The Sheeprock population of greater sage-grouse is in peril. 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 fire. 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 that could used as a corridor between nesting/brood rearing habitat and winter range. To accomplish this, trees will be removed and areas where perennial understory vegetation is lacking will be seeded. A total of approximately 3,150 acres have been identified for treatment in 2020.

1) Create/expand sagebrush habitat for GRSG that could be occupied immediately after treatment. 2) Create travel corridors between brood rearing and winter habitat. 3) Mitigate the 3 major threats to GRSG: fire, conifer expansion and invasive species. 4) Increase available moisture for residual and seeded plant species by removing competition from trees. 5) Reduce crown fire potential and fuel loading by decreasing juniper cover to less than 5% immediately post treatment. 6) Improve ecosystem resiliency and meet habitat objectives defined in the BLM Utah Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment by increasing perennial grass and forb cover to greater than or equal to 8% and 4%, respectively, by 3 years post treatment.

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 GRSG population it is imperative that proactive steps be taken to minimize these threats. This project will decrease the risk of high severity wildfire by reducing fuel loading and promoting the growth of sagebrush and perennial understory species which are critical to maintaining ecosystem function and resilience.

12 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) 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. 3) Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment (BLM 2019): a) Objective SSS-1: Maintain and/or increase GRSG abundance and distribution by conserving, enhancing or restoring the sagebrush ecosystem upon which populations depend in collaboration with other conservation partners. 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, 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 Sheeprocks population area for mechanical treatments the objective is 33,700 acres; for annual grass treatments the objective is 10,000 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. 4) 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. 5) 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). 6) 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. 7) 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. 8) 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. 9) 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). 10) 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). 11) 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. 12) 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 Copperopolis Creek and Maple Springs leks are near the proposed treatment and sage-grouse regularly occupy the surrounding area. This project will help protect and preserve brood rearing and winter habitat by decreasing both fuel loading and fire potential. Although the Tintic Valley 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; IIB and IIA) is moderately departed from historic norms (LANDFIRE 2016). Removing the juniper will help improve the condition class and bring the vegetation back to where it should be.

A recent publication by Roundy et al. 2014 (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. The majority of the project area is phase 3 juniper stands.

Cultural surveys were completed for the proposed approximate 3,000 acre mastication treatment in the Fall of 2019. The Greater Sheeprocks Sage-grouse Habitat Restoration and Hazardous Fuels Treatment EA was completed August 2017. Additional site-specific NEPA, tiered to the 2017 Greater Sheeprocks EA will be completed during the winter 2019/2020.

Up to 100% of existing juniper will be removed through mastication on approximately 3,150 acres. Trees with old-growth characteristics will be avoided. Areas where perennial grasses and forbs are lacking will be seeded prior to mastication to increase perennial plant cover and diversity. The work will be contracted and will likely begin in fall of 2020.

Multiple 3-spoke monitoring plots will be established and read within the project area. Vegetation and ground cover data will be collected using the line-point intercept method and nested frequency. Photos will be taken and a qualitative site condition assessment completed. Sagegrouse occupancy will also be assessed within our plots. Data will be collected pre, 1, 3, and 5 years post treatment. Reports will be generated as data are collected and summarized and uploaded to the WRI database.

Partners are the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 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 in 10 to 15 year intervals post-treatment. Seeded areas will be rested from grazing for a minimum of two growing seasons. A grazing rest agreement will be signed by permittees prior to treatment initiation.

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. Juniper removal treatments alone help increase forage quantity and quality for livestock but are especially effective when combined with seeding perennial grasses and forbs where depleted. These treatments will increase forage value within the McIntyre, Kimball Creek, Rattlesnake Peak, Diamond Spring, Treasure Hill and Tintic Pasture allotments. These treatments will also help support recreation and hunting by maintaining healthy sagebrush ecosystems which are critical to wildlife such as mule deer and other sagebrush dependent species.

11/29/2021

03/02/2022

2022

Two contractors with multiple machines were used to complete 3,896 acres of juniper removal in Tintic Valley. Aerial seeding of 3,674 acres occurred prior to mastication.

The purpose of this project was to expand and improve sagebrush habitat for greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush dependent species in the southeastern part of the Sheeprock SGMA by removing juniper and seed where necessary. This project was supposed to be implemented in fall of 2021 but was delayed a year due to the cultural resource inventory not being completed on schedule. The number of acres treated was reduced based on the results of the inventory. Because the area identified for mastication was quite large, three separate contracts were issued to complete the work. Retroscape out of Logan, Utah was awarded the Chambers Wash contract (1,047 acres) for $335/ac. They used multiple rubber tire machines with mulching heads. Implementation was straight forward. Mulching began on 11/29/2021 and was completed on 2/22/2022. Wilkinson Construction out of Morgan, Utah was awarded both the Mud Springs North (1,265 acres) and Mud Springs South (1,584 acres) contracts for $374/ac. and $343/ac. respectively. They used multiple excavators with mulching heads to complete their work. They also enlisted the help of Retroscape to do approximately 500 acres of the Mud Springs North contract after they had finished work at Chambers Wash. Work on the Mud Springs contracts began on 11/29/2021 and was completed on 3/2/2022. Implementation costs were much higher than estimated. Throughout the project area, pinyon pine, wildlife nest trees, bearing trees, and trees with old-growth characteristics were avoided. The contractors often used multiple equipment operators to keep machinery running into the night. Generally, the contract specifications were met, and the work was completed ahead of schedule. The seed, provided through GBRC, was aerially applied between 11/1/2021 and 11/6/2021. Hammond Helicopter was awarded the contract for $6.25/ac and completed the work with a fixed wing airplane. Their flight line spacing was consistent and there were no issues encountered during implementation. Monitoring will occur 1-, 3-, and 5-years post treatment to track vegetation response and determine if treatment objectives were met.

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. Rest from grazing will occur for a minimum of two growing seasons following treatment.