The Sheeprock population of greater sage-grouse is in peril, this includes birds win the McIntyre complex. Declining population trends over the past 10 years have left managers with little choice but to augment the population with translocated birds. Part of the process of stabilizing the population will be aggressive predator control and vegetation treatments to improve habitat. Key threats to greater sage-grouse include conifer expansion, invasive species, and wildfire. Since 2004, the BLM has done extensive vegetation treatments throughout the Greater Sheeprocks area to reduce fire threat, remove encroaching juniper and restore ecosystem resiliency. Last year nearly 12,000 acres of BLM, State, and Private land were treated to remove juniper and expand greater sage-grouse habitat. This project is designed to build on previous efforts by creating and expanding usable habitat near the McIntyre lek. To accomplish this, trees will be removed on approximately 470 acres.

Remove low-density, scattered juniper trees within vicinity of the McIntyre lek to maintain open sagebrush habitat, reduce potential perch trees that could be utilized by predators, and slow or prevent expansion of juniper into the surrounding area.

Over the years, the eastern side of the Sheeprocks has experienced a major reduction in sagebrush habitat due to fire. The remaining sagebrush habitat is at high risk of loss due to juniper infilling, increased fuel loading, and cheatgrass which elevates the risk of fire. Additionally, ecological thresholds have been, or soon will be, crossed in sagebrush stands where juniper has become dominant. Because of the potential loss of sagebrush habitat and declining greater sage-grouse population it is imperative that proactive steps be taken to minimize these threats. his project will decrease the risk of high-severity wildfire by reducing fuel loading. Removing phase 1 and early phase 2 trees will also help maintain the growth of sagebrush and perennial understory species which are critical to maintaining ecosystem function and resilience.

14 management plans/policies are referenced, some with multiple objectives. 1) House Range Resource Area Resource Management Plan (BLM 1987), as amended: a) Wildlife: Manage wildlife habitat to favor a diversity of game and non-game species; Improve habitat in poor and fair condition on crucial and high priority habitat; Improve riparian and fisheries habitat currently in poor or fair condition; and Protect all T&E and sensitive species habitats. b) Fire: The goals and objectives of the program will be to reduce human and ecological losses; complement resource management objectives and sustain productivity of biological systems through fire management. 2) Pony Express Resource Management Plan (BLM 1990), as amended: a) Wildlife and Fisheries: Decision 4 (protect habitat values), Decision 5 (improve crucial habitats), Decision 10 (upland game birds). b) Fire Management: Decision 1 (fire suppression). c) Range: Decision 1 (forage use). 3) Richfield Fire Management Plan (BLM 2006): a) The Proposed Action (pages 2-1 through 2-5) specifically mentions the action, and is consistent with the objectives identified above to emphasize greater use of vegetation management to meet resource management objectives. b) This project is within the Fire Management Unit C4 Eureka. Within this Unit vegetation management would include a wide variety of management activities including widespread use of prescribed fire activities to attain desired resource and ecological conditions. Fire and non-fire fuel treatments would also be utilized to reduce the hazardous effects of unplanned wildfire. 4) Salt Lake District Proposed Fire Management Plan Amendment (BLM 1998): a) Alternative 2-Proposed Action/Integrated Fire/Resource Management Plan (page 7-8) specifically mentions the action, and is consistent with the objectives identified above to emphasize greater use of vegetation management to meet resource management objectives. b) The project is located within Fire Management Unit B07c (Sheeprock & Tintic Mountains). Vegetation management would include a wide variety of management activities including prescribed fire, mechanical manipulation, seeding to less flammable and more desirable species, fuelbreak establishment, and other strategies. These activities would be used to reduce fire severity and occurrence and reduce hazardous fuel accumulation. 5) Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM 2019): a) Objective SSS-1: Enhance or improve GRSG habitat (e.g., through restoration or rehabilitation activities) within PHMA that has been impaired or altered. b) Objective SSS-3: In PHMA, where sagebrush is the current or potential dominant vegetation type or is a primary species within the various states of the ecological site description, maintain or restore vegetation to provide habitat for lekking, nesting, brood rearing, and winter habitats. c) Objective SSS-4: Within PHMA, increase the amount and functionality of seasonal habitats by: i) Maintaining or increasing sagebrush in perennial grasslands, where needed to meet the Habitat Objectives for Greater Sage-Grouse (Table 2-2 in the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse ARMPA), unless there is a conflict with Utah prairie dog. ii) Reducing conifer (e.g., pinyon/juniper) from areas that are most likely to support GRSG at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of encroachment. iii) Reducing the extent of invasive annual grasslands. iv) Maintaining or improving corridors for migration or movement between seasonal habitats, as well as for long-term genetic connections between populations. v) Maintaining or improving understory (grass, forb) and/or riparian condition within breeding and late brood-rearing habitats. vi) Conducting vegetation treatments based on the following 10-year (decadal) acreage objectives: For the Rich population area for mechanical treatments the objective is 40,700 acres; for annual grass treatments the objective is 6,800 acres. vii) Outside PHMA (in adjacent opportunity areas) improve and restore historical GRSG habitat to support GRSG populations and to maintain or enhance connectivity. d) Objective SSS-5: Participate in local GRSG conservation efforts (e.g., the appropriate State of Utah agency, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and local working groups) to implement landscape-scale habitat conservation, to implement consistent management to benefit GRSG, and to gather and use local research and monitoring to promote the conservation of GRSG. e) MA-VEG-1: In PHMA, where necessary to meet GRSG habitat objectives, treat areas to maintain and expand healthy GRSG habitat (e.g., conifer encroachment areas and invasive annual grasslands). f) MA-VEG-2: Remove conifers encroaching into sagebrush habitats, in a manner that considers tribal cultural values. g) MA-VEG-4: In PHMA, include GRSG habitat objectives in restoration/treatment projects. Include short-term and long-term habitat conditions in treatment objectives, including specific objectives for the establishment of sagebrush cover and height, as well as cover and heights for understory perennial grasses and forbs necessary for GRSG seasonal habitats (see Objective SSS-3). h) MA-FIRE-3: In PHMA, fuel treatments will be designed through an interdisciplinary process to expand, enhance, maintain, or protect GRSG habitat. 6) Rangeland Health Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands. BLM Utah State Office (1997). Standard 3: a) Desired species...are maintained at a level appropriate for the site and species involved. As indicated by: frequency, diversity, density, age classes, and productivity of desired native species necessary to ensure reproductive capability and survival. 7) Utah Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse (UDWR 2019): a) Conservation goal: Protect, maintain and increase sage-grouse populations within the established SGMAs throughout Utah. b) Habitat Objective: Protect, maintain and increase sage-grouse habitats within SGMAs at or above 2013 baseline disturbance levels. c) Conservation Strategy 2: Implement the actions outlined in EO/002/2015 and related MOUs, along with the Governor's Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy, relevant sections of State code, and the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, to reduce the size, severity and frequency of wildfires in and adjacent to SGMAs: i) 2A. Coordinate across relevant state agencies to ensure maximum conservation and risk reduction benefit to sage-grouse populations on all land management projects, prescribed fires, and fire suppression actions in and adjacent to SGMAs. d) Conservation Strategy 4b: Work with federal, state and private landowners to protect an average of at least 5,000 acres annually of the highest-priority habitats identified in 4(a) through voluntary conservation covenants, leases, easements, transfers, acquisitions or other legal or regulatory tools. e) Conservation Strategy 4c: Using Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (WRI), remove conifer as appropriate in areas protected in 4(b) to ensure that existing functional habitats remain intact. Conservation Strategy 4e: Increase sage-grouse habitats by using the WRI--and other state, federal and private partnerships--to restore or create 50,000 acres of habitat within or adjacent to occupied habitats each year, in addition to those acres identified in 4(d). 8) Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013: a) General Conservation Objectives: 1. Stop population declines and habitat loss. 2. Implement targeted habitat management and restoration. b) Specific Conservation Objectives: 1. Retain sage-grouse habitats within PAC's. 3. Restore and rehabilitate degraded sage-grouse habitats in PAC's. c) Conservation Objective: Maintain and restore healthy native sagebrush plant communities within the range of sage-grouse d) Conservation Objective: Remove pinyon/juniper from areas of sagebrush that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal) at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of pinyon/juniper incursion. i) Prioritize the use of mechanical treatments. ii) Reduce juniper cover in sage-grouse habitats to less than 5% but preferably eliminate entirely. iii) Employ all necessary management actions to maintain the benefit of juniper removal for sage-grouse habitats. 9) Utah Wildlife Action Plan. DWR Publication Number 15-14, State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Effective 2015-2025: a) The proposed action supports mitigating threats to Lowland Sagebrush including: i) Promoting policies and management that allow fire to return to a more natural regime. ii) Promoting policies that reduce inappropriate grazing by domestic livestock, feral domesticated animals, and wildlife. iii) Promoting and funding restoration that reduces the Uncharacteristic class, including cutting/mulching/chaining of invading pinyon and juniper trees, herbicide or mechanical treatment of non-native invasive species such as cheatgrass and secondary perennial weed species, and rehabilitation of burned areas following wildfire. iv) Promoting management that includes seeding a diversity of grasses, forbs and shrubs that will lead to increased resiliency and resistance in the plant community. 10) Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources: a) Section IV Statewide Management Goals and Objectives. This proposal 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 2019 (see pages 19 and 20). i) Strategy B: Work with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize mule deer habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration. ii) Strategy D: 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. iii) Strategy F: Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages. 11) The Utah Smoke Management Plan (1999, 2006 revision): a) By using mechanical mastication this plan will accomplish Goal #5, Use of alternative methods to burning for disposing of or reducing the amount of wildland fuels on lands in the State (p3). 12) State of Utah Hazard Mitigation Plan (March 2011): a) This plan accomplishes statewide goals including, 1) Protection of natural resources and the environment, when considering mitigation measures and 2) Minimize the risk of wildfire (p12). 13) A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2002): a) 1) Improve fire prevention and suppression; 2) Reduce hazardous fuels; and 3) Maintain and restore fire adapted ecosystems. 14) Secretarial Order 3336 -- Implementation Plan: Rangeland, Fire Prevention, Management and Restoration. a) Section 7b(iii) -- Expand the focus on fuels reduction opportunities and implementation b) Section 7b(iv) -- Fully integrate the emerging science of ecological resiliency into design of habitat management, fuels management, and restoration projects.

One of the major threats to sagebrush habitat is fire. The McIntyre leks are near the proposed treatment and sage-grouse regularly occupy the surrounding area. This project will help protect and preserve nesting and brood rearing habitat by decreasing both fuel loading and fire potential. Although the McIntyre area appears to be within historic values for fire regime (the Fire Regime is currently classified as IV which is defined as a "replacement" fire occurring between 35-200 years) the condition class (CC; IIA) is low-moderately departed from historic norms (LANDFIRE 2016). Removing the juniper will help maintain the condition class and keep the vegetation condition class from departing further from historic conditions.

A 2014 publication by Roundy et al. (Pinyon-juniper reduction increases soil water availability of the resource growth pool. Range Ecology and Management 67:495-505) showed that phase 3 juniper removal can increase available moisture for more than 3 weeks in the spring. And removing juniper from phase 1 and 2 stands can increase water from 6-20 days respectively. Because juniper are prolific water users they readily outcompete understory species which eventually die off. Removing juniper is critical for restoring sagebrush habitat and ecosystem resilience because of the water available to other species once they're gone. Of the 470 acres identified for treatment, approximately 30% are early phase 2 stands and the remaining 70% are phase 1.

Cultural surveys are not needed for the proposed lop and scatter treatment. The programmatic Greater Sheeprocks Sage-grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment EA was completed August 2017. Site-specific NEPA, tiered to the 2017 programmatic EA, will be completed prior to treatment implementation.

Within polygons identified for treatment, existing juniper will be removed by lop and scatter. Trees with old-growth characteristics will be avoided. The work will be contracted and will likely occur in fall 2020.

Multiple photo points will be established in the project area. In addition to photos, a botanical survey will be completed with all species given an abundance rating. Photos and data will be collected prior to treatment and 1 and 3 years post treatment.

Partners are UDWR and local BLM grazing permittees.

This area will be maintained as sagebrush habitat. Potential threats include noxious weed invasion, cross country OHV use, and reinvasion of juniper. Periodic visual inspection, photo points, and vegetation monitoring will occur to assess current conditions and track trends over time. The longevity of the treatment will be maintained by slashing young junipers that resprout within the project area. Slashing could occur between 10 and 15 years post-treatment.

Where junipers dominate they outcompete understory vegetation for water and nutrients. Over time, these understory species become less productive and vigorous and eventually die out. Removing juniper releases understory grasses and forbs from competition which increases plant vigor and rangeland productivity. This project will benefit livestock by maintaining and preventing the loss of forage within the Sheep Rock Allotment.

10/23/2020

10/28/2020

2021

A handcrew with chainsaws was used to cut low density juniper on 609 acres of BLM land near the McIntyre leks.

3B's Forestry out of Medford, Oregon was contracted to cut 609 acres of low density juniper on BLM managed land near the McIntyre leks. They finished the work in a timely manner, with acceptable quality, and without any issues. The contract price of $37.50/ac was much less than the estimated $70/ac. The treatment will help to maintain open sagebrush habitat, reduce potential perch trees that could be utilized by predators, and slow or prevent expansion of juniper into the McIntyre lek area.

This area will be managed as sagebrush habitat in the long term. The treatment area will be maintained over time by removing juniper regrowth. Vegetation monitoring will continue to occur for at least 5 years post-treatment. Noxious weeds will be identified and treated on a regular basis if necessary.