Hans Pumpernickle Habitat Restoration Shared Stewardship
Project ID: 5238
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2023
Submitted By: 381
Project Manager: Sean Kelly
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Fillmore Ranger District
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
The upland component of this project is to use hand-thinning and mastication to remove encroaching pinyon and juniper and restore watershed functioning from approximately 1,800 acres of sagebrush/grass communities along the east slope of the Pahvant Mountians. In addition, this project will protect and improve key riparian and aquatic habitat by constructing a pole-fence to manage grazing and recreation on Ivie Creek from the source spring to the Forest boundary.
Location:
This project is located on the foothills of the east-slope of the Pahvant Mountain range approximately ten (10) miles south of the town of Scipio,
Project Need
Need For Project:
Over the past fifty years, the east slope of the Pahvant Mountains has seen a gradual shift from sagebrush/bunchgrass communities to thick stands of Utah juniper and two-needle pinyon pine. In the current state, much of the foothill area from roughly Cutler Canyon in the north and extending south to Willow Creek Canyon is not effective in providing habitat for many of the wildlife species found there. The dense pinyon-juniper over-story also increases the risk of wildland fire, alters snow accumulation patterns, and increases overland flow and erosion during high runoff events. While much of this area has progressed into the Phase 3 stage of encroachment, there still exists a sufficient under-story of sagebrush and native grasses in many areas to respond to removing the pinyon/juniper overstory. The project area is classified by UDWR as Crucial winter range for deer and high value winter range for elk. Populations for both species have been consistently below UDWR objectives for the Pahvant Herd Unit (21b) and poor winter range conditions resulting from expansion of pinyon/juniper into sagebrush ecosystems is a key factor. This project will create and improve foraging habitat and directly benefit big game and livestock. By increasing overall site productivity, this treatment will also increase populations of small mammals and insects, which are important prey species for reptiles such as the Utah Milksnake and Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake, as well as wild turkey and the multiple species of migratory birds that nest in the area. Current conditions are also impacting livestock grazing and dense stands of p/j has reduced and in a few areas all but eliminated native grasses and forbs. The nearby Ezra Flat range trend study data shows that perennial grasses and forbs are lacking in similar habitat and may require reseeding to recover in the near future. Addressing the winter range issues and providing additional forage will also benefit local agriculture by providing deer and elk an alternative to cultivated crops in the flats. The project area drains into Ivie Creek, which is an important source of water locally and in the current condition sediment loading can be an issue. The lack of an understory and relatively high percentage of bare ground make the area proposed for treatment more prone to erosion and loss of topsoil. Re-establishing a resilient community that includes deep rooted perennial grasses will conserve topsoil and improve watershed functioning. The creation of a riparian exclosure on a roughly 0.5 mile stretch of Ivie Creek will further improve water quality while protecting critical fish habitat. The source-spring for Ivie Creek is also one of five springs that provide habitat for an endemic spring-snail, the Bifid-Duct pyrg, and protecting the habitat for this species is a high district priority. Given the high social and economic importance of hunting, fishing and livestock production in the local area the Fillmore Ranger District and the State of Utah have combined to focus on improving and restoring winter range on the east slope of the Pahvant Mountains. This project is part of that effort and is designed to improve habitat and range conditions on one of the most productive sites by removing encroaching phase II and phase III pinyon-juniper using mastication and hand-thinning combined with re-seeding. The proposed treatment will remove >80% of the p/j over-story within the treatment polygons, releasing the existing under-story from competition while the reseeding will re-establish important herbaceous species in areas where these plants have been reduced or eliminated by competing trees. This project is a great cooperation between State and Federal Agencies working together to meet a common goal of developing additional habitat for Wildlife and Livestock within Central Utah.
Objectives:
The general objectives are to increase habitat quality and quantity for wintering big game and sagebrush oriented wildlife, to reduce fuel loads and minimize the frequency and intensity of future wildfires, to provide increased livestock forage by reducing pinyon-juniper dominance and to develop a healthy, resilient rangeland community with diverse age classes and species composition and improved watershed functioning. Specific objectives include reducing pinyon-juniper cover to <20% within treatment polygons and five-year post treatment cover values for perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs within 60% of NRCS Ecological Site Description for Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) sites. In certain locations pinyon-juniper removal will be balanced with Fishlake National Forest Plan guidelines for maintaining sufficient thermal and hiding cover for big game habitat quality as well as nesting habitat for pinyon jay. As a result, treatment may include strategically located "leave islands" and connective corridors of pinyon-juniper that may result in slightly higher post-treatment PJ density on localized areas.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
This site faces a host of threats associated with increasing pinyon-juniper cover, including loss of grasses and forbs important to wildlife and cattle, increased risk of wildland fire frequency and severity, risk of invasive plant species such as cheatgrass replacing native and desirable introduced plants, increased risk of soil erosion, and lower quality and quantity of water due to continued decreases in watershed functioning. Nearly all of these are present to some extent and some and in much of the project area have combined to greatly limit many of the uses and benefits this section of land historically provided. All of these threats resulted from pinyon-juniper expansion altering the native sagebrush/bunchgrass community, and this project will address these risks by either restoring the site or at least improving it to a functional state close to the native sagebrush type. Removal of the smaller PJ trees in the lop and scatter area is a cost-effective and low-impact method of removing early and mid-Phase 2 encroachment. Delaying treatment until trees are larger and more difficult to handle would greatly increase the expense of treatment and accomplish far less. No action on this project will allow for increased invasive grass species, pinyon-juniper encroachment and increased soil erosion with no productive rangeland conditions. Late Phase II to early Phase III Pinyon-Juniper reduces the native understory of browse, shrubs and herbaceous plants species, reducing PJ will allow for shrub, forbs and grasses species to respond within the treatment site.
Relation To Management Plan:
The pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush areas lie within the Lowland Sagebrush Steppe Habitat type which is one of the key habitats identified in the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) The proposed projects will address some of the habitat management strategies outlined in the deer and elk management plans for herd unit 21B (Fillmore Pahvant Unit ) including: *Continue to improve and restore sagebrush steppe habitats critical to deer according to DWRs Habitat Initiative. *Maintain habitat quantity and quality at a level adequate to support the stated population objectives while at the same time not resulting in an overall downward trend in range condition and watershed quality. *Work cooperatively with land management agencies and private landowners to plan and implement improvement projects for the purpose of enhancing wildlife habitat and range resources in general. *The project also helps fulfill the state mule deer management plan section IV Habitat Goal: Conserve and improve mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges. *The proposed projects will address the following goals and objectives of the Division of Wildlife Resources most recent strategic management plan: *Resource Goal: expand wildlife populations and conserve sensitive species by protecting and improving wildlife habitat. *Objective 1: protect existing wildlife habitat and improve 500,000 acres of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state. *Objective 3: conserve sensitive species to prevent them from becoming listed as threatened or endangered. *Constituency Goal: Achieve broad-based support for Division programs and budgets by demonstrating the value of wildlife to all citizens of Utah. *Objective 2: improve communication with wildlife organizations, public officials, private landowners, and government agencies to obtain support for Division programs. *UDWR SR critical big game winter range are important browse communities that need to be enhanced and improved. The Division will employ a variety of methods to achieve this including prescribed grazing, prescribed burning, reseeding and seedling transplants, also mechanical treatments. Priority areas will include sagebrush-steppe and mountain browse communities. Falls within the rangeland focus area for WRI wildlife species for mule deer and elk. *This plan is consistent with the Fishlake National Forest Plan for wildlife habitat enhancement and fuels management to improve habitat, reduce fuel loading, and protect against catastrophic wildfire. *Other project have been completed by the Forest Service and BLM in past years within the Willow Creek Canyon HUC 12 area. *Project within the are also benefit the management plans objectives of the lower Sevier River Watershed, as this will reduced sediment run off and create a healthy rangeland communities. *Management Plans are also in conjunction with NRCS overall goals of healthy rangelands and communities, improving watersheds and reducing erosion and sediment. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment *FFSL CWPP Process is a local Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a collaborative plan created by the fire department, state and local forestry, land managers, community leaders, and the public.The planning process maps values at risk, and requires actions to reduce risk, such as prescribed burning, fuel reduction, or other measures that adapt a community to better confront their wildfire threat. Area is also part of the Millard RWPP FFSL Plan which was implemented in 2014, there are Wildfire Codes and Ordinances associated with this plan. Project would also be relevant to NCS Goals and supported through the FS National Cohesive Strategies. CAT FIRE Objectives and Strategies: In 2013, the State of Utah developed the Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy (CAT FIRE) in response to the severe 2012 fire season. Reducing the catastrophic wildfire requires attention to three interdependent goals identified in the National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy -- Restore and Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Wildfire Response. These goals have been embraced throughout the development of the state's CAT FIRE strategy. Mitigation of hazardous fuels can change fire behavior making it easier to suppress. The effects of the mitigation, however, are not limited to life and property safety but will also affect forest health, water quality, vegetative species abundance, etc. As we continue to implement projects across the landscapes in Utah, the only way to truly be successful is to integrate existing programs, utilize local and federal partners and continue to educate the general public to create the desired shift towards more resilient communities and ecosystems. *Richfield Field Office RMP (2008) pg 76 - Manage for a mix of vegetative types, structural stages, and provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats. -Sustain or reestablish the integrity of the sagebrush biome to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of Greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: a. Treat areas determined to need reseeding with a variety of plant species that are desirable for wildlife habitat, livestock, watershed management, and other resource values while maintaining vegetation species diversity. b. implement additional treatments to achieve Standards for Rangeland Health and desired vegetation condition. Vegetation treatments conducted up to 1,472,000 acres over the life of the plan. These acreage figures include all vegetation and fire fuels treatments. Central Utah FMP: - greater use of vegetation management to meet resource management objectives - hazardous fuels treatments will be used to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities - sagebrush steppe communities will be a high priority for ESR and fuel reduction to avoid catastrophic fires in these areas **I have also included information pertaining to the State of Utah Resource Management Plan, Mule Deer Management Plan for the Fillmore Pahvant, Utah Statewide Turkey Plan and the Sevier County Resource Management Plan located in the Documents Tab of this project.
Fire / Fuels:
This project will reduce fuel loading by removing the pinyon-junpier trees with a mastication treatment, as well as with a lop and scatter treatment. Reseeding the site and establishing a resilient and competitive community of perennial grasses and forbs will help prevent the site from being dominated by invasive annuals such as cheatgrass that perpetuate a rapid fire cycle. Treatments like this have been proven to prevent wildfire from spreading following an ignition event, and this particular treatment will create several barriers or buffers between treated and non treated areas that will be critical for controlling or containing wildfires. The FFO Forest Service and the Richfield BLM Fuels have implemented several prior projects that reduced the likelihood of wildfire in the area and adjacent to this project, these projects consisted of clear cutting, burning and reseeding along with cut and pile projects. This project will help protect valuable infrastructures, from Catastrophic Wildfires, such as homes, summer cabins, outbuildings, hay sheds, livestock corrals and mostly the community of Aurora, Utah which has over 500 residents. This project will also have an effect on the Hwy 50 that is a critical travel corridor, and has been shut down in the past due to the Sawmill Fire, and Gap Fire. The size of the treatment is around 1,800 acres and is within 4-6 miles of several structures including homes, and out buildings, and within 15 miles of Aurora, UT. This treatment will reduce fuel loads and improve critical habitat for mule deer, elk and turkeys in the future, along with providing additional forage for livestock. We are looking as the project stands today at a Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Condition Class III with the implementation of this treatment we would expect to drop to a FRCC Class I giving us some good ecological integrity in the treatment with improved understory and shrub components. This would reduce the flame height and fuel loading in the areas and look to prevent Catastrophic Wildfires in the area.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The current condition of much of the project area is Phase II and Phase III pinyon-juniper stands, with the Phase III having little to no understory of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Prior to treatment, the estimated bare ground cover on the nearby Ezra Flat study site average almost 30%, well above the desired condition and increasing the risk of soil erosion. Meeting the project objectives would reduce bare ground (reduced to 5% of Ezra Flat), increase vegetative cover, increase infiltration, reduce overland flow, and ultimately could increase stream flow and reduce sedimentation and phosphorous loading into Ivie Creek and water supplies of the nearby towns of Scipio and Aurora. These benefits have been documented by research done in similar ecosystems (Deboolt et al, 2008). In a webinar presented by the NRCS, research showed that 130 pinyon and juniper trees sampled within an acre (33% pinyon, 9% juniper and 58% inter-space) over a twelve month period would utilize and estimated 280,000 liters of water per acre per year or approximately 23% of an acre foot. And while the Quality of water will not be overwhelming the first year after treatment it becomes significant over time. This type of treatment will benefit the soil over the long term, due to increasing plants that will utilize the excess water, overland flows of rills will be filled in, chance for overland flooding will be minimized allowing for springs and seep to start appearing and improved rangeland conditions will benefit all Forest users. Information from the Sevier County Resources Plan addressing water Quality and Quantity: DESIRED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1. Access for municipal water and secondary water development, quality management, or infrastructure construction or maintenance on federal public lands must be granted as soon as possible in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens. 2. Develop improved methods to reduce and remove sediment in storage reservoirs and continue stream bank stabilization efforts. 3. Where water resources on public lands have diminished because grasses have succeeded to pinyon-juniper and other woody vegetation, a vigorous program of mechanical treatments should be applied to promptly remove this woody vegetation and biomass, stimulate the return of the grasses to historic levels, and thereby provide a watershed that maximizes water yield and water quality for livestock, wildlife, and human uses. 4. Sevier County will participate in watershed management on public and private lands to optimize quality and quantity of water. 6. Support projects to increase water quality and quantity in the county. 7. Maintain and improve our fresh water supplies and watersheds, and increase our watershed production capabilities. 8. Conserve and preserve water for agricultural uses in the county. 9. Sevier County shall protect ground, spring, and surface water quality. 19. The county encourages actions by individuals, groups, and local governments that are aimed at improving water quality and supporting the hydrology of the county. Deboodt, T.L., et al., 2008, Monitoring hydrological changes related to western juniper removal: A paired watershed approach: Third Interagency Conference on Research in the Watersheds, p. 227-232. Also the addressing of the TMDL from the Lower Sevier River Watershed Plan states that through water and overland flows we can have high amounts of phosphors in the system that can drain into the Sevier River watershed. The implementation of this project would seem to help control it as we will be reseeding grasses, forbs and shrubs that would help control the overland flow slow down the sediment discharge in to the Lower Sevier River and reduce sediment, phosphors and other nutrient load by reducing the pinyon-juniper trees and improving the uplands.
Compliance:
All NEPA (Fishlake National Foreast Pinyon-Juniper-EA) has been completed. We are requesting funding for Archaeological clearance that will be coordinated by our Forest Archaeologist (Chuck Hutchinson) prior to implmentation. Project Manager will consult with Arie Leeflang prior to implementation to make sure all information is correct. Additional information maybe requested from the Federal Agencies.
Methods:
We propose reducing juniper density on roughly 1,700 acres using a combination of mastication with bobcat mounted bull-hogs (950 acres), and lop and scatter (up to 750 acres). Pinyon pine will be retained as pinyon jay habitat and cover for other wildlife species. Treatment would occur during fall and winter. All treated area would be reseeded with a mix of grass, shrubs and forbs using aircraft prior to treatment. Scatter may later be burned by the Fillmore Ranger District to reduce fuel load. Travel corridors will be kept intact allowing for thermal and escape cover for wildlife in the area. Cultural Resource issues have been addressed on this project under the Pinyon-Juniper Environmental Assessment that was signed December 5, 2019, and additional survey will be completed prior to implementation. The mastication, aerial seeding, and lop and pile portions of the project will be contracted out through state purchasing. These contracts will be awarded based on price per acre and the experience the contractor may have to complete the project in a efficient and professional manner.
Monitoring:
Monitoring plans will include UDWR and USFS bi-annual big game classifications used to monitor production and subsequent survival of area deer and elk herds. Also, the Project Manager will establish a set of vegetation and photo points within a transect to collect pre and post treatment data. UDWR may ask for the GBRC Range Trend Crew to set a permanent vegetation transect for future monitoring of this project that are generally ead every five years, workload permitting. Monitoring for fish will be conducted by the Fishlake National forest fisheries crew. Ivie Creek is currently on a 3 to 5 year rotation for electroshocking. Monitoring of springsnails is done by both the fisheries shop and the District and is generally done each year.
Partners:
This project will augment previous work done on adjacent private land coordinated by Kendall Bagley, UDWR habitat biologist, and both private partners and the UDWR were heavily involved in its design. Partners for this project consist of the Fillmore Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, Utah State Forestry and Fire, Gurney Cattle Company, and the UDWR Southern Region. All partners are supportive of this project and are willing to commit a lot of time and effort towards making this project a success. This includes resting the treatment from grazing for two growing seasons if necessary. In addition, many members of the general public and sportsman enjoy hunting and recreating in this area that benefit from the Habitat Restoration Work will have the opportunity to participate in future maintenance of this project as volunteers.
Future Management:
The USFS will work with Gurney Cattle Company to implement a deferred rotational grazing system on the bullhog mastication treatment consistent with the Fishlake National Forest management plan. This will be written into the Annual Operating Instructions signed by the permitees each spring prior to grazing on the Forest. The Forest Service is strongly committed to improving habitat through restoration efforts to meet overall regional goals and objectives for wildlife and livestock grazing in this area. Success will be determined by the Management Plans of the Forest Service and UDWR along with the grazing permittees through proper grazing systems that allow for healthy rangeland communities. Much of this particular Forest Allotment has seen minimal grazing for at least the last 10 years, because it simply doesn't produce enough grass to make grazing feasible. The permitees are very motivated and committed to management that will insure productivity and maximize the useful life of this project. Additional phases of this project are in the works as similar conditions exist to the south.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Both the hand thinning and mastication treatments will open up areas to sunlight, reducing overall pinyon-juniper stands and facilitating the establishment of seeded species.This will dramatically increase desirable plants such as perennial grasses and forbs, protecting the soil, improving watershed function, and increasing the forage available for livestock grazing on the Forest. The mix of wooded and open areas and diverse plant community that will result from treatment will provide superior habitat for many species of birds, reptiles and small mammals as well as improved habitat for game species such as mule deer, elk, turkey and upland game. The additional hunting opportunities for these species will benefit the local communities and other Forest visitors and should last for decades. The mastication aspect in particular can enhance the visual appeal of the area, providing a better experience to many forest users, including people who come from across the country to attend the annual Millard and Sevier County ATV Jamboree and enjoy riding trails, camping and recreating in this area.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$773,227.00 $0.00 $773,227.00 $214,480.00 $987,707.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Aerial Seeding 1,725 acres at $20.00/Ac $34,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Contractual Services Contract work for 751 acres Cut and Scatter at $165.00/acre $123,915.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Seed (GBRC) Estimated seed expenses from GBRC $128,717.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Personal Services (permanent employee) USFS contract administration, site prep, flagging, etc. $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 2023
NEPA NEPA, clearances, etc.. $0.00 $0.00 $38,000.00 2023
Materials and Supplies Misc supplies and flagging for this project, also horse hire to flag the treatment areas. $750.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Other In-Kind expenses from Private Landowner toward the overall Hans Pumpernickel Project. $0.00 $0.00 $94,500.00 2022
Personal Services (permanent employee) USFS Burn of the Lop and Scatter portion of the project with the use of USFS Employees. $0.00 $0.00 $22,530.00 2024
Archaeological Clearance Arch survey for 970 ac @ $26/acre, this will be for the Bullhog portion of the project. $25,220.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Contractual Services Contract work for mastication of up to 970 acres at $450/acre $436,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Personal Services (seasonal employee) Site tours, contract creation, and contract administration by FFSL $15,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Other Road prep and maintenance during treatment $0.00 $0.00 $29,450.00 2023
Other Seasonal time for vegetation and weed monitoring as well as supplies for weed control. @$5/acre $8,625.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$470,070.23 $0.00 $470,070.23 $216,998.97 $687,069.20
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) $0.00 $0.00 $68,000.00 2023
United States Forest Service (USFS) Road prep and maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $29,450.00 2023
Private In-Kind from Private Landowner towards the project. $0.00 $0.00 $94,500.00 2023
United States Forest Service (USFS) In-Kind from USFS for the Burning slash $0.00 $0.00 $22,530.00 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A154 $426,713.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Safari Club International (SCI) S026 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $2,518.97 2023
Safari Club International (SCI) S026 $397.25 $0.00 $0.00 2024
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $397.25 $0.00 $0.00 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A154 $32,562.73 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bifid Duct Pyrg N2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Bifid Duct Pyrg N2
Threat Impact
Roads – Transportation Network High
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Camping (Dispersed) Low
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (Direct, Intentional) Low
Brown Trout R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland High
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Camping (Dispersed) Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (Direct, Intentional) Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake N4
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Low
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake N4
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Utah Milksnake N4
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Habitats
Habitat
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/17/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Sean, Have you given any thought to impacts to pinyon jays, especially as regards nesting colonies? Keith
Comment 02/04/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Hi Keith. Pinyon jays and nesting colonies were discussed during the NEPA process. We have conducted bird surveys in the past and have some base line information. We are also obligated according to the PJ decision to do surveys prior to implementation and use information from biological or archaeological surveys to make any treatment designs to avoid any areas of concern. Also, we will design treatments to leaving PJ trees in a savannah pattern in some areas to mitigate for birds utilizing pinion, as well as leaving up to 40% cover and openings <400 m on crucial big game winter range (which accounts for most of the project area). Also, during implementation/treatment we will be following guidelines established in the Migratory Bird Treaty to minimize disturbance to pinyon jays and other migratory birds during nesting season. Thanks for the comment, Keith. This project is obviously aimed more at benefiting sage-brush, open habitat and edge species but we hope to retain enough wooded area to minimize impact to other species as well.
Comment 01/29/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Mr. Kelly sir, I am in charge of evaluating Species threats this year and I had a couple of questions about yours. You listed "Invasive Plant Species -- Non-native" as the threat you are addressing but I did not see a whole lot about cheat grass issues in your proposal. Did you perhaps mean to say "Problematic Plant Species - Native Upland" as that's how the politically correct people refer to the trees of darkness. I was also curious as to how the project alleviated the "Invasive Wildlife Species -- Non-native" threat to wild turkey? Final question, you refer to deferred grazing in future management but you are planning to actually rest the seedings, correct?
Comment 02/04/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Hi Mike. I guess the answer to your first question is both. Much of the proposed area below 6000' and southern exposures in particular are high risk for invasion, similar to how cheatgrass and annual weeds dominate the nearby Amos Fire scar. But "Problematic Plant Species - Native Upland" definitely applies as well. With regard to grazing, no livestock use occurs now since the treatment area is literally un-grazable in it's current state. So, technically, we are going to continue current management (no grazing) for two years after tree removal and seeding and start grazing once range conditions improve enough to support livestock.
Comment 01/27/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Lannce Sudweeks
Mr. Golden sir, in regards to grazing, most, if not all of the proposed area is so overgrown with problematic pinyon/juniper that it has not provided anything for grazing. therefore resting the project from grazing for 2+ years will be easy without detriment to the permittee.
Comment 01/29/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
I forgot that we also have to award you 5 points based on "If applicable, does the project cross jurisdictional boundaries? If the proposed project area borders other ownerships, was consideration given to expand the project to a broader landscape? If no opportunity existed, award full points. If an opportunity existed and minimal or no outreach occurred, score accordingly." Can you elaborate on why all the private adjacent to your project isn't being treated or doesn't need to be treated?
Comment 02/03/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Mike, I can help with this comment, this is a great project, lots of restoration work to be accomplished in this area. Hans Pumpernickle is one of the main focus areas for the Fillmore FFO, this is a great project for mule deer, wild turkeys and elk. I have done a lot of work on the private property over the last several years with WRI Funding within this area, good to see the FS wanting to complete the work on the Forest. Treatment areas that are slated for this fall will be north of the Maple Grove Road, portions to the south we would like only to conduct Arch Clearances as the NEPA is complete. The southern portion of this project will tie in with the Red Canyon Chaining Project we just completed this fall with WRI Funding working cross boundaries with BLM, Forest Service and Grazing Permittees. Good project lots of potential, most of the private has habitat restoration work already completed either due to wildfires in the areas or improvement to degrading landscapes. Good places for a guzzler or two and additional water developments as well in the future. Definitely will improve livestock grazing, it has been non existent in the past. Great Project Mike, I'm sure we can count on you for a full overview and great comments for us to improve moving forward. You always bring up good points that make the WRI projects add valve in the process. "Full points should be added". HA HA HA Thanks Mike
Comment 01/27/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Lannce Sudweeks
Mike, I contacted the adjacent property owners, explained what we were proposing and they were not interested in joining the project
Comment 02/07/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
A few days back Mike said {Did you perhaps mean to say "Problematic Plant Species - Native Upland"...}. Lemme repeat that, with another nudge - yes you did. It's rated higher than your currently-selected mtn sage threats, so is worth more points, and importantly, it much more accurately captures the thrust of your proposal.
Comment 02/07/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
As for this - {that's how the politically correct people refer to the trees of darkness} - well it's a lot more actually-correct than saying something like "invasive juniper". Junipers aren't invasive, we have just favored them by removing grasses and putting out nearly every single fire start. So they succeed, to the point of becoming problematic. And, they are native. And finally, they are indeed upland plants. So...that's what we're calling it.
Comment 02/10/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Thanks Jimi. Threat has been added to the proposal.
Comment 01/18/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
I'm glad to see this proposal come back. New year, new question - what does LANDFIRE say about the project area via its BPS (or Bio-Physical Setting) pixel attributes? It might add some insight, in the face of 1) what habitats you say you're helping, 2) your stated intent to leave enough residual trees to make a "juniper savannah" (WOOF! ha ha), and 3) Keith's pinyon jay concerns? My point is, if it's off-site juniper, hey man, kill 'em all. If it's on-site PJ, I would ask you to consider what that system's FRCC is at a landcape scale. And (again if and only if it's on-site PJ), is there an excess of the young or the mid-open seral classes? If there's an excess, reconsider the project. If not, damn the torpedoes - attack. Just trying to come at this with some more sciency ammo, not just hand-waving and bluster.
Comment 01/26/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Thanks for the comment, Jimi. You raise an interesting question because we have some conflicting models on the BPS. The project area is fairly large and the BPS attributes in LANDFIRE vary somewhat, but LANDFIRE tends to identify more area as pinyon-juniper types while our FS soil based model has more sagebrush (mountain in the upper and Wyoming in the lower section) often in combination with gambel oak or PJ overstory. Bio-Physical Setting pixel attributes from LANDFIRE include: Oak-mixed montane shrubland Montane sagebrush steppe Intermountain basins big sagebrush shrubland Colorado plateau pinyon-juniper woodland As far as FRCC, Bryce has the majority of the project and area in condition class 2a, 2b and 3a, so thinning would bring the project area closer to desired condition as well as addressing fuel loading concerns adjacent to power-line infra-structure and private land interface. We plan on surveying for pinyon jay soon, and will base surveys on Keith's recommendation. The District staff has also discussed focusing removal on Utah juniper, while leaving pinyon pine on this project to further reduce potential impacts to pinyon jays. I'll add this change to the methods section. Thanks again for the comment and please let me know if you have other comments based on this response.
Comment 01/26/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Cool, thanks for looking. I know LANDFIRE has a real challenge discriminating between "seral" and "persistent" PJ woodland. Better data are needed, certainly at the project scale, and it sounds like you think you have it. Good luck!
Comment 02/02/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
HI Sean, You indicate a benefit to the Sonoran kingsnake. How will you be monitoring the snakes to determine if the project was a success to reducing these threats?
Comment 02/03/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Hi Nicki. I've actually been monitoring for kings and milks in this area since 2015. There's a narrow window when the temps are warm enough to get them moving around and yet cool enough that they're close to the surface that with luck you can find them if you're willing to roll rocks and logs. A couple of hard-core herp enthusiasts have been visiting this area for years and they showed me how to find them after they became concerned that the numbers where declining. I schedule when I read the pellet groups transects on the east slope to try and hit the window when the snakes are most active and survey for snakes at the same time. Even then I don't find many. I've found a total of 3 milks in 5 years of trying, so more presence/absence than pop estimate.
Comment 02/03/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Nicki I uploaded a photo to the documents section from the last time I surveyed Ezra Flat with a snake on top of the rock I found it under. You can kind of see the slash from the bullhog treatment around the rock. I put all the rocks/logs I flip back in the same position I found them, or at least as close I as can get them to the original position.
Comment 02/11/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Sean, First off you should get the award for the best project name. So just clarifying that this project is lop and pile and mastication, correct? Your threats and risks sections has a discussion about the cost effectiveness of lop and scatter? Also can you ask for the million bucks from Shared Stewardship instead of UWRI😉. Mike
Comment 02/16/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Mike, glad you like the name but our District Ranger, Brian Monroe, gets credit for that. It is a combination lop-and pile and mastication. We would prefer to use mastication on the entire project, but terrain and access make lopping the best option in some cases. Lop and scatter is the more cost effective method and far less labor intensive, but to meet the fuels reduction objectives for Shared Stewardship we will have to pile and burn. We are asking for Shared Stewardship funding for this project but did list other funding sources on the title page to leave all our options open.
Comment 02/15/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Danny Summers
I like the diversity of the seed mix. There are some species included with blanks for the rates. I just wanted to double check that it is correct.
Comment 02/16/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Danny, we removed annual sunflower, yarrow, and bb squirrel-tail from the mix at the last minute to try and bring the cost down. If seed prices are lower at the time of treatment we may try to include one or more of those so I just left them in the spreadsheet but with a blank rate. Sorry, looking at it now I can see it is confusing.
Comment 01/18/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Sean, I like this project man. Still concerned about your budget showing lop and scatter at $165/acre, but other areas indicating lop and pile which is likely to be 9 times that cost? A couple more things: 1) just in case all rankers don't look through the past comments, you may want to update your proposal with some of the information you and Kendall provided in there. 2) Did you use any of the information described in the "ENHANCED PROJECT LOCATION/DESIGN BONUS POINTS" that might be able to score you some bonus points there? 3) Jens and Jim doing any fish monitoring? 4) Do you have spatial features uploaded for the exclosure fence? Is Ivie Creek in a different allotment that it needs a fence to alleviate grazing pressure?
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Hey Mike, thanks for the comments. The hand-thinning will be all lop and scatter, specifically to reduce the high-cost of lop and pile like you pointed out. I'll go back through the text and make sure all reference to hand thinning reflect this.
Comment 01/27/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Mike, Jim and Jens surveyed Ivie Creek for fish last summer, and it sounds like they will return on a 3-5 year rotation. Pyrg monitoring takes place pretty much annually. I've added this to the monitoring section of the proposal.
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
Sean, Thanks for referencing the results from a similar treatment to reduce bare ground. That's cool information.
Comment 01/27/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jens Swensen
Sean, I like the plan for an exclosure fence on Ivie Creek. I'm really glad you included that in this project and think it's a great idea to protect the riparian area there. Ivie Creek supports non-native sportfish, creating angling opportunities otherwise unavailable on that side of the District. It also supports Bifid Duct Pyrg springsnails. Great job with the "before" photos of Ivie Creek. I hope to see some killer "after" photos when the exclosure gets built and the riparian vegetation starts taking off. Nice work on this project proposal!
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Appreciate the discussion from previous years re: P-J, grazing, snakes, etc... Very helpful for understanding this project better. Questions: 1. If grazing hasn't occurred here for years, why is Ivie Creek so degraded? Is it on a different allotment? Appreciate that you are fencing it/restoring the spring, creek and riparian area. 2. What are the ESDs for the project area? There's some ESD info in the Ezra Flat monitoring document, but that is to the south of the project area, correct? In the objectives section you state: "Specific objectives include reducing pinyon-juniper cover to <20% within treatment polygons and five-year post treatment cover values for perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs within 60% of NRCS Ecological Site Description for Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) sites." In the Habitats section, you list four separate key habitats. Do you have any monitoring documents/ESDs for these key habitats? It would be helpful if you included the ESDs and any monitoring or a soil survey, if one was completed. 2. Based on the ESDs, what is the composition and frequency of native species appropriate to the key habitats? The provided seed mix does not comport with the need to "re-establish important herbaceous species in areas where these plants have been reduced or eliminated by competing trees." Alfalfa, sainfoin, Russian wildrye, small burnet and forage kochia are not important herbaceous species here. The agencies should be focused on restoring native plant communities, not seeding non-native species. 3. In the Needs section you state: "there still exists a sufficient under-story of sagebrush and native grasses in many areas to respond to removing the pinyon/juniper overstory." Perhaps these areas don't need seeding? 4. What are the cumulative impacts of so many past, present and proposed veg management projects and seedings w/a significant amount of non-native species? 5. What are you doing to reintroduce fire to the project area?
Comment 02/09/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Lannce Sudweeks
Judy, 1. The areas in the project that grazing doesn't occur in, are areas with HEAVY canopy cover from P/J. Ivy creek is not inside the P/J, it is on the same allotment and sees heavy recreation use as well as occasional grazing. 2. ESD are typically an NRCS protocol that has not been adopted in this area. 2, ESD have not been adopted in this area. The seed mix protocal will be determined by the NEPA project design features. 3. The project design features in the NEPA analysis will determine seeding protocal. 4. The cumulative effects will result in a vastly improved wildlife habitat. 5. This project will reduce the chance of a high intensity catastrophic wildfire in the area.
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Wardle
Sean, My comment is mostly informational and I want to show my support for this project as the UDWR wildlife biologist over the unit. We just finished our aerial survey for elk last week on the Fillmore, Pahvant unit. Including the Oak Creek mountains we estimate the total population to be slightly below population objective at 1350 elk. The most interesting thing about this flight was the distribution of the elk. We counted a total of 7 elk on the East side of the range and they were in the old burn scar near Noon Rock. Looking through older survey data, elk distribution on the East side of the Pahvant has steadily decreased over time with each flight. Obviously, we don't see every animal from the helicopter and this distribution may be caused by a variety of factors, but habitat and nutrition availability is influencing where these elk choose to winter. Also, when I classified mule deer from the ground this past Nov-Dec, densities were surprisingly low across the East side of the range. The large majority of the deer population spends the winter months on the West side of the mountain where treatments such as this proposed project have been previously accomplished. Mule deer are also below their population objective on the Fillmore, Pahvant unit. I'm appreciative of the Forest's continued efforts to increase the availability of sagebrush and other critical shrubs for wintering mule deer and elk.
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
One more question: What cultural surveys and tribal consultation are being/have been conducted for this project?
Comment 02/09/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Lannce Sudweeks
we are asking for funding through UWRI to complete the arch surveys and based on the findings we will be seeking concurrence with SHIPO and tribes as required under the NEPA prior to implementation.
Comment 01/04/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Kaya McAlister
Hi Sean, Thank you for efforts in supporting wildlife and healthy ecosystems here in Southern Utah! I have a couple of questions regarding this project in particular: 1. Is phase I complete or will it continue into 2024? (The completion forms says 900 acres have bee treated, but I thought phase I was orignally intended to be 1,800 acres). 2.I'm wondering if you can share some insight regarding old-growth PJ trees within Phase I of the project area. Was (or is) there a size threshold (DRC or DBH) for the cutting of trees? If so, would you mind sharing that here? Thank you in advance!
Comment 01/09/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Sean Kelly
Hi Kaya. We originally proposed this as one big project, but received partial funding during the first submission. The 900 acres we treated in phase 1 (completed late winter-early spring of 2023) was what we could afford with the money we received. We have since secured enough funding to treat the remainder, which will be included in Phase 2. The second phase is out for contract, and we hope to implement in 2024.
Comment 01/09/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Sean Kelly
Hi Kaya, we retained all pinyon trees and removed all juniper up to 24 inches diameter a ground level.
Comment 01/09/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Kaya McAlister
Thank you for the clarification, Sean. I'm happy to hear about the pinyon pine retention - what a great inclusion to the overall project design. Thanks again! -Kaya
Comment 08/30/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
This is just a reminder that completion reports are due August 31st. I have entered the expenses in the Through WRI/DWR column on the finance page. Please do not make any changes to numbers in the Through WRI/DWR column. Any "Through Other" or "In-kind" expenses will need to be entered by the PM or contributors. Update your map features and fill out the completion form. Be sure to click on the finalize button on the completion report when you have your completion report ready to be reviewed by WRI Admin. Don't forget to upload any pictures of the project you have of before, during and after completion. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Comment 09/07/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Sean - After reading your completion information it sounds like you are still completing work for this phase of the project. Is that correct? If so will Kendall be contracting or purchasing any more materials for this phase or will it all be done directly through USFS? Thanks.
Comment 08/28/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Sean - 1. Please update your completion report to include the work that was completed on this phase in FY24. The charges look like they are tied to the fencing. 2. Please also add 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. 3.Please enter any missing expenses, highlighted in rust, on the Finance Page. 4. You will also need to update your map features with the final treatments. Your map shows a L&S treatment that is not mentioned in the report other than to say it is in the next phase. The map also shows seeding across the whole bullhog treatment. 5. 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 09/19/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Please 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 09/24/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thanks for making those corrections/additions. I have moved this project to completed.
Completion
Start Date:
03/05/2023
End Date:
01/01/2024
FY Implemented:
2024
Final Methods:
Nearly 900 acres of juniper was removed using tracked (units 3a, 5a) and a combination of tired and tracked (Units 1a, 2a) masticators. Units 3a and 5a were also seeded prior to treatment.
Project Narrative:
Hans Pumpernickle is a landscape scale project located on the Fillmore Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest south of the town of Scipio. The project is funded under Shared Stewardship, and is designed to provide multiple benefits to the ecosystem and local communities. The upland part of the first phase of this project, the mechanical treatment of roughly 900 acres of juniper and mixed oak and juniper, was completed in spring of 2023. The aquatics fencing part of the project that was initially included in phase one was moved into phase 2 and was included in that completion report. However it should be noted that a portion of the fencing materials were purchased with funds from this phase. Similarly, the lop-and-pile treatment was completed in 2024 under Phase 2 and will also be included in that completion report.
Future Management:
The USFS will work with Gurney Cattle Company to implement a deferred rotational grazing system in order to rest the units that were seeded. This will be written into the Annual Operating Instructions signed by the permitees in spring of 2024 prior to grazing on the Forest.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
14030 Terrestrial Treatment Area Bullhog Full size
14030 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-helicopter)
14031 Terrestrial Treatment Area Bullhog Full size
Project Map
Project Map