Antelope Springs Habitat and Watershed Improvement Phase 1
Project ID: 5961
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2025
Submitted By: 917
Project Manager: Stan Gurley
PM Agency: Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands
PM Office: Southwestern Area
Lead: Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Seed and bullhog 177 acres of Phase II and III Pinyon/Juniper to enhance year-round habitat for mule deer and pronghorn. To provide the best possible grazing management a boundary fence will allow for the best control of livestock and range management.
Location:
15 miles west of Cedar City, Utah. Iron County, Utah
Project Need
Need For Project:
Pinyon and juniper trees have increased in the Antelope Springs area and are competing with the sagebrush, bitter brush, forbs and grass that should be occupying the proposed project area. Besides impacting the plant community structure and composition, the infilling of pinyon and juniper has negatively impacted soil resources, water and nutrient cycles, fire regimes, forage production and wildlife habitat. Mule deer and pronghorn use this area along with past treatments on adjacent BLM, state lands, and private lands. The project area serves as important seasonal habitat for several species of wildlife including but not limited to mule deer, pronghorn, and many shrub steppe species. A catastrophic wildfire could also increase the risk of invasive species and erosion. It is important to note that in 2021 the Antelope Fire (see WRI5869) started and burned 178 acres in the very planned polygons. Through the WRI Fire Rehab dollars we treated the 178 acres and are now planning on treated other planned acres. With the 178 acres being rested it is ideal to finish the project that could not be funded with Fire Rehab funds and reduce the impact the the livestock producer, while providing benefits to wildlife and watershed health. As mentioned this area also could be enhanced habitat for mule deer and pronghorn that use the area. There is ecological data in this area it was determined that the site of the proposed project most closely coincides with an Semidesert Loam (Wyoming Big Sagebrush) site and a Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon Utah Juniper). Fencing has been proposed to separate the properties for the protection of the resources and management. Fence will be marked with wildlife markers, commonly known as sage grouse fence markers. This will help decrease the threat of entanglement or collision with the fence and wildlife. A follow up treatment of cheatgrass will take place to reduce the treat of invasion.
Objectives:
1) Improve forage conditions for big game, livestock, and wild horses by increasing natural regeneration of shrub, forb, and grass vegetation as ground cover browse. 2) Maintain or improve vegetative diversity and age class structure. 3) Break up continuous woodland stand cover for sagebrush obligate bird species while still maintaining corridors for big game. 4) Decrease hazardous fuels by removing areas of pinyon and juniper.
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, pronghorn, 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 which could increase the risk of invasive species and erosion. However, as with any surface disturbing activity, there is a low potential for weed invasion. Private landowners and Iron County will aggressively treat any noxious weeds in the area if found. Recent data shows a decrease in Pinyon Jay populations. We will address this as we continue the planning process. It is important to note that pinyon jays need health pinyon-juniper forest. As per the sage steppe guidelines PJ density is noted in "Phases I-III" Phase one being the most sparse, young trees, and Phase three being the most dense, old trees. Research has shown large landscapes of Phase II and Phase III trees are vulnerable to parasites, disease and large-scale die offs from drought (see Greenwood et al.). Pinyon Jays rely on pinyon and juniper forest for food, cover, and nesting. Large scale die offs of Pinyon would and do have negative effects on pinyon jay populations. Creating healthy mosaics increase the diversity across the landscape. Of the site proposed for treatment. According the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources pinyon jays "nests are located in trees, usually conifers, five to thirty feet off the ground". The islands of trees will be left as we continue the planning process and obtain the areas that need to avoided for cultural resources and wildlife. By removing trees in these areas, we are improving the ecological value of the landscape. Mule Deer are one of Utah's most prized big game species. This project is within the Pine Valley Mule Deer Management Unit, which has been one of most productivity mule deer herds in the state. Managed as a general season unit, the Pine Valley Unit is one of the most sought general season tags in the state. As of recent the survival has decline and is typically associated to malnutrition and coyote predation. Mule deer have benefited for the Duncan Creek treatments completed by the BLM to the southeast. This area is a staple for hunters that prefer to hunt low elevations and in pinyon and juniper. The Pine Valley Pronghorn is strong and increasing to due numerous habitat improvements on private, BLM and SITLA land in the area. Pronghorn provide an excellent limited entry opportunity for many hunters, include many youth hunters. Yoakum et al (2004) found that in Utah, the majority of pronghorn populations occur in shrub-steppe habitat. Large expanses of open, rolling or flat terrain characterize the topography of most occupied habitats. Of particular importance in sustaining pronghorn populations is a forb component in the vegetative mix. This area serves as year-round habitat, which should have provide succulent forbs for lactating females and fawn survival in the spring and early summer noted Ellis and Travis (1975), and High quality browse that is available above the snow level found Yoakum (2004). These conditions are lacking because of the invasive of pinyon and juniper in the area is increasing the risk of large-scale fires in the area.
Relation To Management Plan:
Pinyon Management Framework Plan (PMFP) (1983) Although the Project Area was not specifically discussed in the RMP vegetation treatments were identified throughout the Field Office. Southwest Utah Support Area Fire Management Plan (May, 2006) National Fire Plan (2000) The project is also consistent with the NFP. The goals and objectives of the NFP is to manage BLM administered public land to maintain, enhance and restore sagebrush habitats while ensuring multiple use and sustained yield goals of FLPMA. Goals/Strategies identified in the NFP include the following: 1. Provide guidance to ensure integration of sage-grouse habitat conservation measures for actions provided through the management in land use planning process. 2. Issue mandatory guidance on management of sagebrush habitat for sage-grouse conservation. 3. Enhance knowledge of resource conditions and priorities in order to support habitat maintenance and restoration efforts. 4. Complete and maintain eco-regional assessments of sagebrush and sage-grouse habitats across the sagebrush biome. 5. Provide a consistent and scientifically based approach for collection and use of monitoring data for sagebrush habitats, sage-grouse and other components of the sagebrush community. 6. Identify, prioritize and facilitate needed research to develop relevant information for sage-grouse and sagebrush habitat conservation 7. Maintain, develop and expand partnerships to promote cooperation and support for all activities associated with sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation. 8. Effectively communicate throughout BLM and with current and prospective partners on steps BLM will take to conserve sage-grouse and sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. 9. Facilitate the collection, transfer and sharing of information among all BLM partners and cooperators, as well as BLM program personnel. 10. Develop BLM state-level strategies and/or plans for sage-grouse and sagebrush conservation on BLM administered public lands. . The Utah State Wildlife Action Plan 2015-2025 (Draft) is a comprehensive management plan designed to conserve native species populations and habitats in Utah and prevent the need for additional federal listings. Following the Pine Valley Mule Deer Management: "Coordinate with federal and state partners in designing projects that will improve fire resiliency and protect areas of crucial habitat." "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." "Reduce expansion of Pinion-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinion-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects." Utah Mule Deer Statewide Plan (12/5/2019-12/5/2024) "Work with local, state and federal land management agencies via land management plans and with private landowners to identify and properly manage crucial mule deer habitats, especially fawning, wintering, and migration areas" "Work with local, state and federal land management agencies and ranchers to properly manage livestock to enhance crucial mule deer ranges." "Minimize impacts and recommend mitigation for losses of crucial habitat due to human impacts." "Continue to support and provide leadership for the Utah Watershed Restoration Initiative, which emphasizes improving sagebrush-steppe, aspen, and riparian habitats throughout Utah." "Support existing and explore additional incentive programs for landowners that will increase tolerance, enhance habitat, and promote deer populations on private lands such as the CWMU, landowner permit, Walk-In Access programs, etc." Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan *Identify crucial pronghorn habitats and work with public land managers and private landowners to protect and enhance those areas. *Encourage public land managers, permittees, and wildlife biologists to identify areas of potential conflict between livestock and pronghorn and work together to manage conflicts for the benefit of livestock and pronghorn. Utah Wildlife Action Plan *Lowland sagebrush is a key habitat identified in the WAP. *WAP identifies inappropriate fire frequency as a threat to lowland sagebrush. This project will reduce future fire risk and act as a fire buffer to adjacent higher risk areas. Riverine habitat is threaten by Channel Down Cutting that can be related to unhealthy PJ forest and lack of an understory to promote infiltration of moisture into the soil. Iron County Resource Management Plan "To improve range conditions through vegetation treatments and proper management, allowing for an appropriate increase in livestock grazing." "To maintain the AUM's at current levels and encourage increases as range conditions Provide." "Land management agencies shall take actions to control and eradicate harmful and invasive noxious weeds and aggressively treat pinyon-juniper encroachment on habitats which benefit wildlife." "Wildlife habitat and range reseeding projects must employ a mix of desirable native and non-native seeds that optimize forage requirements, range health and productivity."
Fire / Fuels:
The potential for more extreme fires will intensify as densities of pinion and juniper increase. This has been illustrated the recent fire activity in the area. If not for the rapid response of the fire officials these fires would have surely burnt hundreds if not thousands of acres. By reducing stand densities, the possibility for future larger-scale stand replacing fire events will be decreased. An extreme fire event could lead to a loss of crucial habitat/understory vegetation and the potential for a noxious weed infestation. Current FRCC is FR I, CC 2, with moderate departure from the historic range of variability. Fire regimes have been moderately and extensively altered and the risk of losing key ecosystem components from fire is high. This is mainly due to the expansion of pinyon and juniper. Without this project, fuel conditions are such that an unexpected wildfire may become increasingly difficult to contain, leading to an increased risk to firefighter and public safety, suppression effectiveness and natural resource degradation such as loss of important mule deer habitat. This is immediately adjacent to the Antelope Fire from 2021 see WRI 5869. The Wildfire Risk Assessment gives the area "high Wildfire Hazard Potential" and a 100% probability of exceeding Manual Control. These factors should considered when project funding is taking place. The asking amount to complete this project is a fraction of the $2.9 million average cost of just suppression for wildfires in 2024. Not to mention the life(s) that could be lost in a wildfire with 100% probability of exceeding manual control.
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 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 precipitation 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:
The necessary cultural clearance will be completed in the spring. NRCS will also complete an Environmental Assessment as part of the planning and contracting process. NRCS will work with UDWR Archeologist(s) to ensure that all eligible cultural resources are protected from damage.
Methods:
As ensure that this project is successful we will be using the state of Utah purchasing to contract the work to take place: Cultural Clearance will be contract though the UDWR Archeologist in coordination with SITLA and NRCS Archeologist for clearance. Seeding will take place in areas that are to be harrowed and implemented according to the following specifications: Seeding The contractor is required to furnish all labor, equipment, supplies, and materials needed to aerial seed. Contractor will need to provide enough labor and equipment to complete the work in the specified performance window. It is the contractor's responsibility to ensure that the proper seed mix and application rate is following as described in this contract. All seed will be bagged in 1250 lb tote. Contractor will be solely responsible for loading all seed into broadcaster. The aircraft must be equipped with a global positioning system that is used to establish flight lines for 100% coverage. DWR will provide to the Contractor an electronic file containing coordinate positions of treatment areas in an ARC/INFO GIS format. Contractor shall provide a Trimble, ARC/INFO or ARCVIEW electronic file in UTM projection North America Datum 1983 of treatment coverage upon completion of each treated area or as required by the Contracting Officer. A government representative shall monitor the Contractors GPS to assure Contractors compliance with contract specifications. Chaining This project includes the removal of pinyon pine and juniper within the project area as follows: 1. Chaining shall be performed in an organized systematic manner as determined in the pre-work conference. 2. The contractor shall provide skilled operators. 3. Contractor will need to provide enough equipment to complete the work in the specified performance window. 4. The Contractor shall furnish a connection device to attach the chain to each individual crawler tractor. 5. Each site will be chained in two directions (i.e. 2nd pass opposite direction or 180 degrees.) and each pass will cover half of the previous pass. 6. If large piles of slash (i.e. pinyon pine and juniper) accumulate in the chain, the contractor will be required to spread out the big piles or deposit the slash in gullies. 7. Chain shall not be pulled at a speed in excess of 4 mph. 8. The tractors will be operated with a maximum lateral spacing of 100 feet. 9. Chaining passes must be completed swivel to swivel, not track to track. 10. The Government representative has the option of reducing tractor spacing below the minimum specified to accommodate specific terrain or conditions. 11. Pinyon and juniper trees will be left as they lie following the two chaining passes, no piling or windrowing will be required. 12. Any internal roads through the project site must be cleared of all debris left by the chaining operation. 13. The chaining will be done on the contour as much as possible. This is very important for the improvement of the watershed, because chaining on the contour reduces the amount of overland flow during runoff periods (spring melt, summer thunderstorms, etc.). 14. Transport of the chain to the first project site will be the responsibility of the government. Following the completion of the project, the chain may be left on site near any designated road and coordinated with the project manager. In addition the Contractor will be responsible to return all extra chain parts (i.e. connectors, swivels, clevises, pins, etc....) to the designated road and coordinated with the project manager. 15. Public or private access roads damaged by the Contractor shall be restored at the Contractors expense to the same condition they were in at the commencement of work. 16. Equipment and vehicles must not be operated or driven outside of the determined project boundaries except on identified roads or trails. 17. All terrain vehicles may be used within project areas as long as vehicle use does not create a visible trail. All created visible trails and/or ruts will be reclaimed at the expense of the contractor. 18. Chaining shall not occur under conditions that prevent the proper operation of equipment. Conditions include snow, frozen ground or when the soil exceeds 15% moisture content. When such conditions are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work and notify the Government. 19. Chaining use will be prohibited when soils are wet and rutting (in excess of 10" within sensitive areas) might occur. 20. The Contractor shall periodically lubricate and service the Ely chain swivels (minimum of two times per day). The Contractor shall furnish necessary lubricating equipment and proper lubricants. The Contractor shall check bolts, nuts, etc. on the Ely chain periodically to insure tightness and shall tighten them as necessary for proper maintenance. 21. The Contractor shall be equipped to make necessary field repairs to the Ely chain. An arc-acetylene welder shall be included in the Contractor's repair equipment. The welder shall be at the work site at all times. The Contractor shall maintain and repair the Ely chain at the worksite. The Government will provide all necessary replacement parts in a timely manner. 22. The Project Inspector will make tests to determine the uniformity of the Chaining operation. 23. Contractor will be required to move chain to an area to be determined by the Project Inspector to provide for efficient pickup of the chain once contract is completed. Fence * New Wood posts, Steel posts, etc. shall be set plumb (vertical), in complete alignment, dirt packed solid and to be sturdy. * All wood posts and wood braces will be Juniper wood (Cedar Posts), unless specified otherwise. * Completed fences shall be in alignment, taut, and solid at all points. * Wire spacing will be measured perpendicular to the ground. * All four strands of barbed wire to be 12.5 gauge, 2 pt. * Tie wire for braces to be 9-gauge steel. * Steel panel gates will be provided and installed by contract. * Steel panel gates must be a minimum of 6-bar, painted, or powder coated, or galvanized, and approved by project manager. * Wood post braces will be used to support steel panel gates. * All metal gates must be hung with a minimum of 8 inches of clearance. * All barbed wire spacing will be 16 inches, 8 inches, 8 inches, and 10 inches, measuring from the ground up. * Height of top strand from ground shall be 42 inches. * Minimum length of 6-foot, quality steel t-posts to be used. * Steel t-posts shall be pounded into the ground such that the spade is completely buried. * Minimum length of 8 ft. Cedar Posts to be used. * Cedar posts shall be buried 3 ft. * Metal: Wood Post Ratio will be 5:1 * Maximum spacing between each post shall be 16.5 feet (one rod). * Two (2) 32 inches stays placed between each fence post. * Line Braces every 0.25 mile with additional braces where additional stability is required, including tops and bottom of slopes. * All braces will be Juniper (Cedar) Wood. * All corner braces will be constructed from wood "H" style braces. Aerial Herbicide Application Chemical will be applied using suitable fixed winged or helicopter. Contractor will be supply and apply required chemical (imazapic) at the rate allowed by the label. Flight lines most be supplier to the contract manager to ensure coverage.
Monitoring:
UDWR/NRCS: Pre and post photo point monitoring in treatment areas. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Guide has been done pre-treatment to assess habitat conditions. UT-2 Range assessment done pre-treatment and post treatment. NRCS Pinyon and juniper woodland survey The UDWR through the collar data we will be able to will provide data to show mule deer, use with the collared wildlife in the area.
Partners:
The landowner is committing his Farm bill dollars to this project. Through the landowner, the NRCS will be providing over half the funding for the project. The UDWR supports this treatment for the benefit of all wildlife (game and non-game species) that benefit from healthy PJ forest and sagebrush ecosystems. Treatments like these reduce all wildlife utilize more habitat and allow wildlife managers to better manage populations through hunting and hunter dispersal.
Future Management:
Any seeded areas will require a MINIMUM 2 year rest to establish seeded species. Landowner has committed to keep livestock off the seeding while it establishes. This project will also help the landowner better distribute and graze their private property. This means the potential for improved range management and range conditions moving forward. Utah has aggressively been collaring wildlife for years. This data has indicated that wildlife use thrive on past WRI treatments. Using the Wildlife Tracker tool this areas was searched for its use by collared wildlife. Due to the number of wildlife collared in the area, there is currently not an collars in the area. We expect that with the treatment wildlife use will increase with the potential of the use from collared wildlife in the area. The private landowners have entered into a contract with NRCS. NRCS will monitor the treatment for the first 2 years as part of the permittee contract. UDWR Farm Bill Biologist will establish photo points to a 5-year post treatment reading.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
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 hunting deer and pronghorn to the public who have written permission. Improving the habitat for hunting and wildlife viewing is important for the local community, and Iron County. The chaining will provide opportunities for fire wood collection that is a population past time with local families and the communities. ATV and OHV frequent the areas often to view and enjoy the wildlife and wild places. This treatment will enhance the beauty and the opportunity to view and enjoy Utah's wildlife and wild places. Improving landscapes has the potential and has been proven to have positive economical impacts on the surrounding communities and the business in the area. We anticipate that Iron County and their residents will be see positive economic impacts that will continue to help draw people to enjoy their county.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$15,664.50 $0.00 $15,664.50 $4,832.00 $20,496.50
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Seed flight 177 acres*$16/ac $0.00 $0.00 $2,832.00 2025
Seed (GBRC) Seed Mix 177ac*$88.50/ac $15,664.50 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Personal Services (permanent employee) Planning and implementation by FFSL Area Forester $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2025
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$15,663.92 $0.00 $15,663.92 $4,832.00 $20,495.92
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) T313 Seed Flight and seed $15,663.92 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands (FFSL) $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 2026
Private $0.00 $0.00 $2,832.00 2025
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Feral Domesticated Animals High
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
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Wild Horses
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Habitats
Habitat
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Project Comments
Comment 01/18/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
You have feral domesticated animals as a threat for mule deer. So...horses?
Comment 01/19/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
So yes wild horse, if you will. This is part of the Chloride HMA. The fence will help keep the horses off the treatments, and provide protection for the seeded species. This project will help livestock producers tolerate the wild horses, if they don't feel like they are the only one feeding them.
Comment 01/19/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hey Stan, As always thanks for doing what you do man. A few questions: Any particular reason for BLM goals in your Plans sections as all this looks to be on private land? 2) What kind of values are at risk from fire on the property? 3) Monitoring for pronghorn, pinyon jay? 4) Will the private landowners let people on to collect firewood and hunt?
Comment 01/24/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Mike Thanks for your quality comments and honest and thorough reading of every project. 1. I include BLM goals on private grounds because these neighbor BLM landownership. BLM management goal and management plans are to be successful when work is done beyond fence lines. In this case we hope that the BLM will be able to work on neighboring lands soon to help create healthier and resilience landscapes. 2. The risks would be will loss of private ground and land use, increase fire frequencies, and the loss of a healthy browse component. Loss of structures, or other private property is minimal. 3. Pronghorn use will be monitored if collared animals are in the area. Treatment will completed, outside of breeding and nesting season. 4. Private landowners will let public gather wood and hunt if they ask permission.
Comment 01/24/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
I know its difficult because of the funding sources and how applications come to you, but did you reach out to other land owners to see if there were other opportunities?
Comment 01/24/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
So this is two different private landowners. BLM does not have NEPA for this area and due to NEPA stand still at the state office because of litigation by an environmental organization, this is at least 10 years out if that. We hope that state and legislative official will start applying pressure to the state office to get the NEPA mess fixed and that environmental groups will work with us instead of against on the ground restoration.
Comment 01/24/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Thanks for the clarification.
Comment 01/25/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Stan, There are pygmy rabbits on the north side of the Antelope Road east of this project. This project could provide benefits for them IF it does not destroy existing habitat in the process. Surveys before hand would be useful. There are also quite a few raptor nests (FEHA and GOEA) on the transmission line towers and this would open foraging areas for them. Need I mention possible PIJA colonies? Keith
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Good Morning Keith!!!! So the Antelope Fire in 2021 burned 178 acres of bursh from the Antelope road south into the PJ. We just completed a seeding and one-way chaining. If you look at the pictures you will see this is not suitable pygmy rabbitat habitat, unless they now prefer late phase 2 pinyon and juniper and gravelly loam soils. As for the pinyon jay we are proposing 688 acres of chaining. With some rough measurements in ArcMap I came up approximately 30,000 acres intact PJ. I am pretty confident that chaining 2.29% of the PJ on the Antelope Range will not jeopardize the pinyon jays. With the training we will get from you in March will survey for nesting colonies. Keith I do appreciate all the time you put into reading all these proposals. Not many people can say they do this. Thanks again.
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Stan, I am here because I hope that we can all work together to create good projects. Being accusatory doesn't help. I appreciate that there are a number of private land projects. It's encouraging to see private landowners taking so much interest in improving wildlife habitat. A couple of questions: 1. You mention that the risk of cheatgrass invasion is high. Wouldn't chaining increase that risk? I know that you need to think out/significantly reduce the amount of p-j because fire will definitely increase the risk of cheatgrass invasion, so I'm not saying that such a reduction isn't needed. Just wondering if chaining will also increase cheatgrass risk in the area. 2. This private land borders BLM lands with wilderness characteristics, and is also included in ARRWA. I'm concerned that with the significant amount of non-native seeds, some of them will spread to the BLM lands, impairing the native vegetation there. How will this be prevented?
Comment 02/10/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Judi, I appreciate your interest in implementing quality projects and hope work with you in the future. Thanks for your concern we feel that the planned seed mix will be competitive with cheatgrass and the follow chemical treatment targeting cheatgrass will only increase the effectiveness of the treatment. The planned treatment should complement the transition to untreated PJ forest and help protect it from large scale catastrophic fire. Thanks for your concern.
Comment 02/10/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Great Project Stan! Excellent work reaching out to private landowners and putting Conservation on the ground. This is what I like to see, partnerships across the landscape to better the resources. There is plenty of private & public land nearby to keep the proactive work going for years to come.
Comment 02/10/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Thanks Jake. Keep up the positive and supportive comments.
Comment 01/25/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Your method section made my head hurt. I know you mentioned it in your comments last year but I really didn't see where you discussed the herbicide treatment.
Comment 01/26/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Thanks for catching that. I added some language now for it.
Comment 01/30/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Lindsay Martindale
Hi Stan, In the proposal you mention monitoring pinyon jays and creating a mosiac of habitat islands to protect cultural and wildlife resources. I didn't see the timing of pinyon jay surveys mentioned in the proposal. Do you plan to conduct nest surveys pre-treatment to inform habitat island locations?
Comment 01/30/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Lindsay We will do Pinyon Jay surveys in the spring (April-May) considering that the project is funded. This will allow us to avoid nesting colonies.
Comment 02/02/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Gunnell
Note on the bitterbrush species you may want. Desert bitterbrush usually doesn't occur this far north, but could be appropriate under current/changing climate regime's. I would support trying it here. GBRC may not be able to get the quantity requested. You might consider targeted seeding with dribblers or splitting with antelope bitterbrush. Question(s) on the timing of herbicide. Is the Plateau being sprayed after the seeding? Are there concerns with inhibiting the seeding or negative impacts on seeded species? Were other herbicides/timings considered?
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
I would differently be interested and supportive of trying Desert Bitterbrush. I this area can be very dry. I would just split the species. Would you like to have me update the seed mix. If so shoot me an email.
Comment 03/25/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Stan - What is the status of this project? Is it going forward without DNR funds? Or can I moved it to cancelled?
Comment 03/25/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Stan Gurley
It is, the program number is E256W5961A. This email was sent on March 18. Thanks again
Comment 03/25/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
You are right. My bad. It was on my last budget change that I just sent over. Database will be updated to reflect that. Thanks! You are the best.
Comment 08/18/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
This is just a reminder that completion reports are due August 31st. Expenses in the Through WRI/DWR column on the finance page have been entered. Please do not make any changes to numbers in the Through WRI/DWR column. 1. Any "Through Other" or "In-kind" expenses will need to be entered by the PM or contributors. 2. Update your map features (if applicable) and 3. fill out the completion form. 4. Don't forget to upload any pictures of the project you have of before, during and after completion. 5. 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. If you have any questions about this don't hesitate to contact me. Thanks.
Comment 09/02/2025 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.
Comment 09/03/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thanks for making those corrections/additions. I have moved this project to completed.
Completion
Start Date:
04/07/2025
End Date:
04/07/2025
FY Implemented:
2025
Final Methods:
Approximately 176 acres of private land was aerial seeded using a drone. The drone operator was contracted by the landowner. The seed mix was purchased through the GBRC and was a combination of grasses and forbs recommended by the NRCS Range Conservationist and seeded at the rate of 12.19 bulk lbs/acre. The seed was applied on April 7, 2025. Iron County Fire is masticating the seeded area with their equipment for Participation Credit Funds. They will have the mastication completed the fall of 2025.
Project Narrative:
FFSL and NRCS worked together with the private landowner to complete the project. The goal of the project was to increase grasses and forbs for livestock and wildlife, primarily pronghorn and mule deer and reduce fuels that could lead to wildfire. The landowner was able to get a drone contract in April of 2025 to apply the seed. The seed was applied in one day, and the application went well using this new form of technology. Aero Ag was the contractor for this project. The mastication is underway by Iron County Fire and should be completed the fall 2025.
Future Management:
Mastication will continue by Iron County Fire. Livestock will not graze the seeded areas for two growing seasons.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
14932 Terrestrial Treatment Area Bullhog Full size
14932 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-fixed wing)
Project Map
Project Map