Sevy Bench Habitat Improvement Project
Project ID: 4958
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2020
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:
Remove pinyon and juniper trees on 4,320 acres of sage brush/bitter brush plant communities. Mow and apply chemical to 53 acres of rabbit brush. Harrow and seed 382 acres of sage brush in a mosaic pattern to increase forbs and insects for brood rearing habitat.
Location:
3 miles northeast of Todd's Junction East of Highway 89.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Sevy Bench is nesting/brood rearing greater sage grouse habitat, summer habitat for the prized Paunsaugunt mule deer management unit, and is a working cattle ranch. Pinyon and juniper have began to encroach this mountain shrub habitat. While the understory is intact and still relatively healthy, a threshold is nearing that may result in the loss of browse species and result in watershed impacts to the Upper Sevier River. Wildlife in this area has a very high value to the state of Utah and local economies. The Paunsaugunt mule deer management unit has long been a "household" name when it comes to trophy quality and hunter satisfaction. Enhancing mule deer range is crucial for the future of this unit. Other highly prized game species includes elk, cougar, and a developing pronghorn herd. Elk depend on this area as transition range and for some early winter range. Increasing the available forage will increase body condition and survival for elk. Increased forage and plant diversity will also benefit other wildlife that use the area. Species of concern include the greater sage grouse and Utah prairie dog. Two greater sage grouse leks are located within 2 miles of the treatment area. The harrow treatment is designed to increase brood rearing and nesting habitat for these grouse. The removal of pinyon and juniper trees will reduce the perches for sage grouse predators and it will also increase sagebrush, forbs, and grass which will promote sage grouse use. Removal of woodland species and the creation of sage grouse brood rearing habitat may also create more suitable habitat for Utah prairie dog. As mentioned above this is a working cattle ranch. Cattle use this area for summer grazing, and the need for a highly productive range is important for the producer's ability to stay in business. Preserving open landscapes and large tracts of sagebrush habitat is important to ranching success and to many sagebrush obligate wildlife species. At the higher elevation of the proposed treatment area aspen stands are present. Within these stands pinyon juniper have been encroaching. Removal of the pinyon and juniper from the aspen stands will promote the resilience and recruitment of the aspen in this area. Loss of aspen is a concern for land managers and removal of pinyon juniper may help abate that threat. Because fire has been remove from most systems, including those listed on this project, fuel loads have increased and could threaten the long term health of the watershed and species in the area. Mountain meadows are found near the aspen, are limited, and are starting to transition to sagebrush. Using the chain harrow, we hope to remove the brush and return the meadows to being productive and more abundant in the area.
Objectives:
1. Increase grass and forbs by 20% in treated areas. 2. Reduce pinyon and juniper by 90% across the treated areas. 3. Diversify the age and cover density of brush to serve wildlife and domestic livestock.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The majority of the work to be done is phase 1-2 pinyon and juniper with still intact understory vegetation. As noted in both UDWR range trend sites within the treatment area, "pinyon and juniper encroachment is continuing". Working in these light to medium densities means the vegetative community hasn't crossed an ecological threshold where high amounts of restoration inputs are necessary. Not doing work in these areas of low densities means the threat of higher costs, inputs, and risk in the future. This also means the site hasn't crossed that financial threshold where cost becomes a prohibitive factor. If we leave it be the entire area may become phase 3 at some point in the future. At the higher elevation of the treatment area aspen stands are present. Within these stands pinyon juniper have been encroaching. Removal of the pinyon and juniper from the aspen stands will abate the threat of losing important aspen communities. Because fire has been remove from most systems, including those listed on this project, fuel loads have increased and could threaten the long term health of the watershed and species in the area. Mountain meadows are found near the aspen, are limited, and are being encroached by sagebrush. To address the threat of losing important wet meadow areas we will revert the adjacent areas to a more early successional stage to impede encroachment and its subsequent reduction or degradation of wet meadow habitat. Although it was determined by the USFWS that listing under the ESA was not warranted for greater sage grouse there is an impending review to see if further action or protection is needed and to see where we collectively are at mitigating threats. Continuing to do work as identified in the Statewide Sage Grouse Management Plan to conserve sage grouse will support a continued and desired "not warranted" status. As previously mentioned the area has been identified as priority for restoration of crucial summer mule deer habitat under the Statewide Mule Deer Management Plan. "Crucial" means the areas habitat is necessary to sustain the areas mule deer herd. Allowing the area to move into phase 3 pinyon and juniper encroachment will mean less quality habitat and will threaten our ability to meet mule deer objectives for the management unit. There is also a social threshold to consider with private land as part of this project. Right now a large cattle ranch is willing to work with agencies to do the project. This has required meetings, presentations, and a lot of signatures and paperwork to get to this point. Not taking actions to restore habitat when there is local private support for it may account for a lost opportunity in the future. As described above the area is within a Bird Habitat Conservation Area (BHCA) with priority species being sagebrush obligate birds like sage grouse, sage thrasher, and Brewer's sparrow. Not doing the project will lead to an increased density of pinyon and juniper that will decrease the amount of available habitat for these sage dependent bird species in an area designated as important for birds.
Relation To Management Plan:
Following the Paunsuagunt Mule Deer Management: - "Coordinate with federal and state partners in designing projects that will improve fire resiliency and protect areas of crucial habitat." - "Cooperate with federal land management agencies and private landowners in carrying out habitat improvement projects. Protect deer winter ranges from wildfire by reseeding burned areas, creating fuel breaks and reseed areas dominated by cheat grass with desirable perennial vegetation." - "Reduce expansion of Pinion-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinion-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects." Regarding UDWR Elk Management Plan for Paunsuagunt Unit #27: - "Continue to be committed to the statewide goal of supporting habitat projects that increase forage for both big game and livestock." - "Work with private, state and federal agencies to maintain and protect critical and existing range from future losses. Continue projects with USFS, BLM, state and private entities to enhance wildlife habitat." - "Discourage the encroachment of Pinyon and Juniper (PJ) trees into sagebrush and other habitats. Seek opportunities to improve habitat through grazing practices, prescribed burning, and mechanical treatments to improve habitat where PJ encroachment is occurring." Great Sage Grouse Conservation Plan - "5.4.1 Aggressively remove encroaching conifers and other plant species to expand greater sage grouse habitat where possible." Those involved in this project and other Upper Kanab Creek Projects continue to work with the local sage grouse working group (Color Country Adaptive Resource Management Local Working Group) to help fulfill those items identified in the Local Conservation Plan. This plan also ranks a variety of threats to sage grouse populations in the Upper Kanab Creek Area. Fire, vegetation management and invasive species are three aspects ranked as important considerations in this plan. The limiting factors for mule deer on the Paunsagunt is winter range and Highway mortality. This project will likely not help with either of those issues, as it is transition or summer range for mule deer. However, it is a popular area for public hunting, wildlife viewing and supports the overall "Habitat Management Objectives" for this unit by, "maintaining mule deer habitat throughout the unit," and "enhancing existing crucial habitats due to natural and human impacts." Additionally, the Management Plan #27 calls for the continued work to reduce pinyon-juniper encroachment in the Kanab Creek portion of the unit. Mule Deer are seen and harvested frequently throughout this area. Frey, S. N., S. G. Lupis, K. Heaton, T. A. Black, T. A. Messmer, and D. Mitchell. 2006. Color Country Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan. Utah's Community Based Conservation Program. Unpublished Report. Logan, Utah. http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/prog/planning/SG_RMP_rev/ARMPA.html This project falls under the Paunsagunt Elk Management Plan (Unit 27). Habitat management objectives for elk in this area include supporting those projects that improve habitat through treatment of p/j and increased forage for both wildlife and livestock. Utah Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy * "Reduce fire risk by managing and removing invasive species." 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." 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." 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." 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." Upper Sevier River Watershed Management "Treat 2000 acres of sagebrush grasslands on BLM lands over the next 5 years to improve historic and active sage grouse habitats." " Treat pinyon/juniper and reseed and plant deer browse shrubs on 3,000 acres of BLM/Forest Service land"
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 is ignited nearby where fuel loading is heavy such as 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. Much of the project ares is a lowland sagebrush habitat type which has been identified in the 2015-2025 Utah Wildlife Action Plan as a key habitat. The threats associated with this key habitat are inappropriate fire frequency and intensity. This project will help to reduce fire frequency and intensity by diversifying the understory and removing the large fuels. Reducing the threat of wildfire is also 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. The values at risk or VAR are first life and property. This is a signification risk because of the cabin community just to the north of this project. A fire could easily burn to the north and without a reduction of fuels could run on the private and destroy homes, cabins and at the very worse take life. If a fire was to burn in this area thousands of acres of high quality wildlife forage and habitat would be lost and the Upper Sevier Watershed could become severely impaired.
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 state that Vegetative modeling has shown that 9 to 35 trees per acre are enough to utilize all the precipitation delivered to as 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. As mention the reduction of pinyon and juniper increase water quantity and quality. These benefits maybe determined over time by preventing the loss of plant life across the range.
Compliance:
All practices will be installed according the state and federal requires. Cultural clearances will be done to satisfy appropriate agencies. Treatment will be implemented between August 15 to April 15 to ensure that nesting and brood rearing of sage grouse and other birds are not disturbed.
Methods:
Four different treatment practices will be completed on this project. A). First will be a lop and scatter and will follow these specifications: This is a "lop and scatter" contract. All trees within the project boundaries shall be completely severed from the stump(s). No live limbs shall be left on the stump of cut trees. All main branches or stems shall be cut from the trunk of the tree to meet scattering requirements Additional treatment specifications (applies to all cutting units): 1. Cut material will be lopped and scattered so that slash height does not exceed 24" above the ground. 2. Cut material left on site shall not exceed 48" in length. 3. Cut material will be spread in ephemeral washes and draws where possible to help reduce erosion. 4. Live browse species, shall not be cut or damaged. 5. Only established roads shall be used. No overland travel by vehicle will be allowed. 6. Any trees identified as bearing trees, or any tree blazed or tagged to mark the line of any Government survey, shall not be cut or destroyed under penalty of the law. Trees with reference tags will be left uncut. B). Seeding will take place in areas that are to be harrowed and implemented according to the following specifications: Seeding contractor is required to furnish all labor, equipment, supplies, and materials needed to aerial seed. Contractor will need to provide enough labor and equipment to complete the work in the specified performance window. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that the proper seed mix and application rate is following as described in this contract. All seed will be bagged in 40-60 lb sacks. Seed will be delivered by UDWR to predetermined location. Contractor will be solely responsible for loading all seed into broadcaster. The aircraft must be equipped with a global positioning system that is used to establish flight lines for 100% coverage. DWR will provide to the Contractor an electronic file containing coordinate positions of treatment areas in an ARC/INFO GIS format. Contractor shall provide a Trimble, ARC/INFO or ARCVIEW electronic file in UTM projection North America Datum 1983 of treatment coverage upon completion of each treated area or as required by the Contracting Officer. A government representative shall monitor the Contractors GPS to assure Contractors compliance with contract specifications. C). Harrowing will be done either by contractor or by landowner. The UDWR 24' chain harrow will be used after the seed has been applied aerial. Harrow will be pulled two ways to create the need disturbance to the soil and remove brush in areas. between polygons harrow can be pulled, but own to create minimal disturbance in areas not seeded. D). Rabbit Brush Mowing: Provide at least one wet mower (Diamond WetBlade system or equivalent) capable of mowing rabbit brush up to 6 feet in height and applying herbicide to the cut base of the rabbit brush in the same application (not a separate machine applying herbicide following a mower), on a fully-operational basis, with a competent, fully-qualified operator or a mower brush drum that cut or grind rabbit brush then sprayed with the approved spray within 10 minutes of cutting. The contractor must be licensed by the State of Utah and possess a current Commercial Pesticide Applicator license. Provide enough equipment to complete the work in the specified performance window. Equipment shall be washed with a high-pressure system before entering and exiting the project work area. All soil and plant parts shall be removed to prevent the spread of noxious weeds in and out of the project area. Contractor will provide the herbicide Tordon 22K or equivalent and other necessary adjuvants to be applied at a rate of 2 quarts per acre treated or as otherwise specified by project manager. Contractor will be expected to provide water and herbicide mixing equipment necessary for use in their application system.
Monitoring:
UDWR/NRCS: Pre and post photopoint monitoring in treatment areas. Sage grouse Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guide to be done pre-treatment to assess habitat conditions. UT-2 Range assessment done pre-treatment and post treatment. NRCS Pinyon and juniper woodland survey Sage grouse monitoring via satellite trackers is going on in the Panguitch SGMA as well as adjacent SGMA's. These are showing connectivity between populations and will show if grouse are using newly treated areas. This could be put together in a map form and uploaded as part of the completion report. The UDWR through the migration initiative will provide data show mule deer use with the collared deer in the area. Since May, 2018, 38 collared mule stayed on the property, and then had migrated by October 25, 2018. This illustrates the use that this property receives and how important it is to wildlife. Continual use of this resource help us understand mule deer and other wildlife movements and use of this property.
Partners:
Private landowners are willing to do these improvements to their private ground to improve habitat, and livestock production. They have applied for NRCS assistance through the EQIP program and SGI. Unfortunately they were not funded this year. NRCS encourages work in this area to support birds and their habitat. Also increasing production of viable livestock production is an important issue for the NRCS in supporting conservation on the ground. UDWR is supportive of improving greater sage grouse habitat and providing improved mule deer habitat on Alton CWMU. The CCARM sage grouse local working group has ranked this project as a priority and has provided its support for the project. USFWS will be providing funding/planning/implementation support and as the project falls within their programs focus habitat and species.
Future Management:
Any seeded areas will require a MINIMUM 2 year rest to establish seeded species. Landowner has committed to using electric fence to keep livestock seeding while they establish. This project will also help the landowner better distribute and graze not only his private property but also his adjacent public allotments. This means the potential for improved range management and range conditions moving forward. The private landowners will enter into a contract with NRCS and 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:
The private are all part of a grazing rotation. This project will have a big benefit to the grazing operation. The lop and scatter treatment may slightly increase available forage but more importantly prevent future loss of forage. The bullhog will provide a significant increase in available forage once seeding is established and help with cattle distribution in the future. The spike treatments will increase herbaceous vegetation and increase forage as well as help distribute livestock by strategically locating the treatment areas. This property is part of a the only premium mule deer CWMU in the state of Utah. It has gain name of producing trophy quality deer. As mention deer use this property throughout the summer and fall months. Enhancing the quality and quantity of forage will theoretically improve body condition when these deer leave for the toughest months of their live cycle, winter.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$451,584.30 $10,500.00 $462,084.30 $19,180.70 $481,265.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Lop and Scatter 4320 acres @ $60.00 per ac $259,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Contractual Services Seed flight 385 acres @ $9.00 per acre $3,465.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Contractual Services Chain Harrow 385 acres @ $120.00 per acre $27,019.30 $0.00 $19,180.70 2020
Seed (GBRC) Seed for 385 acres @ $140.00 per acres $53,900.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Contractual Services Rabbit Brush Mowing 75 acres @ $140.00 per acres $0.00 $10,500.00 $0.00 2020
Archaeological Clearance Cultural Clearence 4320 acres @ $25.00 per acre $108,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$386,004.05 $10,500.00 $396,504.05 $19,425.34 $415,929.39
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) T138 USFWS Partner funds through private land owner $36,208.46 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Utah Wild Sheep Foundation S022 $660.80 $0.00 $0.00 2020
DNR Watershed U004 $78,062.70 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Private $0.00 $0.00 $19,180.70 2020
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) T122 $212,732.89 $0.00 $0.00 2020
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Coming from USFWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program $0.00 $10,500.00 $0.00 2020
Habitat Council Account QHCR $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Utah Wild Sheep Foundation S022 $1,339.20 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) S025 $1,339.20 $0.00 $0.00 2021
MDF Expo Permit ($1.50) S053 $13,392.05 $0.00 $0.00 2021
SFW Admin Expo Fund ($3.50) S114 $13,392.05 $0.00 $0.00 2021
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) S025 $660.80 $0.00 $0.00 2020
MDF Expo Permit ($1.50) S053 $6,607.95 $0.00 $0.00 2020
SFW Admin Expo Fund ($3.50) S114 $6,607.95 $0.00 $0.00 2020
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $244.64 2022
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
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
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Project Comments
Comment 02/05/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Stan, Sweet, enormous private lands project. Some similar comments as to 4943. The new scoresheet now has a Project Quality/Need/Benefit sections for SGCN and HIG species that are to be addressed in the Project Need and/or Objectives Sections. You have a big list of species, but the only ones really mentioned in the proposal are mule deer and sage grouse. How do these and the remaining species use the property and how will the project provide benefits and alleviate the threats listed? Is the aspen conifer habitat type really being treated here? Lowland sagebrush shows up in your list of plans but not in your habitats threatened. I think you should review these and make sure they are right. Any other plans for species? You mention bullhogging some Phase III but I don't see that in the mapped features? Any other VAR from fire? Seems like water quality is a big deal in the Upper Sevier, yet no mention of the multiple plans to improve water quality that exist for the Upper Sevier or how your project addresses objectives in those plans? So do the water quantity benefits you list in the proposal extend to Phase I PJ removal? There are two range trend sites existing in your project area, do they help support your project need and will they continue to be read as part of the monitoring? Any other critters monitored besides sage chicken. Do current collared birds show any use in this area? Any other species recovery groups consulted? Consideration of cross boundary work? How does this project tie into other projects ongoing in the watershed? Monitoring, maintenance, adaptive management, landowner agreements? Will the project solve livestock issues? What kind of forage increase? Other sustainable resources?
Comment 02/11/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Mike Thanks for the comment. I thinned the list of species, added benefits, added information about the habitats, and the threats. There is aspen of the east side the of the project and we will be removing juniper from the stands. I remove the verbiage about the lowland sage from the proposal. The Bullhoging was a copy and paste error that was removed. Once I found out what VAR meant I added that information into the database too. Found some Upper Sevier watershed plans and added how this project will be working to accomplish the plans goals. I added that both range trend sites concur with my "professional judgement" and NRCS planning data. I added information about mule deer use, because they and sage grouse will be the only monitored species for now. Mike, every project I do I consider working across boundaries, but since I am the lead on this project and it is directly connected to NRCS funding, I wanted to focus on the area that is funded. Phase II will include private, and state. This is like all the projects that BLM, USFS and NRCS has been doing just to the north and south, this one is just kinda alone for now. The agreements will be provided to once they are signed by the landowner. The landowner will not graze the harrowed sites, and will manage that using electric fencing. The project will solve the major of livestock problems, if you want to call they livestock issues. Fire is the issue, we have older seral situation and a treatment needs to be done. Grasses and forbs will increase. This a property is part of the Alton CWMU which is the only Premium managed CWMU in the state.
Comment 02/07/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Stan, I don't think you can claim a benefit to UPD on this one. There is a mapped colony just outside the project boundary, but it has been vacant for years. There are other colonies in the vicinity, but there is no guarantee dogs would move to the project. I suppose they could already be present. But, since it is all private ground and we don't have unfettered access, we are not aware of any. The only way to make certain there is a benefit is to purposely move UPD there. The landowners may support PJ removal, but would they accept UPD? So, while this project will not harm UPD, I don't think we can say it will benefit them. Keith
Comment 02/07/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Keith Thanks for the information. UPD has been removed from the species that could be benefited from this treatment. Stan
Comment 02/12/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hey Stan - Great Discussion on the value of the deer herd and hunting in the need for project description. Some of this discussion should find its way into the Sustainable uses box as well to make it easier for rankers to recall it is there when ranking the sustainable uses part. Also like Mike pointed out you discuss bullhogging in several places but it doesn't show up in your methods or finances, clarify that for us if possible, are you proposing bullhog or not?
Comment 02/12/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
I added the information about mule deer to the sustainable uses box. I understand that you most likely wont get back to it, and that is fine. As for the bullhog, like I told Mike that was a copy and paste error. I have gone in a removed it so hopefully there wont be any more confusion.
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Spike was mentioned as a treatment in the sustainable methods but that is the only place I see it so I am assuming this might just be a error?
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Yes Clint, it was added from another project and I thought I had removed it. I will hunt it down and remove it completely from this project!
Comment 02/19/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
So, if I am reading correctly, there will be no NRCS funding coming to this project this year?
Comment 02/19/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Things change at record rates in the NRCS. At first, no, now yes, tomorrow I hope so. The plan is that NRCS funding will contribute to this project as well as USFWS.
Comment 02/20/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
This project is tagged as Habitat Council but that funding source is not reflected on the funding page The lop and scatter portion of the project looks great and will help support sage-grouse populations. However, quite a bit of sagebrush is proposed to be removed within a SGMA as part of this project. This is in conflict with the Governor Herbert's Executive Order 2015/002. The order states that "Management and policy decisions by State Agencies will maintain, improve and enhance Greater Sage-Grouse habitat, opportunity areas and the species' populations within the 11 SGMAs established by the Conservation Plan." Removing sagebrush has not been shown to be beneficial to sage-grouse populations, although it may concentrate use and at least be a neutral impact to populations in certain situations. If proposing sagebrush removal with state funds within in a SGMA serious justification needs to be made and documented. Can you define your seasonal habitats? Can you focus treatments on late brood-rearing habitat? Can you ensure you are minimizing effects on breeding and winter habitat? Is forb cover/density an issue? Is sagebrush really a limiting factor for the population? If justified is a chain harrow the best method? Chemical treatments have been shown to be associated positively with sage-grouse populations while mechanical treatments are negatively associated with sage-grouse populations.
Comment 02/22/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Thanks for the comment Avery, this project is being coordinated very closely with the local working group and district biologists. Quick answer is yes we can tailor it to the things you are talking about and would like to use the project as a place to test drive Dahlgren's recent presentation at the All Lands All Hands summit. We will make sure as we work here locally to follow the guidance and ensure that at worst the treatments are neutral to sage grouse, with the recognition that the significantly sized PJ removal portion of the project is hugely beneficial.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Gary, Thanks for the reply. The PJ portion is defiantly beneficial and the sagebrush portions sound like they may fit into the caveats needed for a sagebrush project within a SGMA. I am happy to help with planning and documentation that will allow this project to show a benefit for sage-grouse, rather than being held against us in a future sage-grouse status review (mostly adjust strip width of treatments, consider chemical treatment to reduce SB to retain structure).
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Avery Thanks for your comment. I have added the funds that we are requesting from the Habitat Council. Regarding sagebrush removal there are few points that need to address. First, harrow treatments do not remove all the brush. The treatment reduces the brush, but does not eliminate sagebrush. Data from range trend sites reinforce this theory. With the help of the Great Basin Research Center, I was able to calculate the change in density and age of mountain sagebrush on 6 different sites that had a harrow treatment. On average, the density is decreased only by 20% and age classes change on average: Young 23%, Mature 15%, Decadent 4%. One might argue that the change isn't even significant in regards to the amount of brush disturbed. Second, you state "quite a bit of sagebrush is proposed to be removed within a SGMA as part of this project." In this project we are proposing a two-way harrow and seed on 249.2 acres of sagebrush. The project area is 4,256 acres. That is 5% of the project area, and .04% of the SGMA. Recent research by Baxter et.al states "post-treatment sage-grouse showed stronger selection for treatments and treatment edges than did pretreatment sage-grouse. Maps predicting probability of selection by brood-rearing sage-grouse showed increased use in and around mechanically treated areas." Third, the 2019 seasonal habitat maps are claiming winter and summer habitat and not brood rearing. There are documented birds using this for brood rearing. There are a few issues with this being classified as winter habitat - the elevation is 7,800 feet above sea level, average snow depth is 36-40 inches, and it is transitioning mountain brush habit to aspen and conifer forest. The sagebrush that we are proposing to augment is at the highest elevation of the project area, let alone one of highest elevation of Panguitch SGMA. Logically, sage grouse would not use this area when there are other areas with good brush cover, there is a lot less snow and lower elevations where sage grouse frequent. Fourth, this is private land. This plan was made with input from federal conservation agencies and the state biologist. The potential and importance of this treatment to sage grouse in the area and other sagebrush obligates in this area is crucial. These plans were carefully crafted with wildlife and livestock production in mind. We have worked together through concerns and came up with a solid plan to benefit wildlife and the livestock operation. It is important to understand that if we (conservation and wildlife agencies) are removed from the equation the land owner is free to "treat at will" and removal of sagebrush could be far more drastic. This project has two active UDWR range trend sites on it and both indicate an increase in mature mountain sage brush, a downward trend in density and young sagebrush, and major decreases in forb production. If this is truly brood rearing or summer habitat, forbs and grasses are crucial for the survival of young. Using a seed mix that is heavy with forbs to increase their presence will only improve the habitat for summer and brood rearing. This answers your chemical treatment question too. If we just do a chemical treatment we could kill more brush and without the seed the likelihood of increasing forbs and grasses is poor. We will continue to work with UDWR and NRCS biologists, both locally and at the state level, to make sure this project is as beneficial as possible.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Stan, Thanks for you detailed response. The information you provided on canopy reduction, proportion of larger sagebrush habitat, seasonal use, average precipitation, and need for some soil disturbance helps to show the benefit of this project for sage-grouse and will be important to have when submitting project to FWS during sage-grouse status review. Much appreciated.
Comment 03/06/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Gunnell
Stan, looks like a great project. My only comment on the seed mix is that you could potentially reduce/remove some of the more aggressive grasses, particularly intermediate wg, but also the crested wg and meadow brome. At this elevation, many native varieties like the thickspike wg, western wg, bluebunch wg, and mountain brome should perform well. Where the focus is on establishing and increasing forbs, these aggressive species may hinder that. I understand you may have some requirements and limitations from the land-owner, so take my thoughts as suggestions.
Comment 03/06/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Kevin, we will definitely consider some changes and adjust asap.
Comment 08/16/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. 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. Also if you could add some more details about the mowing treatment that includes info about the herbicide, additives, and rate. Please also enter any missing expenses, highlighted in rust, on the Finance Page. When you have completed that please go back to the Completion Form and finalize your report again so I know that it has been completed. Thanks.
Comment 08/31/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Hey Stan - This looks great but you are still missing any info about herbicide application during the mowing. Thanks.
Comment 08/31/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Also, please enter any missing expenses, highlighted in rust, on the Finance Page.
Comment 09/01/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thanks for making those corrections. I have moved this project to completed.
Completion
Start Date:
10/03/2019
End Date:
12/23/2020
FY Implemented:
2021
Final Methods:
Sevy Bench is nesting/brood rearing greater sage grouse habitat, summer habitat for the prized Paunsaugunt mule deer management unit, and is a working cattle ranch. Pinyon and juniper have begun to encroach this mountain shrub habitat. While the understory is intact and still relatively healthy, a threshold is nearing that may result in the loss of browse species and result in watershed impacts to the Upper Sevier River. Enhancing mule deer range is crucial for the future of this unit. Increased forage and plant diversity will also benefit all other wildlife that use the area. Species of concern include the greater sage grouse. Two greater sage grouse leks are located within 2 miles of the treatment area. The harrow treatment was designed to increase brood rearing and nesting habitat for these grouse. The removal of pinyon and juniper trees will reduce the perches for sage grouse predators and it will also increase sagebrush, forbs, and grass which will promote sage grouse use. As mentioned above this is a working cattle ranch. Cattle use this area for summer grazing, and the need for a highly productive range is important for the producer's ability to stay in business. Preserving open landscapes and large tracts of sagebrush habitat is important to ranching success and to many sagebrush obligate wildlife species. As planned once the cultural survey was completed, we started the contracting process. Lop and scatter was contracted in the fall of 2019 and completed in the early spring of 2020 along with some additional acres that the landowners decided to include because of how happy they were with the other treat areas. The rabbit brush mowing start in the November of 2019 and was completed in about a week by Bonneville Reclamation Services. Part of the mowing treatment is the application of herbicide to kill the rabbit brush. Tordon 22k was applied within 10 minutes of being mowed. This allows for the chemical to be transported to the root of the plant, and because the other plants are dormmate they are not affected. After some changes in the original harrow and seed polygons, in the fall of 2020 seed was applied and the landowner immediately started to harrow, finishing the harrowing process in November of 2020.
Project Narrative:
Once the cultural resources were complete in 2019. Contracts for the lop and scatter, rabbit brush mowing were sent out. The lop and scatter contract for 4,405.8 acres went out on 9/23/2019 and 3B's was the successful bidder. The contract for the 66.9 acres rabbit brush mowing and herbicide application was completed on 11/7/2019 and Bonneville Reclamation Services was the successful bidder. They started 11/12/2019 and were completed by 11/18/2019. The lop and scatter crews continued to work but got snowed out in December 2019. They completed 3,540 acres and they completed the rest of the acres and some additional acres that the landowner and the USFWS agreed to fund in the early spring of 2020. Some of those additional lop and scatter acres were in manzanita dominated veg types, not typical lop and scatter work. After numerous changes to the harrow polygons because of changes at the ranch, we were able to solidify the acres and contract the seed flight in October of 2020. Hammond Helicopter was the successful bidder and completed the 242.3 acres seeding on 10/31/2020. The 242.3 acres harrowing was done by the private landowner and was complete on 11/23/2020.
Future Management:
As stated in the future management section of the proposal, NRCS will monitor the project for the next two growing seasons to ensure that livestock have not grazed the harrow treatment. NRCS will also take stubble height measurement and see that 12" stubble is left. USFWS will also continue to monitor for 10 years. Farm Bill Biologist will continue working with landowners for future projects including riparian and wet meadow enhancements. UDWR Range Trend has two sites on the property and will monitor them on the 5-year rotation.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
10713 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Ground
10713 Terrestrial Treatment Area Mowing Brush hog
10733 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
10734 Terrestrial Treatment Area Chain harrow > 15 ft. (2-way)
10734 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-fixed wing)
Project Map
Project Map