mix. This project is a higher elevation and we hope for good conditions, but the likelihood of good conditions is better than the projects at lower elevations. Part of the reason I chose fewer PLS/acre of grasses is because of the potential competition with the fords that could be considered a greater benefit to wildlife, livestock and pollinators. In the end it goes back to elevation and what wildlife will be using when they come through here. During this time they are in the transition in their diet and fawning so highly nutritious forbs will help with milk production and browse will be important for them as they transition for a browse to forb diet. Your point about this seed mix keeping livestock of out the riparian area has truth to it and it is important to note that any upland project that is not irrigated cannot compete with riparian areas, it just the way it is, all range types are not created equal. One thing I do know is that once these uplands are improved, they will be far more desirable than the phase 3 PJ. The landowner on the east side of the project also has a herder present 24/7, and the sheep are moved frequently. This will help keep livestock out of the riparian area. It is also important to note that this seed mix was developed with the landowners, and meet their resource concerns. Depending on the funding I will consider increasing the amount of PLS/acre, but like all of us project managers are aware we have balance the books at the end of the day.
Comment 02/12/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Carrie Howard
Just a heads up, Chamberlain Ranch (Zion Narrows Trail parcel) recieved a conservation easement. This may or may not affect your treatment design. Natalie Conlin with FFSL would be able to clarify the conservation easement terms and conditions.
Comment 02/13/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Carrie, Yes I am aware of the CE on the Chamberlain Ranch and this project has nothing to due with property. Is FFSL managing the easement? If so it would be great if they could help improve the management practices! Thanks for you concern.
Comment 08/23/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
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. Update your map features and fill out the completion form. 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. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Comment 08/30/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. It looks great. Thanks for uploading pictures!
Completion
Start Date:
09/08/2020
End Date:
03/29/2021
FY Implemented:
2021
Final Methods:
In order to increase forage for wildlife and livestock, decrease the present of E. coli in the North Fork of the Virgin River, improve watershed health, decrease soil erosion and reduce the threat of wildfire we work carefully with two private landowners in the drainage to seed and masticate pinyon and juniper trees on 1577 acres. We expect that this will allow for increased native diversity and allow wildlife and livestock grazing opportunities outside the riparian area.
Project Narrative:
Through State of Utah Purchasing Logan Simpson was contracted to complete the cultural resources field survey and provide the UDWR and NRCS with the appropriate reports. On 10/27/2020 Hammond Helicopter applied the seed. The cost for seeding application was $7.90/ac. They finished the seed application 10/31/2020. Brushwacker was the mastication contractor. Their bid was higher than expected, but we were able to find the funding to award the bid. The rate was $527.00. They started work on mastication on 12/8/2020. They were able to work through most of the winter without travel issues. They completed the mastication 3/28/2021.
Future Management:
As per NRCS contract the livestock producers will not be able to graze the seeded and treated areas for two growing seasons. Once this practice is completed a determination will be made to ensure the seeding a success and the NRCS contracts will be complete. UDWR Farm Bill Biologist will continue to monitor the establish photo points yearly and add photos to the proposal. USFWS has a ten agreement with one of the landowners and will continue to monitor the treatment and ensure that it is successful.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
7789 Terrestrial Treatment Area Bullhog Full size
7789 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-fixed wing)
Project Map
Project Map