Indian Creek South Pasture II
Project ID: 5729
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2023
Submitted By: 953
Project Manager: Jeremy Cox
PM Agency: Bureau of Land Management
PM Office: Cedar City
Lead: Bureau of Land Management
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Improve 2439 acres(BLM) land for wintering mule deer, elk, livestock and reduce hazardous fuels near Manderfield, Utah by seeding and chaining pinyon-juniper woodland and older age class decadent sagebrush.
Location:
Indian Creek South Pasture project is located 1 mile East of Manderfield, Utah within the Indian Creek Watershed.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Indian Creek South Pasture project is phase 5 of a multiple phase project designed to treat up to 20,000 acres. The area is dominated by stands of various aged pinyon and juniper trees with young trees encroaching into areas of sagebrush steppe causing a downward trend in herbaceous cover. Some areas within the site have little remnant sagebrush, bitterbrush, forb, and grass component. The project area serves as important seasonal habitat for several species of wildlife including but not limited to mule deer, elk, and many shrub steppe species. In particular, this project is needed and proposed to re-establish healthy sagebrush-steppe ecosystem. High tree density also increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire, thus threatening the communities of Manderfield, and North Creek, Utah, and outlying residential properties. A catastrophic wildfire could also increase the risk of invasive species and erosion. Past phases of this project have proven successful in restoring early seral stages of vegetation, decreasing erosion, improving species diversity, functional plant compositions, improving rangeland conditions for mule deer, elk, and livestock. As well as benefitting many other wildlife species. The project shares a fence line with private property that has irrigated alfalfa fields. Wildlife depredation issues are on going and this project is expected to help alleviate some of the problems, as past phases have been successful at achieving this goal.
Objectives:
1)Restore and enhance 2,439 Acres of Mule deer and elk winter range within the Beaver management unit. 2) Reintroduce healthy, viable, perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs on historical sage and mountain brush sites. 3) Re-establish frequency of grasses to 20%, forbs to 10%, and shrubs to 35%. 4) Restore percent canopy cover of grasses to 30%, forbs to 10%, and shrubs to 30%. 5) Decrease hazardous fuels by removing up to 95% of standing pinyon and juniper. 6) Reduce pinyon and juniper density. Maintain or improve vegetative diversity and age class structure. 7) Reduce sedimentation through erosion into the Beaver River.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The invasion of pinyon and juniper trees into areas once dominated by grasses, forbs, and shrubs increases the risk of losing key areas for mule deer, elk, and many shrub steppe species. The increase of pinyon and juniper also increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire. The risk of invasion of cheatgrass and rabbitbrush and loss of sagebrush after a wildfire could further impact critical habitat. High tree density also increases the risk of catastrophic wildfire, thus threatening the communities of Manderfield, and North creek. A catastrophic wildfire could also increase the risk of invasive species and erosion. Past phases of projects adjacent to this proposed project have proven successful in meeting objectives. However, as with any surface disturbing activity in sagebrush ecosystems, there is a low potential for weed invasion. BLM will aggressively treat any noxious weeds in the area if found. This project is adjacent to private property that's at risk of being developed and in turn we would loose critical wildlife habitat. By treating this area it would provide a place for these displaced animals to winter that has a high quality and quantity of forage.
Relation To Management Plan:
Numerous management plans have identified the need for these projects. This project falls within the Beaver Mule Deer Herd Unit Management Plan (Deer Herd Unit #22). This plan was updated in 2015 and 22% of the acres are on BLM. Habitat management strategies listed as part of this plan include: 1) developing specific vegetative objectives and cooperation with federal land management agencies to remove pinyon juniper to maintain the quality of important deer use areas, coordinating with federal and state partners to improve fire resilience and work toward long-term habitat protection and preservation through agreements. This plan specifically calls out the need to reduce pinyon and juniper and to reduce wildfire within sagebrush step areas. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer (2008). Section IV Statewide management goals and objectives. This plan 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 2013 (p11-12). Strategy C. 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. Strategy f. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages. Utah Elk Management Plan (2015) * initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve elk habitat with emphasis on calving habitat and winter ranges. * Remove pinyon-juniper encroachment into winter range sagebrush parks, summer, and transitional range mountain brush communities. The proposed project is consistent with the Southern Utah Support Area Fire Management Plan dated September 9, 2004, which states: Treat up to 12,000 acres with prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. BLM's Final Programmatic Environmental Report: Vegetation Treatments on BLM Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Report, June 2007, The Fundamental of Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180) and Utah's Standards and Guidelines for Rangeland Health which address watersheds, ecological condition, water quality and habitat for special status species, National Fire Plan (2000), Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 which state protecting forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands from unnaturally intensive and destructive fires. Utah Wildlife Action Plan (2015) Lowland sagebrush is a key habitat identified in the WAP WAP identifies inappropriate fire frequency as a threat to lowland sagebrush habitat. This project will reduce future fire risk and act as a fire buffer to adjacent higher risk areas. Coordinated Implementation Plan for Bird Conservation in Utah (2005) Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 which state protecting forests, woodlands, shrub lands, and grasslands from unnaturally intensive and destructives fires Utah Wildlife conservation Strategy (2005)
Fire / Fuels:
Removal of pinyon and Junipers will reduce the risks of a catastrophic wildfire. This area is in critical deer and elk winter range where a large uncontrolled fire would most likely have short term and possible long term detriments to the wildlife in the area. This project would greatly reduce the risk of a large wildfire, and detour the growth of a surrounding fire. Our ojectives are to move it from class 2 and 3 back to functioning class 1 fire regime.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Completion of this project would reduce flooding and runoff from heavy rainstorms by depositing woody debris in the gullies to slow and hold back the water. Currently with the pinyon and Juniper on site there is a lot of bare ground available for erosion. By planting this treatment with a variety of grasses, forbs and shrubs the ground cover will be greatly increased, which will decrease the potential for erosion. Areas that become dominated by by pinyon and juniper out compete understory herbaceous species and leave bare soil prone to erosion. This herbaceous vegetation is important to reducing overland flow and reducing soil loss. Pinyon and juniper dominated sites can intercept 10-20% of precipitation (Horman et al., 1999). By completing this project this will allow more precip to contact the soil and get into the water table where there is a higher density of pinyon and juniper. Treating areas of lower densities will prevent a future situation as described above. According to Folliott 2012, research showed that pinyon and juniper expansion into areas historically dominated by higher forbs and grasses impeded streamflow for off-site uses. Because pinyon and juniper is very competitive for water this often reduces grasses and forbs within the area. "The increase in bare soil, particularly in the spaces between trees, typically leads to increased runoff and soil loss as the juniper infestation increases" (Thurow 1997). Increased runoff and sediment load decreases water yield and water quality within the watershed. Studies have shown that an evaluation of alternatives using conversion treatments to enhance stream-flow in the pinyon and juniper should be made (Barr 1956). It could be thus assumed that by completing the pinyon and juniper removal project that more water will enter the soil profile and streams, wet meadows, and springs will continue to flow and have the potential to increase flow.
Compliance:
Archaeological clearances are completed for the South Pasture portion and we will be including the Arc clearance for the out year North Wildcat (873 acres) in this proposal. NEPA was signed in May, 2013. Wildlife clearances will be completed prior to implementation and any concerns will be properly mitigated prior to treatment.
Methods:
Pinyon, Juniper and decadent Wyoming and Black Sage, which currently occupy and are encroaching on the site will be removed with the use of an Ely Chain. Islands and corridors of pinyon and juniper would remain untreated throughout the unit, creating a mosaic pattern of treated and untreated vegetation. Before mechanical implementation, treated areas would be broadcast seeded with a mix of native and non-native shrubs, grasses and forbs critical to improving winter mule deer and elk range, and stabilization of soils. 873 acres of our year archaeological clearances is being proposed for following years project that is directly north of this proposed chaining. This area clearance will be for a mastication project.
Monitoring:
Monitoring would consist of nested frequency and photo points. Information would continue to be collected from existing BLM and UDWR studies. Range monitoring is collected on each allotment on a periodic basis to monitor livestock and their associated impact. Monitoring data included both long-term studies and short term indicators. Long term monitoring would include nested frequency, cover and photo points to determine overall trend of the pasture. This area was brought to my attention by the Division of Wildlife resources as being a high priority area that has some serious on going big game depredation issues, elk and deer are in close proximity to private agricultural areas. Past phases of similar treatments have greatly reduced depredation issues on private agriculture fields. The Divisions Wildlife biologist will be closely monitory this area counting big game numbers using visual animal counts and pellet group counts. NRCS will conduct measurement of vegetation growth for 2 years after the treatment. A non-contracted grazing management plan will also be provide.
Partners:
On a recent tour with representatives from Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife group, they said they are in support of our previous treatment in the area which is similar to this proposed project. Working closely with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to ensure layout and implementation of the project meets objectives and satisfies the needs of all the species impacted by the treatment. Consulted with Great Basin Research Center to compile the most appropriate species to include in the seed mix.
Future Management:
All areas seeded will be rested for a minimum of two complete growing seasons or until the seedlings become established and successful. The pasture will be rested for two years. Once seeding establishment has been confirmed, BLM may authorize grazing according to Utah's Fundamentals of Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Grazing Management (2007). Vegetation will continue to be monitored for utilization, cover and trend. Following the rest period, the current management plan will govern. If needed, grazing adjustments would be made in Grazing Allotment Plans and through the grazing permit renewal process. Future maintenance projects to protect investments made by UWRI/BLM have been addressed and are allowed through the environmental assessment .
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
This area is currently used from May 20th to July 20th by BLM cattle permitees. The forage quality and availability would greatly increase in the area after implementation of the project. Completion of this project would help distribute animal use over the area, which would reduce concentrated use in certain areas. This area is popular for wildlife viewing and hunting elk and deer for the public. Improving wildlife habitat and rangeland quality is important for the local community and Beaver County.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$403,839.00 $0.00 $403,839.00 $33,000.00 $436,839.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Aerial seeding contract BLM 2440acres @ $15/ac $36,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Seed (GBRC) Seed purchase for 2440/acres of BLM administered lands @ $50.51acre $123,239.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Contractual Services Chaining on BLM portion, 2440 @ $100/ac $244,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Personal Services (permanent employee) labor to operate dozers $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 2023
Other Cadastral Survey $0.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 2023
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$447,804.17 $0.00 $447,804.17 $33,000.00 $480,804.17
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
BLM Fuels (Color Country) $0.00 $0.00 $33,000.00 2023
BLM Fuels (Color Country) A088 Mod 8 $14,661.86 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) T224 $433,142.31 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Housing and Urban Areas Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Cabin Communities / Development Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/15/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Jeremy, I encourage that surveys be conducted for pinyon jay nesting colonies in the ~830 project area around Cedar Knoll. No sense negatively impacting pinyon jays if they are present. Keith
Comment 01/19/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
We will conduct a wildlife survey prior to the project implementation for all species, pinyon jays being one of them and will make adjustments to the project to mitigate any potential negative impacts Thanks Keith
Comment 01/23/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jonathan Paklaian
Jeremy, do you have pictures pre-during-post from the earlier phases/parts of the project? It appears what are uploaded are just one part of the project area pre-treatment? I'm looking for a little more clarification on what has been done where and when. Thanks.
Comment 01/25/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Johnathon, I added several photos of the prior project that lies directly north of the proposed project. The two sights are are almost identical from a vegetative and soils stand point. The photos are two years post treatment and is very representative of the results were expecting from the currently proposed treatment. Thanks for the question, photos defiantly tell the story best.
Comment 02/01/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Jeremy, You mention NRCS funding in the proposal, but I don't see that reflected in the budget? There is also an 873 acre "Affected Area" feature on the map but I don't see anything in the budget or methods explaining what is happening on these acres? Cultural? You could get more points if you found a SGCN that had some benefit and discussed potential "Other Sustainable Uses" besides livestock that benefit from the proposed work. Mike
Comment 02/12/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Mike, Thanks for the comments and questions. This project originally included a piece of private property. The funding did not come through for the NRCS portion and I pulled the budget part out and missed that part in the write up, the project will just be on BLM managed land. The feature you're referring to on the map is an out year archeological clearance for a future project. The proposed project already has archeological clearance completed and were trying to get one step ahead for the next phase. It was discussed in other parts of the proposal and I just added it to the methods section as well hopefully that helps clear up that question. Based off our wildlife survey in the proposed project area, pygmy rabbits may benefit from the proposed project. Pygmy rabbit sign was observed last year during our wildlife survey. Note that even though the report lists yellow-billed cuckoo as potential to be in the project area, I would say that the project is not suitable habitat for cuckoos (they require riparian creeks and rivers with dense cottonwood stands, which there is some cottonwoods on private land just south of the project area). Condors have the potential to use the habitat for foraging, but no critical habitat of and T&E species are designated within or near the proposed project area. I'll add pygmy rabbit to proposal to reflect is presence there. Thank you.
Comment 02/18/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hey Jeremy - Wondering if you can elaborate on your pygmy rabbit sign? We just checked our data and show nothing current or historical in the area. Was the sign that was noted both pellets and burrows or just 1 of the 2? In any case if the sighting is accurate we would be very interested in some datasharing so we can add it to our info.
Comment 02/22/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Gary, that statement is from the wildlife survey that was done early this summer. I'll have to chat with the biologists about that and see how conclusive their data is.
Comment 02/03/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
What is the difference between this project and Project 4857?
Comment 02/04/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jeremy Cox
Scott, Their basically the same project, however since the archeological survey was done last year under the older previous number I was instructed to list this one under a new name and number. Thanks..
Comment 08/28/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
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. It is mostly the why and who that are missing. Will you also add something to the completion report about the affected area that is on the map? 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 09/01/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
I am still not seeing anything in the report about the affected area that you have on your map. Was there some out year arch completed as part of this project?
Comment 09/11/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
On the completion report, in the Final Method section, the last sentence looks as though it wasn't completed or got cutoff. It currently reads "The Northern polygon shown as the map ..."
Comment 09/19/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Completion reports were due August 31st. Please correct the issue(s) listed in the comment above. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Be sure to click the Finalize button on the completion form so I know that the completion info is ready to be reviewed again. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
11/02/2022
End Date:
04/26/2023
FY Implemented:
2023
Final Methods:
D8 Dozers were rented from Wheeler Machinery and BLM employees operated these using an Ely chain to remove trees and brush and incorporate the seed which was aerially applied prior to chaining. Trees and sage brush were becoming old and decadent and it was decided to use this method to improve this sight for wildlife and livestock benefit. Seed was applied by Hammond Helicopter using fixed winged air craft in October of 2022. The area was then treated using two D8 dozers and an Ely chain. Project was partially completed in November and December and due to heavy and deep snow it was postponed until March 15th until conditions were acceptable. The project took an additional five weeks to finish chaining the seeded area and was finished April 26th, 2022.
Project Narrative:
Seed was delivered and application started November 2nd, 2022. Seeding was compled on November 3rd, 2022. The Chaining began with one set of D8 Bulldozers on December 6, 2022. Three weeks into the project the areas received a heavy amount of snow and it was determined due to conditions to post pone chaining until weather allowed for optimal condition. Chaining resumed March 15th, 2022. The chaining was completed April 26th, 2022.
Future Management:
The permittee will not graze the treated areas for two growing seasons. Upon the end of the two growing season the appropriate land management agency will discuss the grazing management determined by the recovery of the treated areas. Bureau of Land management employees will continue to monitor the treatment areas for the two growing seasons and establish some monitoring sites.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
10197 Terrestrial Treatment Area Anchor chain Ely (2-way)
10197 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-fixed wing)
Project Map
Project Map