Moab field office Cheatgrass Control
Project ID: 5573
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2024
Submitted By: 804
Project Manager: Charles Fischer
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Moab
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southeastern
Description:
This project will target cheatgrass in locations throughout the BLM Moab field office where this invasive species is becoming or has the potential to become problematic and or prevalent. The intent is to conduct a large-scale areal herbicide contract utilizing Plateau or newly approved cheatgrass specific surfactants or granular products.
Location:
This project is intended to treat cheat grass in targeted areas within the Moab field office
Project Need
Need For Project:
Vegetation restoration and fuel reduction projects have been successful for increasing plant diversity and resilience, however disturbance, whether from fire or mechanical methods, often promotes cheatgrass expansion. The purpose of this project is to control cheatgrass in by using pre-emergent herbicides which are effective at preventing cheatgrass seed germination and growth.
Objectives:
The objective is to aerially apply pre-emergent cheatgrass herbicide in late winter or early spring (previous to germination) over 11 thousand acres. The goal is to reduce cheatgrass expansion and give native forbs, grassed and brush improved environmental conditions for growth, diversity and fire resilience.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Cheatgrass continues to invade newly disturbed or treated areas, reducing potential for vegetative diversity and success. If not specifically targeted, cheatgrass may eventually dominate the landscape and propagate a seed source that furthers invasion into native vegetation and adjacent areas. Cheatgrass monocultures burn frequently and newly burned areas typically convert from some native vegetation to pure cheatgrass monocultures. Cheatgrass monocultures decrease forage for wildlife grazing and restrict vegetative diversity. There is a risk that, once the area is re-burned and seeded, poor moisture regimes could result in seed crop failure and cheat grass re-sprouting. Using the herbicide Plateau will reduce this risk for several years, but if failure occurred the area may need to be re-sprayed, re-burned and/or re-seeded. As areas convert to cheatgrass it reduces the amount of small rodents in the area. Kit fox then have to go longer distances to find prey species. Without this project there will be a diminished habitat for kit fox.
Relation To Management Plan:
Moab Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP), approved 2008 (BLM-UT-PL-09-001-1610 UT-060-2007-04) Pg 139 (WL-23): Management of pronghorn habitat will be done in coordination with DWR and may include the following actions 'Increase forage through vegetation treatment on approximately 4,400 acres. (note: this RMP action was developed specifically for the Bitter Creek area fire restoration area of this project). Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA, 43 U.S.C. 1701 Sec 103 (C); The BLM is directed to manage public lands in a manner that will best meet present and future needs of the Nation. Public Rangelands Improvement Act 1978, Title II (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.), as amended. Among other management objectives, this act provides for temporary discontinuance of grazing uses for the specific purpose of improving public rangeland conditions and production. BLM Grazing Management Regulations, 43 CFR Subpart 4120.2, objectives are to promote healthy sustainable rangeland ecosystems; to accelerate restoration and improvement of public lands to properly functioning condition...requires development of guidelines to address the restoration, maintenance and enhancement of habitats to promote the conservation of Federal proposed, Federal candidate, and other special status species. BLM National Policy Guidance on wildlife and Fisheries Management (Manual 6500). This manual provides direction 'to restore, maintain and improve wildlife habitat conditions on public lands through the implementation of activity plans. Cisco Wildlife Habitat Management Plan, 1978; overall objective of the plan is to improve the 242,560 acres of area to provide habitat capable of supporting adult antelope year-round. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan, 2008: Statewide Management Goals and Objective: Goal B. Habitat Management Goal: Assure sufficient habitat is available to sustain healthy and productive pronghorn populations. Objective 1: Maintain or enhance the quantity and quality of pronghorn habitat to allow populations to increase. Grand County General Plan: On page 50 of the county plan update, Grand County points out that throughout the county there are a "number of damaged areas and the county encourages public land agencies to restore these lands." Utah Wildlife Action Plan Lowland Sagebrush is a Key Habitat in the 2015-2025 Plan One of the threats identified to lowland sagebrush is Invasive plant species/non-native and Improper grazing/Current Recommendations to Improve condition are: 1) Promoting policies that reduce inappropriate grazing by domestic livestock, feral domesticated animals, and wildlife. 2) 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. 3) Developing and deploying techniques to diversify species composition in monoculture or near monoculture stands of seeded non-native plants (e.g. crested wheatgrass). 4) Promoting management that includes seeding a diversity of grasses, forbs and shrubs that will lead to increased resiliency and resistance in the plant community. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule Deer 2014-2019 Section VI Statewide management goals and objectives. This plan will address 1: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range. 2. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. 3. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages. 4. 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. 5. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. 6. Continue to identify, map, and characterize crucial mule deer habitats throughout the state, and identify threats and limiting factors to each habitat. 7. Work with land management agencies and private landowners to identify and properly manage crucial mule deer habitats, especially fawning and wintering areas. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Elk 2015-2022 1) Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. 2) Reduce adverse impacts to elk herds and elk habitat. 3) Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk habitat. 4) Coordinate with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize elk habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration. 5) Identify habitat projects on summer ranges (aspen communities) to improve calving habitat. 6) Encourage land managers to manage portions of forests in early succession stages. DEER HERD UNIT MANAGEMENT PLAN Deer Herd Unit # 10 Book Cliffs March 2012 A) Maintain and/or enhance forage production through direct range improvements to support and maintain herd population management objectives. B) Work with private landowners and, federal, state, local and tribal governments to maintain and protect critical and existing ranges from future losses and degradation. C) Provide improved habitat security and escapement opportunities for deer. Habitat Management Strategies; A) Work cooperatively to utilize grazing, prescribed burning and other recognized vegetative manipulation techniques to enhance deer forage quantity and quality. A)Protect, maintain, and/or improve deer habitat through direct range improvements to support and maintain herd population management objectives. B)Work with private landowners and federal, state, and local governments to maintain and protect critical and existing ranges from future losses and degradation through grazing management and OHV and Travel Plan modifications. C)Work with federal, private, and state partners to improve crucial deer habitats through the WRI process. Elk Herd Unit Management Plan Elk Herd Unit #10 Bookcliffs Improve forage and cover values on elk summer ranges. Practices will include prescribed fire, selective logging, and mechanical treatments that promote a diverse age structure in aspen communities. Over 300 acres per year will be targeted. * Remove pinyon-juniper encroachment into winter range sagebrush parks and summer range mountain brush communities. Over 500 acres per year will be targeted using primarily mechanical treatments. Habitat * Promote sustainable livestock grazing practices that minimize negative impacts to plant health and diversity, especially on summer ranges and on SITLA and DWR lands where DWR holds the grazing permit or controls livestock grazing. * Develop new and protect/improve existing water sources for wildlife and livestock to improve distribution and minimize overutilization in proximity to water sources. * Remove coniferous and juniper tree encroachment into winter range, sagebrush park lands, and summer range aspen forest and mountain browse communities. Approximately 1,500 acres per year will be targeted. * Open the closed canopy pinion--juniper forest lands at mid elevation zones throughout the Book Cliffs to enhance perennial understory vegetative maintenance. Approximately 1,500 acres per year will be targeted utilizing mechanical and prescribed fire technology. * Enhance riparian system and canyon bottom vegetative communities through continued agricultural practices, prescriptive grazing and mechanical or chemical treatments. Emphasis on greasewood community improvement will continue. * Manage to minimize wild horse herds and their impacts. * Explore ways to improve Wyoming sagebrush community condition and perennial vegetative health. * Improve existing canyon bottom riparian communities by treating greasewood and over mature sagebrush through chemical, mechanical, and other methods, and minimize impacts on croplands in these habitats.
Fire / Fuels:
In rangeland, the most profound impact of cheatgrass is its influence on fire regimes. Cheatgrass increases the continuity of fine-textured fuel which promotes larger and more frequent fires. Because the fire return interval is shortened, perennial vegetation is unable to completely recover before the next fire. At the same time, cheatgrass continues to increase, promoting larger and more frequent fires. Perennial vegetation is eventually removed from the system, resulting in a near monoculture of cheatgrass (MT200811AG Revised 6/12). Wildfire in 1994 and 2005 have resulted in a dense cheatgrass mono-culture which dominates this area. The loss of sagebrush and other native vegetation combined with the invasion of cheatgrass into the burned area has altered the ecosystem integrity and productivity. The project intends to reduce unnatural increases in wildfire frequency in project areas and in adjacent sagebrush communities. Additionally, by treating the area with Imazapic (Plateau) herbicide prior to seeding this project should reduce the amount of flammable cheat grass in the area. Without treatment, the area is considered to be at a very high risk of more frequent and intense wildland fires. Reducing the fire risk in the Phase 3 treatment area would reduce fire risk in Phase I and Phase II treatment areas and adjacent sagebrush areas. These areas offer crucial antelope habitat, potential pronghorn fawning grounds, critical winter habitat for mule deer and year-long habitat for elk. The area also supports habitats for ferruginous hawk, white-tailed prairie dogs and kit fox and forging areas for eagles and various other raptor and migratory bird species.
Water Quality/Quantity:
In addition to reducing cheatgrass cover and creating vegetative diversity, this project will create structural diversity on this landscape. Sagebrush plants are good at catching drifting snow and holding that snow longer into the spring. This could result in more available moisture for other plants. Cheatgrass, as a winter annual, gains a competitive advantage over native and rangeland species that may not grow very much through the fall and winter and do not begin growth as early in the spring. Soil water depletion is one of the primary mechanisms by which cheatgrass competes with vegetation. This is especially problematic when attempting to revegetate land infested with cheatgrass. As spring precipitation diminishes and summer temperatures rise, perennial grass seedlings may not be big enough to survive, while cheatgrass plants are already producing seed to continue the next generation (MT200811AG Revised 6/12).
Compliance:
NEPA has been completed.
Methods:
Aerial spray all locations with Plateau herbicide during the late winter or early spring before cheatgrass germination begins.
Monitoring:
Monitoring will consist of randomly located vegetation transects with the purpose of measuring both over-story and under-story vegetation change. Measurements will include line-point intercept cover, tree density, species richness, and seeded species frequency using BLM's Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) protocols. Repeat photographs will also be taken.
Partners:
BLM, UDWR will contract the spraying
Future Management:
The goal is knock back cheatgrass infestation with one application of pre-emergent herbicide which has be shown to decrease germination for two growth cycles. After two seasons the areas will be assessed to validate if additional or more aggressive applications are needed.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
although this may affect grazing in the short term. It will hopefully lead to better forage in the long term.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$274,940.00 $0.00 $274,940.00 $0.00 $274,940.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Aerial herbicide treatment 11,012 ac @ 20/ac $224,240.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Materials and Supplies Plateau Herbicide 11,012ac 4oz/ac) = 345 gal @ $100*gal = $34,500 $34,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Contractual Services SITLA - Aerial herbicide treatment 700 ac @ 20/ac $14,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Materials and Supplies SITLA - Plateau Herbicide 700ac 4oz/ac) = 22 gal @ $100*gal = $2,200 $2,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$300,000.00 $0.00 $300,000.00 $635.24 $300,635.24
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $635.24 2024
BLM BIL Funds A099 Mod 12 $300,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bighorn Sheep N4 R2
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Black Rosy-finch N4
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Chukar R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Ferruginous Hawk N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Kit Fox N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Project Comments
Comment 11/20/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jason Kirks
Welcome to the Canyon Country Cheatgrass Control collaborative. With this project I'm hoping to treat between 10 and 20 thousand acres of previous mastication units within Grand and San Juan Counties. I have started the base project so please feel free to edit and expand the verbiage with your expertise. I would also like your help to identify more partners and previous mastication treatments for this proposal. Thanks
Comment 01/17/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Charles Fischer
old comment
Comment 12/28/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Robbie Wood
The Plateau Herbicide label clearly states "All precautions should be taken to minimize or eliminate spray drift... When making applications by fixed wing aircraft maintain appropriate buffer zones to prevent spray drift out of the target area" While im sure the entire label has been read by project managers.. im wondering what precautions are intended to prevent such drift and follow this statement?
Comment 01/04/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jason Kirks
The precautions we will follow are on the label directly under the sentence you quoted in the "Aerial Application" section.
Comment 01/17/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Gibson
I agree with the potential benefits to kit fox, however, you don't list them in the species list. Also, some of the areas you plan to treat look good for wintering spots for Black-rosy Finches and increasing native forbs in those sites could have positive effects (i.e. I suggest you list both kit fox and Black-rosy Finch).
Comment 01/17/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Charles Fischer
Thanks Added
Comment 01/19/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Makeda Hanson
You could add chukar as a benefitting species on this project. Although chukar use cheatgrass, they would benefit from having a greater diversity of seeds from perennial grasses and forbs. You could also add ferruginous hawk as this project will benefit the forage for their prey base in this area. Also, please add adjacent SITLA lands to this project. Treating these adjoining areas will reduce spread from untreated lands adjacent to treated BLM.
Comment 01/19/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Charles Fischer
Hey Makeda I have added the listed species. I also just emailed Slate Stewart to see if he is willing to partner on this.
Comment 01/23/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Did somebody say chukar, hmmm!
Comment 01/23/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
"utilizing Plateau or newly approved cheatgrass specific surfactants or granular products." I have a clarity question. I copied and pasted a sentence out of your short description on the title page. In the methods you are specific with Plateau being the herbicide of use but in the pasted sentence above you leave it a little more open to "newly approved cheatgrass specific surfacants or granular products". I'm wondering if you could clarify. More specifically I'm kinda wondering if you are leaving it open to Rejuvra if BLM can get it on the approved herbicide list, which I am told might be this year.
Comment 01/23/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Charles Fischer
Currently we are only approved for Plateau. As you have pointed out though, if something new is approved before we implement this we would be open to switching our herbicide. That is if the new herbicide had longer lasting results.
Comment 01/23/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
Great, good to hear there is flexibility. I've been told it may be approved for BLM this year but you know how that goes, this year leads to next year and so on. This site sounds like a perfect candidate for Rejuvra (active ingredient indaziflam) since there is perennial veg established and no seeding will happen. Rejuvra does have longer-term control of cheatgrass. The benefit is control last through the life-span of the seed bank (5 years). Utah has been slow to embrace it but in most other states it is the gold standard in the right situation. I think we are slow to use it because most of our cheatgrass is on BLM and we are waiting on approval. A few of us have put it on private and state lands throughout the state. Anyway, good discussion thanks.
Comment 02/01/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kya Marienfeld
Perhaps a big lift/ impossible task, but are you able to provide a general narrative about how the treatment sites here got to this specific/ degraded condition? Would be great to close the loop for future prevention as well as the treatment proposed here. I realize "what caused the cheatgrass invasion" is a rather huge question with lots of answers, but could be a good thing to address here, especially with regard to monitoring and future seeding/ treatment on these sites. Thanks!
Comment 02/02/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Charles Fischer
Sure Kya, It would be impossible for us to point to one single source for the cheat grass invasion within these areas. I can give a broad overview of cheat grass. Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum) is native to Eurasia and the Mediterranean and accidently introduced into the United States in the early 1800s. its a invasive species that germinates before native vegetation eventually out competing and overtaking areas. Cheat grass as small bars on the seed that allow it easily attach to fur, socks, bootlaces and many other surfaces further expanding its range. Our concern with cheat grass is that it speeds up the fire return interval for a given area. Fire being a major disturbance only adds to the problem by clearing more vegetation letting the grass expand and thicken in cover. Using a preemergent early in the season before the seeds have time to germinate will stop a growing season for cheat grass letting perennials strengthen. This will also give fire fighters a area clear of the thick flammable vegetation to use as containment features.
Comment 02/09/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kya Marienfeld
Thanks, Charlie. I was more wondering if there was a specific disturbance event/ events that really brought such a heavy population in or it was more just the "yep, cheatgrass gonna cheatgrass" story of the West. I certainly understand what cheatgrass is, how it spreads, and why it is an issue. Was more wondering if in the particular areas planned for treatment there were any design features, monitoring, or future mitigation planned so we aren't right back here again in ten years- i.e. was it a particular human disturbance, drought, a past fire, etc. Seems like you may not have that info, so that's fine. Thanks!
Comment 02/13/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Charles Fischer
thanks for the comment cheat grass will cheat grass
Comment 01/10/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
couple things. Please change your map from "affected area" to a more appropriate feature type like aerial herbicide then select the chemical. Also, consider adding photos to get the bonus points for proposal quality
Comment 01/17/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Charles Fischer
Done thank you
Comment 08/30/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
1. Please give some more details in the Completion Form about this project so anyone reading the report can understand the who, what, when, why, how, etc. of the project without needing to read the entire proposal. 2. Upload pictures of during and after the treatment. 3. 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 and ready for review. Thanks.
Comment 09/11/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Charlie - I need more. These are just a few of the questions I had while I was reading. What was the rate of the application for each herbicide? Active ingredient/acre? Gallons per acre? Was anything else added to the tank mix besides water? When was the herbicide applied? Why were there 2 different herbicides used. Who was the contractor? Was this a state contract or IDIQ? Was this all BLM land? Partners? Were they previously treated areas or areas that will be treated in the future? In other words, why were you doing the treatment? How many acres did you treat? I know a lot of the answers to these questions but someone not familiar with the project will have to hunt around for the information. I also understand that this was fully funded by BLM but because the money came through the BLM agreement it will be scrutinized. Your leadership and the GMO for these agreements may or may not read every single completion report, but if they do the information needs to be there, clearly stated in the completion report. You need to be in that mindset when you are writing these reports.
Comment 09/13/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thanks for making those corrections/additions. I have moved this project to completed.
Completion
Start Date:
11/01/2023
End Date:
11/30/2023
FY Implemented:
2024
Final Methods:
Fixed wing aircraft was used to apply herbicide on the entire project area. Plateau was used in areas north of Moab. Any areas south of Moab used a granular formula called open range. hidden valley trail was closed temporarily while the flew on the granular herbicide. 1) Application rates 7lbs an acre for open range, Plateau 4 oz./acre with a mix of 10 gallons of water and Super Spread MSO 32 ounces per acres. Active ingredient in both herbicides imazapic 2) Herbicide was applied through out the month of November 2024 3) Contract completed by Colorado fire and aviation contracted through the state of Utah 4) BLM and State land treated 5) Total acres treated 11,016
Project Narrative:
Plateau was applied on northern section granular open range was applied to the hidden valley unit and the moab operations center. Granular formula was used in areas closer to the city of Moab so dry times were not a issue upon for public reentry.
Future Management:
Native seed mix will be flown on November 2025, monitoring on project areas for will continue to see if follow up treatments are required.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
12595 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Aerial (fixed-wing)
12756 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Aerial (fixed-wing)
12757 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Aerial (fixed-wing)
Project Map
Project Map