CCFO BLM Exclosures
Project ID: 4994
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2022
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Erica Shotwell
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Cedar City
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
1) Construct a 3-rail post and pole fence to exclude wild horses and livestock from on BLM lands. 2) Develop off site water as to allow water access for wild horses and livestock outside the exclosure.
Location:
Rice Canyon Creek is located in Hamlin Valley north of Modena in Iron County, UT.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Rice Canyon Creek is a degraded riparian system that continues to have a downward trend. The Big Summit Fire burned over part of the riparian area in 2020. Based on Proper Functioning Condition assessments, each riparian area was determined to be At-Risk with a downward trend, and not meeting the riparian standard of the Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands. The causal factor in the assessments included: 1) Apparent drying of the site and encroachment of upland species (Rubber Rabbitbrush/Wyoming big sagebrush) into the riparian area 2) Repeated warm-season wild horse grazing, riparian species lacking sufficient vigor (Baltic rush) 3) Apparent reduction in riparian species diversity (lacking obligate wetland species such as Nebraska sedge). The excessive use that is occurring is primarily from wild horses limits the ability to manage the riparian area. Wildlife quality/need/benefits include 1) providing mule deer and elk reliable water sources while potentially reducing wild horse interface competition during critical fawning and calving periods, 2) provide healthy water surface area to promote insect production leading to increased bat, bird, and small mammal foraging opportunities. By improving this riparian area, increased recruitment of big game is expected in a desert environment where water may be limiting to big game neonates.
Objectives:
The objective would be to manage the riparian zones to Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) by eliminating repeated hot season grazing on the lotic site. This would be expected to help improve health, vigor, and composition of the riparian species, while also improving each of the system's ability to process and capture sediments and improving water yield and retention. This riparian area's current condition impacts the ability for the Stateline Allotment to meet the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health; particularly Standard 2. Management towards PFC would bring the Stateline Allotment closer to meeting the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The exclosure would eliminate grazing from approximately 3.09 Acres. This would reduce the negative impacts of hot-season grazing. Wildlife would be able to access the riparian zones. . Without the project, riparian vegetation vigor and composition would continue to decline, decreasing the spring's ability to dissipate energy during surface flows. This would lead to further erosion and expansion of the existing head-cut and further depression of the water table.
Relation To Management Plan:
Pinyon Management Framework Plan (1986) The resource management plan is a broad framework for managing BLM lands in the jurisdiction of the Cedar City Field Office. Although these riparian sites are not specifically addressed in the RMP, the proposed project will comply with and enhance the objectives of this management plan including objectives to restore riparian functionality and provide quality habitat to support wildlife. Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) (2015) (Draft) The WAP identifies the following threats and the level of impact to Aquatic-Scrub/shrub Habitats: Threats- Channel Downcutting (Impact-High) Threats- Droughts (Impact- High) Threats- Improper Grazing (Impact- High) Threats- Sediment Transport Imbalance (Impact- Medium)
Fire / Fuels:
The proposed project would be expected to improve riparian functionality while allowing the riparian system to recover and promote hydric species recruitment and vigor. Maintenance of hydric species in the riparian has the potential to change fire behavior in the event of a fire in the surrounding landscape.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project would be expected to help the riparian area yield more water as the system recovers. As the riparian area recovers, the system should also process sediment and nutrients more efficiently, which would also improve water quality. These improvements in water quality and quantity would move the area towards meeting both Rangeland Health Standards 2 for riparian/hydrologic functionality and 4 for water quality.
Compliance:
Cultural surveys and wildlife surveys would be completed prior to construction of the project.
Methods:
Rice Canyon Creek- Construct 4 separate (total of 4,662 ft) a 3-pole post and pole exclosure (1,981 feet) around the Rice Canyon Creek complex. 1. General: Construct fence as shown on the drawings or as staked in the field. Wood posts shall be set in dug or drilled holes unless written authorization is obtained for driving line posts. 2. Setting Posts: Dig holes for setting wood posts to the depth as shown in the drawing for setting posts. Set posts plumb and to the spacing, grades and depths as shown on the drawing, unless staked otherwise. Posts shall be set to a preferred depth of 3' and a minimum of 2'. Wood post spacing shall be spaced 10' apart. Holes shall provide adequate open space around the post so that back-fill can be tamped the full depth around the post. Back-fill gradually and uniformly with soil around each post; compact back-fill firmly from the bottom of the hole to the ground surface. Wood posts shall be a maximum of 10 feet apart except in extreme rocky areas, the Contracting Officer or COR can approve the spacing greater and less than 10 feet. 3. Driving Posts: Wood posts shall be driven only when approved by the Contracting Officer. Wood posts to be driven shall be machine-pointed on the end driven into ground. Driven posts that are split by driving, twisted, bent, or have broomed tops will not be accepted. Place posts in the holes and compact the post solidly in position with existing soil. Wood posts shall be a maximum of 10 feet apart except in extreme rocky areas, the Contracting Officer or COR can approve the spacing greater and less than 10 feet. 4. Setting Poles: 21' poles shall be spaced on the posts as shown on the drawing. Contractor shall provide materials to attach poles to the posts according to the drawing. Other methods of securing poles to posts need to be approved by the Contracting Officer or COR. Cottonwood Meadow Exclosure Fence (Beaver County, Utah) Estimated length: 8,980 feet 1. Fence Type: 3-pole post and pole
Monitoring:
The riparian area would continue to be assessed for Proper Functioning Condition to determine how the project impacted the riparian system's functionality. The exclosure would be routinely inspected and maintained to ensure that it stays in good condition and is properly excluding grazing from the riparian area.
Partners:
Livestock Permittees
Future Management:
The exclosure would be routinely inspected and maintained to ensure that it stays in good condition and is properly excluding grazing from the riparian area. This will provide for long-term management to ensure the attainment of Proper Functioning Condition within the riparian area.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Livestock and horses would be excluded from the riparian zones, and that forage would not be available for consumption by livestock. However, the anticipated recovery of the riparian system would help the Stateline Allotment make progress towards meeting the Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$49,179.00 $0.00 $49,179.00 $21,064.00 $70,243.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services to furnish labor and equipment for construction of the fence and removal of old fence. Cost estimate based on recent exclosure contract price. (Chokecherry Spring - 1981 ft. Mackelprang Spring West Fork - 1064 ft. Meadow Spring - 1868 Ft. ) $49,179.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Materials and Supplies Post and Pole Materials $0.00 $0.00 $16,264.00 2020
Archaeological Clearance Cultural Clearances $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2020
Materials and Supplies 3 Tire Troughs and Pipeline $0.00 $0.00 $1,800.00 2020
Personal Services (permanent employee) Installation of pipeline, trough and contract monitoring $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$49,179.00 $0.00 $49,179.00 $21,064.00 $70,243.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) to furnish labor and equipment for construction of the fence and removal of old fence. Cost estimate based on recent exclosure contract price. (Chokecherry Spring - 1981 ft. Mackelprang Spring West Fork - 1064 ft. Meadow Spring - 1868 Ft. ) $49,179.00 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Post and Pole Materials $0.00 $0.00 $16,264.00 2020
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Cultural Clearances $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 2020
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Pipeline and Tire Trough $0.00 $0.00 $1,800.00 2020
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Installation of tire troughs, pipeline and contract monitoring. $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2020
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Big Free-tailed Bat N3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Aquatic-Scrub/Shrub
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Project Comments
Comment 02/07/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Erica, I support projects that will restore water sources (in most cases), especially for non-game species. This project could benefit bats as long as open flightways are available for bats to use to reach ponded water. Big free-tailed bats are our largest bat and need the greatest water surface area of all our bats when drinking. Will the available waters be sufficient for this species to access? Have you considered pre- and post- surveys of bats, small mammals and/or bids to assess the impact of the project? Keith
Comment 02/08/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Dustin Schaible
Keith, we can deploy acoustic monitors to evaluate bat species presence as part of the wildlife monitoring prior to implementation. This effort can expand to a couple years after the project is completed. We have not considered a small mammal inventory at this time but that may be something we can include if resources allow.
Comment 02/13/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Did you consider including the spring on the nearby trust lands? Also, I noted with a slight fence location modification there is a possibility to build the Meadow Spring with 4 less corners. Just a thought.
Comment 02/15/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Erica Shotwell
We had not considered the trust lands, but would definitely like to partner on this project if that is something you guys would be interested in. The only thing I could see from making one large exclosure is that the road would go through it, so either we would need to put cattle guards in, or we would need to make two exclosures. I will get with you and see if we can come up with something. Thanks!
Comment 02/15/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
the tweaks to the fence I was considering would not require crossing roads. This is not a big thing. I am just a fan of fewer corners because it generally simplifies initial construction and maintenance.
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Erica, Your photos tell the story well. Stupid hooved carp. This is probably a dumb fish guy question, but will that fence be high enough to effectively exclude horses? A few suggestions: Please see the new scoring criteria on the 2020 project ranking sheet. The HIG and SGCN categories now have Quality/Benefit/Need points and the description of these should be included in your project need/objective and or threats and risks categories. Similarly, Threats and Risks was changed to Ecological Thresholds, with the focus now being on what the economic, ecological and/and social risks of not completing the project right now are. Also in addition to livestock use there is now a new 10 point category called other sustainable use, which you have not addressed at all in the proposal and should be addressed in the Livestock, Sustainable Uses section in the database. Finally there is also a new 10 point watershed health category, where the emphasis is on how your project address a key location or issue in your watershed and ties into other project surrounding it. No potential sage chicken benefits here? Objectives from mule deer plan(s) elk plan(s), State/County Plan(s), sage chicken plan(s)? Wildlife monitoring? I did not see the methods for the off site watering portion of the project? Do you guys have the water rights necessary to complete that side of the project? Will there be some sort of minimum flow left in the springs themselves to achieve the benefits you describe? I would review scoring criteria in Partnerships section.
Comment 02/15/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Erica Shotwell
Mike, There are no dumb questions, even for fish guys! But yes the fence will be high enough to exclude horses but will still allow wildlife to access. I will take your suggestions into account regarding the new ranking criteria and make those updates, thank you for your help. As to answer your questions regarding the water rights, where we do not own the rights to a spring we will attempt to acquire a right or create an access point for animals to be able access water. Where there is developed water there will be a minimum flow that will not be diverted from the spring. Thank you for your comments and suggestions.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
777 Fence Construction Buck pole
778 Fence Construction Buck pole
779 Fence Construction Buck pole
Project Map
Project Map