East Fork Sevier brush removal
Project ID: 5754
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2023
Submitted By: 523
Project Manager: Jake Schoppe
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Powell Ranger District
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
A brush removal project along the East Fork of the Sevier River to remove encroaching rabbitbrush and sagebrush in active Utah Prairie dog (UPD) colonies. Project would utilize tractor based brush removal equipment such as a mower to cut brush and treat with herbicide to prolong effectiveness. Brush removal will facilitate habitat effectiveness within UPD habitat.
Location:
Project is located in Garfield County Utah, on the Dixie National Forest, Powell Ranger District. It is situated north of Tropic Reservoir. Approximately 4 miles west of Ruby's Inn and the entrance to Bryce canyon national park.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The East Fork area consist of open grass and wet meadow bottomlands surrounded by ponderosa pine parklands on pink Claron formation soils. The proposed treatment area serves as a connection for UPD to other meadows on the Paunsaugunt portion of the UPD recovery unit. The Forest Service has invested in ecological restoration efforts in this area during the last several years through underburning ponderosa pine and PJ from meadows and in cleaning and sealing ponds nearby. The brush removal is considered to be a key component as it will improve grazing capacity for wildlife and livestock and more importantly allow for Utah Prairie Dog (UPD) expansion beyond the existing footprint where colonies are currently found. The stream flowing through the treatment areas (East Creek) provides high quality habitat for a native Bonneville trout fishery. Replacing upland vegetation with hydric species will improve habitat for native trout and native speckled dace in the creek. Because the project area provides critical habitat for Threatened Utah Prairie Dog there is a great need to remove the rabbitbrush and provide for habitat maintenance as well as possible expansion of this species. Because Plague is huge threat to this species, providing for this habitat improvement which is more distant from larger colonies provides for biological security across the range.
Objectives:
UPD have occupied the project area on and off for the last 10 years consistently. Over time and with plague abatement efforts the colony has grown. The objectives of the project are to: 1) Reduce rabbit brush and sagebrush across 89 acres. 2) Improve habitat characteristics for Utah Prairie Dog and other wildlife including mule deer, elk, and pronghorn that utilize the meadow complex. 3) Allow for expansion of UPD into areas cleared of brush, and 4) Improve forage capacity for livestock and wildlife by increasing grasses and removing brush.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Continued expansion and establishment of rabbitbrush and native sage within the project area is a threat as these shrub-types are increasing in the area. As more brush becomes established it will push out grasses and forbs as well as reduce the habitat effectiveness for wildlife in the area. Waiting longer to treat this site greatly increases the likelihood that UPD will abandon the area instead of expanding or maintaining their range in this meadow complex. Timely treatment is necessary as the area provides a corridor to other colonies. Because the area has limited connectivity to other large colonies it is more critical that this project happens immediately. Some invasive non-native musk thistle is also found at the proposed treatment site but is limited. UPD will not tolerate the taller vegetation (brush) and will eventually leave the are if it becomes to brushy. As with any type of disturbance, there is some risk that undesirable species (weeds) will establish post-treatment. Powell Ranger District has had good success with treating this vegetation type in the past by treating late in the fall/winter and wet-mopping with herbicide. Proper timing and treatment of rabbitbrush will minimize the risk to wildlife as well. During late fall and early winter, UPD will be underground and will not be disturbed by mechanized equipment. The proposed project addresses the following threats and risks identified in the Utah Wildlife Action Plan: Invasive Plant species-Non Native: The project will seek to eliminate Musk Thistle and reduce rabbitbrush that reduce wildlife habitat effectiveness as well as ungulate forage capacity. The project will allow for more effective control of both species. Problematic Plant Species - Native Upland. Rabbitbrush is a native plant that is know to colonize an area and create dense shrub cover that overcrowds the grass/forb understory. Over time this species can dominate a site. This treatment will reverse that where applied. In addition to the threats above, there have been several spring and summer sightings of Greater sage grouse that are now utilizing the East fork and Blue fly areas,as brood rearing habitat. The proposed project will enhnace this brood rearing habitat by removing the encroaching brush and facilitating grasses and forbs within the meadow areas.
Relation To Management Plan:
1)Utah's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP): The WAP identifies the following key habitats that would be addressed by this project: Riverine, and Mountain sagebrush. The WAP lists Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity a high-level threat for BCT and mule deer. Actions supported by the project include: 2.3.14 Conduct upland vegetation treatments to restore characteristic upland vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings, 2.3.15 and 2.3.17 Apply or allow more fire in habitats/locations where fire was historically more frequent or intense. The WAP lists Problematic Plant Species - Native Upland as a Very High-level threat to Mountain sagebrush communities. The proposed project reduces risk from invasive species by addressing the invasive rabbitbrush and catastrophic fire issues by mechanically removing rabbitbrush. The proposed mowing and herbicide treatments addresses several key issues by removing the threat from fire, reducing impact followed with noxious weeds, improving grazing distribution on the cattle allotment, reduces sediment and run-off into the east fork of the Sevier river, and improves overall habitat effectiveness for the Utah Prairie dog, Greater Sage grouse, and Mule deer. The project has been coordinated with the Utah Prairie dog recovery team and will be discussed with COCARM Greater Sage grouse working group. The project is relevant to the following plans including: Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-Grouse in Utah - Feb 14, 2013. pp. 4 Objective 2.0.3 Habitat: Enhance an average of 25,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat in Sage-grouse Management Areas annually. Color Country Greater Sage-Grouse local conservation plan. Feb 9, 2008. Section V. Conservation Strategy. pp 53 - Strategy: Reduce impacts of concentrated wildlife or livestock use of sage-grouse winter and brood-rearing habitat. Utah Statewide Mule-deer Management Plan: Improve habitat and forage. Deer Herd Unit # 27 (Paunsaugunt) May 2015 :Cooperate with federal land management agencies and private landowners in carrying out habitat improvement projects. Protect deer winter ranges from wildfire by reseeding burned areas, creating fuel breaks and reseed areas dominated by cheatgrass with desirable perennial vegetation. Utah Statewide Elk management Plan: Improve habitat and forage in Utah. Paunsaugunt Elk herd management plan #27: Continue to be committed to the statewide goal of supporting habitat projects that increase forage for both big game and livestock. Utah's Wildlife Action Plan - Improve habitat for Greater Sage Grouse - a SGCN Utah Prairie Dog Conservation Agreement and Strategy on Federal Lands in the Paunsaugunt Recovery Unit. October 2018: pp. 11 3) Manage and improve Utah prairie dog habitat on Federal lands. pp. 19 Vegetation treatments will be planned and implemented as needed in strategic locations (including translocation sites) to benefit Utah prairie dogs and their habitats. Utah Statewide Pronghorn Management plan: B. Habitat Management Goal: Conserve and improve pronghorn habitat throughout the state. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: Utah Prairie dog (High Threat), Species of Greater Conservation Need pp16. Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management plan: plan - pp. IV-84, Standard: A. Maintain habitat capability at a level at least 80 % of potential capability for all emphasized species. And. pp. IV-112, 6A management direction, (1) Maintain and manage forested inclusions to provide a high level of forage production, wildlife habitat, and diversity. Garfield County current desired future conditions and Draft resource management plan. pp. 5 Wildlife Goal: Prior to December 31, 2025, land managers will seek to have habitats supporting important fish and wildlife species meet the following seral stage ranges: Early Stage 30% to 50% Mid Stage 30% to 40% Late Stage Less than 25%And Policy...Based on a 10 year rolling average and consistent with desired ecological site descriptions, restore at least 25% of the Class II and Class III pinyon / juniper woodlands having a median age of less than 200 years to sagebrush / semi-desert grassland vegetation communities. Garfield County Resource plan. pp. 130 g) The most efficient techniques possible are used to control cheatgrass, invasive conifers, rabbitbrush and noxious weeds. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan. pp.79, (2.3.1) Plan and implement vegetation treatments in strategic locations (including translocation sites) that benefit Utah Prairie Dogs and their habitat. UTAH'S FINAL 2016 INTEGRATED REPORT - The area draining this project is in Assessment Unit East Fork Sevier-2 which the reports lists as a Category 5 water "Category 5: The concentration of a pollutant--or several pollutants--exceeds numeric water quality criteria, or quantitative biological assessments indicate that the biological designated uses are not supported (narrative water quality standards are violated)." Reducing sediment generation in this watershed may contribute to improving the O/E Assessment score for macroinvertebrates causing this exceedance.
Fire / Fuels:
Rabbitbrush can be a highly volatile fuel type with extreme flame length. When fires burn in rabbitbush they are intense, hot, and deadly to small mammals. More importantly fire does not kill rabbitbrush and it generally sprouts back from roots immediately. The proposed mastication and herbicide treatment is a proven technique that works to address this issue. Fuels characteristics can be altered through changing the structure of the fuel type. While rabbitbrush can be highly flammable, removing it will create more of a grass fuel type where flame lengths and fire intensity is diminished and make suppression efforts much easier. Nearby vegetation and other wildlife habitat will be protected by minimizing the potential for long flame lengths and extreme fire behavior.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project area is in the East creek drainage which encompasses many small perennial tributaries. The East Fork Sevier River is within the Department of Environmental Quality's Assessment Unit East Fork Sevier-2 (East Fork Sevier River and tributaries from Deer Creek confluence to Tropic Reservoir). The 2016 Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Assessment showed that the beneficial use of this area was impaired because of a low OE Bioassessment (i.e. poor macroinvertebrate community). Fine sediment loading is a known cause of impairment of benthic macroinvertebrate communities (Waters 1995, Turley et al. 2014). Improving vegetation composition and ground cover from the project should contribute to fine sediment loading reductions in this project area. Because the treatments is proposed in the meadow areas adjacent to the intermittent Blue Fly creek, there will be immediate riparian and meadow benefits. The benefits of healthy riparian vegetation and connected floodplains and wetlands to water quality, as well as water storage and release are well documented. Riparian vegetation buffers can trap sediment during overbank flow events and prevent sediment from overland runoff from reaching stream channels (Belt, O'Laughlin, & Merrill, 1992). Fine sediment input to streams can lead to an associated increase in nutrient loading, decreased dissolved oxygen and an increase in waterborne diseases. Stream bank stability is instrumental in preventing excessive erosion. Willow-sedge communities are among the best for maintaining stream bank stability (Winward, 2000). This project proposes removing invasive rabbitbrush and allowing the natural grass and wet-meadow carex/sedge species to take hold and provide for the natural vegetation filter needed for good stream and watershed health. As discussed elsewhere in this proposal improving uplands to have more grass, forbs, and shrubs in the understory can also improve water quality by leading to less generation of sediment during overland flow events and thereby delivering less sediment to a riparian area and stream. This project proposes to remove invasive brush and allow for these critical grasses and sedges to re-occupy the site which should result in immediate decreased sediment generation via mulch and slash from treatment covering bare ground. In several areas throughout the east creek drainage and entire Paunsaugunt plateau there have been head cuts and stream incision that has contributed to lower water quality in the past. This project will help further reduce this type of damage to the watershed by removing the brush and allowing the grass understory to stabilize and filter sediment.
Compliance:
The proposed project is consistent with the Dixie Land and Resource Management Plan, and the Garfield County Resource plan. Rabbit Brush is a Garfield County listed noxious weed (Garfield commission meeting minutes). Treatment of noxious weeds is covered under the Dixie National Forest Noxious Weed EA Decision.
Methods:
Within the proposed 89-acre treatment areas, the brush will be mowed and Tordon herbicide will be immediately applied to cut stems during a late fall or early winter application. Herbicide will be applied with a wiper attachment that trails behind the cutting head. It is anticipated that the treatment will occur in the late fall of 2021. Follow-up monitoring and spot re-treatment would be conducted by District personnel treating noxious weeds at 1 year post treatment. Follow-up treatments will focus on treating residual rabbit brush and any other noxious weeds that try to establish.
Monitoring:
The mapped and treated areas will be inspected annually for several years post-treatment to ensure no other noxious weed become established. Re-growth from rabbitbrush can be easily re-treated by mechanically hand-chopping and treating with Tordon. The Forest Service has vegetation trend studies nearby to help monitor vegetation response and impacts from ungulates. These sites are monitored on a 5-year intervals. Several photo points will be established and read at 5 year intervals to help determine re-establishment and to gain a better understanding on return intervals within the proposed soil type. The Forest monitors fish bearing streams on an approximately 5 year interval. East fork was last monitored in 2017. The results of Forest monitoring are published in a biennial monitoring report that can be uploaded from the UWRI web site. UDWR aquatics monitors this stream on a regular basis as well. Monitoring of Big game species is conducted by UDWR on an annual basis. Deer, elk and pronghorn classification are conducted by local area biologist. Monitoring for UPD is conducted by USFS biologist as a spring adult count prior to pups emergence. The East Fork UPD colony has been slowly but steadily expanding for approximately 10 years. Now colony expansion has hit the brush areas (thus the need for the proposed project).
Partners:
Garfield county has begun to support Utah Prairie dog translocation projects on public lands within the project area. In 2020 USFS and Garfield county signed an agreement to partner on Utah Prairie dog conservation. Garfield county has witnessed the commitment to improve vegetation resources and has recognized that projects such as PJ removal can benefit both UPD/Sage grouse and livestock grazing at the same time. Garfield county has contributed over $20 K to conservation efforts involving trapping UPD, and other conservation efforts within the proposed Mud Springs Conservation area. USFS recently attended a Garfield County commission meeting in December of 2021 and they have committed to fund an additional $30 K towards UPD conservation efforts. WRI funding of projects within Garfield county has helped them contribute and partner with USFS on the conservation efforts within this area. The proposed project is part of a larger management strategy to enhance wildlife habitat effectiveness and increase grazing capacity for many wildlife species that inhabit the area. It specifically addresses habitat issues for Utah Prairie Dog and Mule deer on the Paunsaugunt plateau. Partners working specifically on UPD recovery efforts include USFWS, NPS, BLM, USFS, UDWR, Garfield county, and surrounding cities. Partners working specifically on Mule deer habitat with the Paunsaugunt management unit include: Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife, UDWR, Mule deer Foundation, Friends of the Paunsaugunt, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and USFS. In addition to these partners Utah Endangered Species Mitigation Fund has been an active partner on multiple projects throughout the Paunsaugunt recovery unit for Utah Prairie dog. Funding from this group has paved the way for increased conservation for the last 10-15 years. There is an on-going partnership now between the Dixie National Forest, and Garfield County to work together towards Utah Prairie Dog conservation. Because of past vegetation improvement projects funded by UWRI and the USFS, Garfield county now recognizes the benefits that UPD conservation efforts can have on the landscape. This partnership and signed agreement have allowed for further UPD and Greater Sage grouse conservation. In 2020 the USFS partnered with Garfield county to install a UPD translocation site on Garfield County Conservation Easement property. To further that conservation effort the USFS again partnered with Garfield county in 2021 to install an additional UPD translocation site on BLM land. WRI funding of projects within Garfield county has helped them contribute and partner with USFS on the conservation efforts within this area. The primary partnership focus of the proposed rabbit-brush reduction project is to improve occupied UPD habitat. Additional UPD conservation activities are now funded through this new partnership with Garfield County, including: Counting UPD, plague abatement activities on USFS, County, and private lands, trapping and translocating UPD to approved sites and on existing public lands/occupied sites.
Future Management:
Future management will be guided by monitoring. If treated successfully little to no further re-treatment would be needed for many years. Spot treatments could occur for 2-3 years post treatment. The Dixie National Forest is encouraged that the treatment will allow for further expansion of UPD within the meadow complex area. As further habitat gains are made management recommendations to UDWR on mule deer, elk, and pronghorn would be expected. Increases in livestock forage capacity and overall improvements in watershed health are expected outcomes from the project as well. Current grazing management provides for summer pasture on the Blue Fly cattle allotment. The proposed project will further increase forage capacity for livestock as well as other ungulates/big-game species. The meadow areas provide critical parturition habitat for mule deer, elk, and pronghorn as well as critical occupied habitat for Utah prairie dog. Based on radio telemetry data some sage grouse (hens) are utilizing the meadows to raise broods during late spring and summer months. During the spring/summer of 2022 RX burns are planned for the surrounding uplands in Ponderosa pine to help revitalize the pine understory and remove encroaching PJ. This will further enhance wildlife habitat effectiveness in the surrounding area however it makes it even more critical that we restore the meadows and function with the proposed project. As more the uplands and riparian's are stabilized in this area proper grazing will remain key to providing habitat for critical species such as UPD that are also in the treatment area. As habitat improvements are made increases in population numbers are expected.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The proposed project would be expected to enhance wildlife habitat effectiveness on over 89 acres of USFS administered land. The area is also managed for livestock grazing and is part of the East Fork and Robinson/Robinson C & H allotment. This allotment is managed for 308 head under an 8 pasture deferred grazing system from June 16 through October 5 annually. It is expected that the 89 acre treated area will see improved grazing capacity for livestock as well as other ungulates as brush is removed and grasses and forbs re-establish. The area proposed for treatment as well as the surrounding Ponderosa pine stands provide critical parturition habitat for mule deer, elk, and pronghorn. Removing the rabbitbrush and restoring meadow function will enhance and restore wet meadow function and improve habitat for all these hunted species. Increasing water flow throughout this drainage is important to big game as well as other wildlife as drinking water as well as improving forage capacity and composition. Improving this habitat is key as it provides an undisturbed nursery area on public lands that is not encroached by housing, highways, agriculture and other threats.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$35,155.00 $0.00 $35,155.00 $5,200.00 $40,355.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Mower/herbicide contract on 89 acres. $31,150.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Personal Services (permanent employee) Contract preparation, clearances, coordination, and contract inspection. Coordination for UPD monitoring, and continued spot treatment. $0.00 $0.00 $5,200.00 2023
Materials and Supplies State contract herbicide Tordon 22K @ 18 2.5 Gallon -MSO Premium 9 sticker (2.5 gallon $4,005.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$45,390.00 $0.00 $45,390.00 $5,953.86 $51,343.86
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $753.86 2024
United States Forest Service (USFS) $0.00 $0.00 $5,200.00 2023
DNR Watershed U004 $4,716.48 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Utah Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) S022 $4,634.89 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 $4,634.89 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Safari Club International (SCI) S026 $2,305.94 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $4,632.80 $0.00 $0.00 2023
DNR Watershed U004 $5,518.52 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Utah Wild Sheep Foundation (WSF) S022 $5,417.11 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 $5,417.11 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Safari Club International (SCI) S026 $2,694.06 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $5,418.20 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Low
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native 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
Channelization / Bank Alteration (Direct, Intentional) Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) High
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion/Loss Low
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Dam / Reservoir Operation Low
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Water Allocation Policies High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Disease – Alien Organisms Very High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Habitats
Habitat
Emergent
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Unknown
Emergent
Threat Impact
Water Allocation Policies High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/30/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Great little project. I'm hoping we can get that critter delisted here before too long. Thanks - no, THANK YOU - for being a major player in the progress required to do that, to get here where we are today. One suggestion - consider the habitat Emergent. It may or not be present on your site - but you mention wet meadow, which is best captured in Emergent. I also wonder if the brush removal will result in more water flowing down the channel (to the next POD anyway). So also maybe consider Riverine? Something to discuss at the meeting, maybe. Good luck!
Comment 02/02/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Carrie Howard
Hi Jake, Your Fire/Fuels section is missing; it looks like the management plans section was copied and pasted into it.
Comment 02/02/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Yup. I will get it fixed. Thanks for the heads up.
Comment 02/02/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Schoppe, I know all fish look the same to you, just like I can't understand why anyone wants to work with a plague-ridden rodent😉, but you got the species right in the drop down list. This area isn't and won't be BCT habitat but currently is habitat for Southern leatherside, mountain sucker, speckled dace, redside shiner and nonnative trout. That being said I think you can definitely make the case for improving riverine habitat by removing rabbit brush on the stream terrace. I would expect reduced sedimentation and increased ground cover afterward. That being said I think you can say the project supports Conservation Elements B3) Implement habitat enhancements that may include some or all of the following: removal of diversion structures, modification of barriers to allow fish passage, bank stabilization, enhancement of native vegetation, D4) Maintain Natural Hydrologic conditions by increasing bank stability and promoting mesic and hydric species. Your fire and fuels section is a double of your relationship to plans section, so you may want to paste in your fire and fuels write up. Also I would suggest removing Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments as a threat (since you are removing brush, not sure how you address that threat) for sage grouse and add Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity and Problematic Plant Species -- Native Upland instead. Also not sure how you are addressing Disease -- Alien Organisms for UPD...more connectivity and populations less losing one population to plague affects species as a whole? Isn't a lot of the area you are talking about treating sagebrush WAP habitat? Any discussion on cross boundary treatments with private? Mike
Comment 02/02/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thanks Mike. I made some changes and was able to add some of your information. In regards to how the project addresses Disease and alien organisims. Keeping these small isolated colonies going is extremely important to the population as a whole. When plague hits a large colony it is important to have conservation at the small colony level. These UPD can be the ones that fill in behind the big colonies such as East creek when it plagues out. Thus removing the brush and providing the connectivity is the key. Thanks so much for asking the question. Jake
Comment 02/16/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hey Jake - Jimi and Mike have provided comments about the habitat tab that could result in a couple more points. Doesn't look like you have made those changes yet and I agree with Mike they would be appropriate.
Comment 02/17/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thanks Gary. I made changes on the 2nd. Maybe I missed what they were trying to get at? Also added species today. Not all of the species that Mike mentions are available in the database to add, but I added what I could. Appreciate the help.
Comment 02/04/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Thank you for not writing a novel. :) Extra point!
Comment 02/19/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: David Dodds
Garfield County is happy to voice its support for this project. The County has been working with the Forest Service and Jake for several years to help get move prairie dogs from private lands to protected Federal lands This project fits the goals outlined within our County Resource Management Plan to improve habitat on Federal lands to aid in prairie dog recovery. -- David Dodds Garfield County Public Works Director
Comment 01/11/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: David Dodds
Garfield County would again like to voice its support for this project. We appreciate representatives from the Powell Ranger District taking time to attend our commission meeting (1/10/2022) and present their proposed projects. This project would help to improve prairie dog habitat on federal lands which is a major goal for our County. Jake has been working closely with the county to improve habitat for a number of years which has resulted in the county meeting its recovery goals for the past 8 years. This project would directly benefit our continued effort to meet recovery goals. Garfield County Commission voted unanimously in support of this project. David Dodds Public Works Director - Garfield County
Comment 01/14/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Correct me if I am wrong, isn't rabbit brush targeted in Garfield County? There is a Strategic Funding Pool with the conservation district and NRCS. The permittee potentially could secure funding through that avenue to help contribute financially. Thanks !
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
I'm not sure that I would say Rabbitbrush is (targeted) in Garfield county. Garfield county has listed it as a noxious weed. Rabbitbrush is a native species and has its place in some areas. The proposed area in particular has been encroached by this species during the last 25 + years. You are correct that the proposed area is part of the East Fork Cattle allotment however it is managed as a riparian exclosure and is not targeted for grazing. Livestock permittees would have limited interest in maintaining or improving this area.
Comment 01/25/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
This is a good project and a significant benefit to Utah Prairie Dog, however UPD projects are often at odds with sage-grouse habitat needs. I think this may be the case in this instance, and removing sagebrush and rabbitbrush in an area dominated by PJ is unlikely to benefit sage-grouse. I fully support this project but suggest sage-grouse be removed as a benefitting species.
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thank you for the comment. The proposed area is not dominated by PJ but is becoming encroached by rabbitbrush. The area is part of a riparian pasture that is not targeted for livestock grazing. There would be benefits to UPD directly and Greater sage grouse indirectly. During spring counts we see sage grouse using the area from time to time. In addition, we have seen sage grouse using the Blue Fly area which most recently had a brush treatment project on it. We still feel that there would be benefits to sage grouse from the propose treatment. Further south in the Johns valley area our radio collar data shows that Sage grouse will utilize rabbitbrush during heavy snow events as cover/shelter. In our area it is a balance between managing sage-steppe and sagebrush of various species and rabbitbrush. A recent treatment for rabbitbrush near Tom Best springs is now used at times in the spring as a lek site.
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Thanks for the response and additional info on the area. Scrutiny of sagebrush reduction projects really comes down to the fact that projects claiming sage-grouse benefit are sent to USGS and FWS as part of the conservation efforts database. There have been several projects over the years that claim benefits to sage-grouse for sagebrush removal, and when funded under the intent to bolster sage-grouse, those projects have been scrutinized by our partners. The best we can show with present research is lack of negative impact for such projects, and even then, only in ideal conditions and areas (high elevation with small chemical treatments leaving shrub structure intact). As such, any sagebrush removal project claiming benefit for sage-grouse needs to be well justified, and those justifications well documented. Can it be documented that brood habitat is limiting this population? Will this project result in increases in grass, forb and insect populations to improve brood habitat? Will this avoid impact to winter habitat? Though documentation of sage-grouse use is always valuable information, use during the lekking period does not necessarily signify benefit to the species' habitat. Males congregate on the most open, barren piece of ground in the area. And again, this is a good project, I just don't think we can fully justify listing sage-grouse a benefiting species.
Comment 01/31/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thank you for your comment.
Comment 01/31/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Carrie Howard
Its great to see the support from Garfield County in the comments. Was there opportunity for this project to expand onto the private lands?
Comment 01/31/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thanks you for your comment. If a private land-owner wanted to conduct a similar project I'm sure they could reach out through NRCS to receive help to conduct the work. Private land-owners rarely contact USFS for this. When they do we refer them to NRCS. We would love the opportunity to partner with them when possible. In the past when we have been approached by private land-owners there are a lot of questions about taxation when receiving a grant. Problem is we are not NRCS and are not tax advisors. We welcome the opportunity to partner across fence lines.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Barbara Sugarman
Hi Jake, I think this is a great project that will benefit Utah prairie dogs. The fall/winter time frame works with the species' needs. I am assuming that there will not be any seeding after the herbicide treatment, is that correct? I believe this project will allow for connectivity between the numerous active Utah prairie dog colonies along the East Fork Sevier river. Cheers, Barbara Sugarman
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
You're correct, no seeding would be necessary.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Jake, I like it. Do you think there is any possibility of looking at the riparian habitat in this area too and include some enhancement of that if necessary? Keith
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thanks Keith. We have already worked over the riparian in this area several years back. The project removed PJ from the area all the way to Tropic reservoir. There are other opportunities within the riparian Im sure such as bank stabilization et al.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
In one of your comments you state: "The area is part of a riparian pasture that is not targeted for livestock grazing." Does this mean that there is no grazing in this pasture? What role has livestock grazing played in the current conditions of the project area? What livestock grazing management changes are you making as part of this project to ensure success?
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Currently there is no grazing in the riparian pasture. It is part of the allotment however. The area was fenced to help better manage livestock on the riparian area within an allotment. No further livestock changes are necessary as it is not currently grazed. Only brush removal is needed to enhance habitat effectiveness for the Threatened Utah Prairie dog.
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Thanks so much for your response, Jake. Greatly appreciate it. One more question: What cultural surveys and tribal consultation are being/have been conducted for this project?
Comment 02/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Thank you for your comment. Cultural surveys and consultations occur concurrently when we conduct the nepa for a project. This process has already occurred for this project.
Comment 03/04/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Hey Jake - Just a reminder to change your map features to terrestrial or aquatic treatments so you can show the actual treatment methods. Thanks!
Comment 08/28/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
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 (if applicable) 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 09/23/2024 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. There is no real information about the methods in the Final Methods section other than who the contractor was. Here are an example of the questions I had while reading the report. Why was the project needed? What was the rate of herbicide applied? Was it a wet mower or was the herbicide applied separately as a second treatment? 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 10/02/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Reminder - Please take care of the items in the comment above ASAP. I need to pull all of the numbers together for Tyler early next week. Thanks.
Comment 10/03/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Jake Schoppe
Corrections were made to the document, We also updated a few more photos of the final project. Please feel free to let us know any concerns
Comment 10/03/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
I need you to fill in the USFS In-kind amount in the Expenses section of the Finance page. It is highlighted in a rust color. After that I will be able to move it to completed. Thanks.
Comment 10/10/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This project has been moved to completed. Thank you!
Completion
Start Date:
11/01/2023
End Date:
11/30/2023
FY Implemented:
2024
Final Methods:
This was a follow-up from a 2022 treatment project. The contractor Todd Lloyd / Bonneville services was contacted in fall of 2023 to retreat. The contractor mowed the rabbitbrush areas and then treated the area with Tordon 22k. Curtis Roundy/UDWR helped with getting the contractor to cooperate and retreat the area. The contractor showed up late in October 2023 to retreat the project area. The project was completed to spec and forest service staff inspected and documented the project. The contract was finalized in November of 2023 as a successful project.
Project Narrative:
The goal of this project was a rabbit brush treatment project where herbicide was applied after mowing the rabbit brush in late fall. This will improve habitat for the Utah prairie dog, sage grouse and other wildlife species along the East Fork of the Sevier River. The project area had been treated in a previous phase during the fall/winter of 2022 however the contractor came too late in the year and was stopped by deep snow. Some of the area had to be re-treated a 2nd time as the treatment the first year did not have a good kill rate due to deep snow. Lessons learned are to not allow for treatment when there is significant snow depth. USFS facilitated supplying chemical, Tordon 22k twice for the project. The contractor was to apply this chemical at a rate of 2 quarts per acre after the brush was mowed with heavy tractor. He arrived late again the 2nd year and had mechanical issue with equipment while treating the area. Forest service staff were on site to inspect, document the operation to assure that spec was met. The outcome of this project has been a success.
Future Management:
There should not be much future treatment needed. USFS will monitor for rabbitbrush re-growth. Several trips have been made to the area to inspect the progress of treatment. We are very pleased with this project for the future habitat.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
10470 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Ground
10470 Terrestrial Treatment Area Mowing Brush hog
Project Map
Project Map