Indian Creek South Pasture
Project ID: 4857
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2021
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Jeremy Cox
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Cedar City
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Improve 2439 acres(BLM) and 310 acres(private) land for wintering mule deer, elk, livestock and reduce hazardous fuels near Manderfield, Utah by seeding and chaining pinyon-juniper woodland and older age class decadent sagebrush.
Location:
Indian Creek South Pasture project is located 1 mile East of Manderfield, Utah within the Indian Creek Watershed.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Indian Creek South Pasture project is phase 5 of a multiple phase project designed to treat up to 20,000 acres. The area is dominated by stands of various aged pinyon and juniper trees with young trees encroaching into areas of sagebrush steppe causing a downward trend in herbaceous cover. Some areas within the site have little remnant sagebrush, bitterbrush, forb, and grass component. The project area serves as important seasonal habitat for several species of wildlife including but not limited to mule deer, elk, and many shrub steppe species. In particular, this project is needed and proposed to re-establish healthy sagebrush-steppe ecosystem. High tree density also increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire, thus threatening the communities of Manderfield, and North Creek, Utah, and outlying residential properties. A catastrophic wildfire could also increase the risk of invasive species and erosion. Past phases of this project have proven successful in restoring early seral stages of vegetation, decreasing erosion, improving species diversity, functional plant compositions, improving rangeland conditions for mule deer, elk, and livestock. As well as benefitting many other wildlife species. The project shares a fence line with private property that has irrigated alfalfa fields. Wildlife depredation issues are on going and this project is expected to help alleviate some of the problems, as past phases have been successful at achieving this goal.
Objectives:
1)Restore and enhance 2,750 Acres of Mule deer and elk winter range within the Beaver management unit. 2) Reintroduce healthy, viable, perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs on historical sage and mountain brush sites. 3) Re-establish frequency of grasses to 20%, forbs to 10%, and shrubs to 35%. 4) Restore percent canopy cover of grasses to 30%, forbs to 10%, and shrubs to 30%. 5) Decrease hazardous fuels by removing up to 95% of standing pinyon and juniper. 6) Reduce pinyon and juniper density. Maintain or improve vegetative diversity and age class structure. 7) Reduce sedimentation through erosion into the Beaver River.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The invasion of pinyon and juniper trees into areas once dominated by grasses, forbs, and shrubs increases the risk of losing key areas for mule deer, elk, and many shrub steppe species. The increase of pinyon and juniper also increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The risk of invasion of cheatgrass and rabbitbrush and loss of sagebrush after a wildfire could further impact critical habitat. High tree density also increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire, thus threatening the communities of Manderfield, and North creek. A catastrophic wildfire could also increase the risk of invasive species and erosion. Past phases of projects adjacent to this proposed project have proven successful in meeting objectives. However, as with any surface disturbing activity in sagebrush ecosystems, there is a low potential for weed invasion. BLM will aggressively treat any noxious weeds in the area if found. This project is adjacent to private property that's at risk of being developed and in turn we would loose critical wildlife habitat. By treating this area it would provide a place for these displaced animals to winter that has a high quality and quantity of forage.
Relation To Management Plan:
Numerous management plans have identified the need for these projects. This project falls within the Beaver Mule Deer Herd Unit Management Plan (Deer Herd Unit #22). This plan was updated in 2015 and 22% of the acres are on BLM. Habitat management strategies listed as part of this plan include: 1) developing specific vegetative objectives and cooperation with federal land management agencies to remove pinyon juniper to maintain the quality of important deer use areas, coordinating with federal and state partners to improve fire resilience and work toward long-term habitat protection and preservation through agreements. This plan specifically calls out the need to reduce pinyon and juniper and to reduce wildfire within sagebrush step areas. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer (2008). 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. Utah Elk Management Plan (2015) * initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve elk habitat with emphasis on calving habitat and winter ranges. * Remove pinyon-juniper encroachment into winter range sagebrush parks, summer, and transitional range mountain brush communities. The proposed project is consistent with the Southern Utah Support Area Fire Management Plan dated September 9, 2004, which states: Treat up to 12,000 acres with prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. BLM's Final Programmatic Environmental Report: Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report, June 2007, The Fundamental of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180) and Utah's Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health which address watersheds, ecological condition, water quality and habitat for special status species, National Fire Plan (2000), Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 which state protecting forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands from unnaturally intensive and destructive fires. Utah Wildlife Action Plan (2015) 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. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (2005) Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 which state protecting forests, woodlands, shrub lands, and grasslands from unnaturally intensive and destructives fires Utah Wildlife conservation Strategy (2005)
Fire / Fuels:
Removal of pinyon and Junipers will reduce the risks of a catastrophic wildfire. This area is in critical deer and elk winter range where a large uncontrolled fire would most likely have short term and possible long term detriments to the wildlife in the area. This project would greatly reduce the risk of a large wildfire, and detour the growth of a surrounding fire. Our ojectives are to move it from class 2 and 3 back to functioning class 1 fire regime.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Completion of this project would reduce flooding and runoff from heavy rainstorms by depositing woody debris in the gullies to slow and hold back the water. Currently with the pinyon and Juniper on site there is a lot of bare ground available for erosion. By planting this treatment with a variety of grasses, forbs and shrubs the ground cover will be greatly increased, which will decrease the potential for erosion. Areas that become dominated by by pinyon and juniper out compete understory herbaceous species and leave bare soil prone to erosion. This herbaceous vegetation is important to reducing overland flow and reducing soil loss. Pinyon and juniper dominated sites can intercept 10-20% of precipitation (Horman et al., 1999). By completing this project this will allow more precip to contact the soil and get into the water table where there is a higher density of pinyon and juniper. Treating areas of lower densities will prevent a future situation as described above. According to Folliott 2012, research showed that pinyon and juniper expansion into areas historically dominated by higher forbs and grasses impeded streamflow for off-site uses. Because pinyon and juniper is very competitive for water this often reduces grasses and forbs within the area. "The increase in bare soil, particularly in the spaces between trees, typically leads to increased runoff and soil loss as the juniper infestation increases" (Thurow 1997). Increased runoff and sediment load decreases water yield and water quality within the watershed. Studies have shown that an evaluation of alternatives using conversion treatments to enhance stream-flow in the pinyon and juniper should be made (Barr 1956). It could be thus assumed that by completing the pinyon and juniper removal project that more water will enter the soil profile and streams, wet meadows, and springs will continue to flow and have the potential to increase flow.
Compliance:
Archaeological clearances are in progress and will be completed this spring. NEPA was signed in May, 2013. Wildlife clearances will be completed prior to implementation and any concerns will be properly mitigated prior to treatment.
Methods:
Pinyon, Juniper and decadent Wyoming and Black Sage, which currently occupy and are encroaching on the site will be removed with the use of an Ely Chain. Islands and corridors of pinyon and juniper would remain untreated throughout the unit, creating a mosaic pattern of treated and untreated vegetation. Before mechanical implementation, treated areas would be broadcast seeded with a mix of native and non-native shrubs, grasses and forbs critical to improving winter mule deer and elk range, and stabilization of soils.
Monitoring:
Monitoring would consist of nested frequency and photo points. Information would continue to be collected from existing BLM and UDWR studies. Range monitoring is collected on each allotment on a periodic basis to monitor livestock and their associated impact. Monitoring data included both long-term studies and short term indicators. Long term monitoring would include nested frequency, cover and photo points to determine overall trend of the pasture. This area was brought to my attention by the Division of Wildlife resources as being a high priority area that has some serious on going big game depredation issues, elk and deer are in close proximity to private agricultural areas. Past phases of similar treatments have greatly reduced depredation issues on private agriculture fields. The Divisions Wildlife biologist will be closely monitory this area counting big game numbers using visual animal counts and pellet group counts. NRCS will conduct measurement of vegetation growth for 2 years after the treatment. A non-contracted grazing management plan will also be provide.
Partners:
On a recent tour with representatives from Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife group, they said they are in support of our previous treatment in the area which is similar to this proposed project. Working closely with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to ensure layout and implementation of the project meets objectives and satisfies the needs of all the species impacted by the treatment. Consulted with Great Basin Research Center to compile the most appropriate species to include in the seed mix. The NRCS is working with the private landowner who has submitted an application to participate in the chaining work. Private landowner will pay their NRCS cost share back to UDWR through cooperative agreement. Working with private land owner increases support of WRI and allows for treatments across landownership.
Future Management:
All areas seeded will be rested for a minimum of two complete growing seasons or until the seedlings become established and successful. The pasture will be rested for two years. Once seeding establishment has been confirmed, BLM may authorize grazing according to Utah's Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (2007). Vegetation will continue to be monitored for utilization, cover and trend. Following the rest period, the current management plan will govern. If needed, grazing adjustments would be made in Grazing Allotment Plans and through the grazing permit renewal process. Future maintenance projects to protect investments made by UWRI/BLM have been addressed and are allowed through the environmental assessment .
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
This area is currently used from May 20th to July 20th by BLM cattle permitees. The forage quality and availability would greatly increase in the area after implementation of the project. Completion of this project would help distribute animal use over the area, which would reduce concentrated use in certain areas. This area is popular for hunting elk and deer to the public. Improving the habitat for hunting and wildlife viewing is important for the local community and Beaver County.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$516,412.00 $0.00 $516,412.00 $82,250.00 $598,662.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Two-way chaining on 350 acres of private ground. Estimated Cost-$100.00/ac Total- $35,000 NRCS funds $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services Aerial Seeding on 350 acres of private ground and 2,440 acres of BLM Estimated cost-15.00 41,850.00 total $41,850.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services Seed for 350 acres of private ground, BLM 2440 Estimated Cost-$50.17 NRCS to provide 42.85 acre for private. BLM requesting all seed costs. NRCS requesting 2,675.10 $122,362.00 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Archaeological Clearance NRCS archaeology inkind. BLM archaeology request 73,200.00 $73,200.00 $0.00 $12,250.00 2021
Contractual Services Chaining on BLM portion, 2440 @ $100/ac $244,000.00 $0.00 $70,000.00 2021
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$89,260.24 $0.00 $89,260.24 $82,250.00 $171,510.24
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
BLM (Sage Grouse) A096 Mod 1 of GNA agreement $60,000.00 $0.00 $82,250.00 2021
BLM Fuels (Color Country) A088 -RF $29,260.24 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Housing and Urban Areas Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Cabin Communities / Development Low
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
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Project Comments
Comment 02/08/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
How does the grazing on the BLM and private lands tie together. Same permittee? You mentioned what will be done for grazing post-treatment on the BLM, what about the private?
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Clint Thanks asking. So they are one of the permittee on the neighboring permit. The private is fully fenced and they run 25 to 30 head of cattle on it. With the NRCS plan there will be an uncontracted Grazing plan for them to follow. Judging by the numbers and production looks like minor if any changes will need to be made. Like with all treatments where seeding is involved 2 years of rest will be required.
Comment 02/08/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Jeremy, Has anyone conducted pygmy rabbit surveys in the project area? I don't think you should be removing "decadent" (old growth?) sagebrush without checking for them first. Have raptor nest searched been conducted? Keith
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Dustin Schaible
Keith, thanks for the comments. The BLM wildlife staff will conduct pre-implementation wildlife surveys and generate a report. If pygmy rabbits or their sign are observed, avoidance BMP's will be recommended. Similarly, we will conduct raptor nest surveys and recommend any pertinent avoidance buffers.
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Great continuation of a great series of projects. Under Management Plans Section you should replace the reference to the CWCS with a reference to the WAP as the WAP has now replaced the CWCS. You could also bolster that section with ties to the elk management plans, county RMP and state RMP. Under Water it would be good to hear how the science you reference actually applies to the specific area you plan to treat - Does it tie to any perenial waters? intermittent waters? water bodies?
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Gary thanks for the comments, I went through the proposal and made the changes you recommended. The project does not tie directly to any water sources, It does however drain into the beaver river drainage down stream. Their are no perennial water sources in close proximity to the project. As noted in the write up will have a positive affect on the overall water quantity and quality.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Jeremy. I think it is great you have actually been out on the ground with partners and they have helped in getting this project together. Just a caution, any threats/risks you mention, you need to describe how this project addresses those threats and risks. Just bc cabins may be a threat/risk to mule deer, does not mean this project can reduce that threat. If it does, list it - if it doesn't don't. We don't expect projects to fix everything but be realistic on what benefits and risks it does have. Thanks!
Comment 02/19/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Vicky, Thanks for your question. This project is in close proximity to a lot of private property, some of which has been developed into residential housing. Their is a pretty high risk over time for more of that property to be developed. The cost to mule deer would be loss of winter range. By treating the public ground adjacent to this private it would ensure high quality winter range for these deer to fall back on. The cost of development would be mitigated by our efforts in treating the land now. I did add some language to the body of the proposal to explain the risk and how this project would help mitigate it.
Comment 04/03/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Gunnell
Kudos to being very specific in the vegetative response objectives, but do you think 30% shrub cover is a realistic objective, especially in a 3-5 year monitoring period? On the seed mix, the sand dropseed rate seems a bit high.
Comment 04/04/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Kevin, Your probably right 30% cover for sagebrush may be a little more than can be expected in such a short time. Although I don't expect to get it all with the chain. The Black sage on the sight is not very tall and I expect a decent survival rate even with a chain on that sight. As far as the Sand drop seed the rate defiantly could be lowered based on the small seed size and it adds up fast. I apparently overlooked the seeds per square foot rate it is really high at the rate I have it at currently. Thanks for the heads up on that ill adjust it accordingly.
Comment 01/31/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jonathan Paklaian
Jeremy, From the aerials, it looks like the USFS is implementing similar treatments directly adjacent to the BLM-managed lands. If this is the case (I may be totally wrong here), could you talk a little about how your project ties in to theirs? Are you partnering on these efforts?
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Jonathon, The east boundary of the proposed project shares a boundary with the Forest Service. They have a chaining along that boundary that was completed back in the 60's or 70's. The BLM's project should blend well with it. To the North along the same boundary is a chaining project completed by the BLM in 2016.
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 09/07/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Please give some more details in the Completion Form about this project so anyone reading the report can understand the who, what, when, why, how, etc. of the project without needing to read the entire proposal. I know it is just cultural but please give additional details. Why were you doing a CRI? What is planned for future? Who did the work? etc. Also will you update your map to be an affected area (CRI acres) instead of a terrestrial treatment since no on the ground work occurred?
Completion
Start Date:
08/01/2020
End Date:
11/25/2020
FY Implemented:
2021
Final Methods:
Due to this project not getting funded to its entirety it was opted to go ahead with the archeological assessment and we will resubmit it for 2022 funding. Plans are to seed and Ely chain. Archeological Survey was started spring 2020 and completed fall of 2020, the chaining and seeding was not funded and project will be rolled forward until funding becomes available to finish with the seeding and mechanical portion.
Project Narrative:
Project has been Arc cleared and is being resubmitted for 2022 funding to seed and chain.
Future Management:
After final project implementation this pasture will be rested for two year and or until seeding has been established from livestock grazing.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
10790 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map