Parker Mountain Spike Treatments Phase I
Project ID: 5972
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2023
Submitted By: 995
Project Manager: Jim Lamb
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Southern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
In the early 2000's we had great success improving Sage-grouse brood rearing habitat using Tebuthiron. Many of these treatments are back to pre-treatment canopy cover. This project consists of applying Tebuthiron to sagebrush stands to increase forb and grass understory to benefit Greater Sage-grouse. Four phases of roughly 1000 acres each are planned.
Location:
This project is located on the Parker Mountain west of Loa, Utah.
Project Need
Need For Project:
This first phase of the project proposes to reduce shrub (primarily sagebrush) cover via Tebuthiuron (i.e., Spike) in small (< 100 ac) areas of dense sagebrush stands where the herbaceous (i.e., grasses and forbs) understory is currently being limited. We propose to treat 833 acres of sagebrush in total across a large landscape of intact sagebrush communities on the Awapa Plateau (Parker Mountain). This is phase one of four with a goal to treat a total of 4,100 acres by the completion of all phases in a WRI focus area The majority of the project area falls into the Parker Mountain-Emery Sage-Grouse Management Area. Understanding seasonal habitat types are key to understanding sage-grouse habitat needs and conservation. The Parker Mountain sage-grouse population is one of the most studied in Utah. We have used information gathered and published from past studies of radio-marked sage-grouse and the response of sage-grouse to past sagebrush treatments. Proposed treatment areas are known to be active nesting and brood rearing habitat. Accordingly, we have designed the spatial and temporal scale of treatments to leave large areas of intact sagebrush in place where sage-grouse can meet their shrub canopy needs for nesting. The benefit will come during the early and late brood-rearing periods where sage-grouse broods will have access to increased forb cover, and the associated insects within the treatment areas. Past research on Parker Mountain has shown that sage-grouse broods readily select treatment areas for brooding habitat. However, past treatment areas across the mountain have now returned, or will return shortly, to pre-treatment conditions with high shrub canopy potentially limiting the understory. The increase in herbaceous cover will not only benefit sage-grouse broods, but increase forage for livestock and other wildlife species.
Objectives:
1) Enhance forbs and grasses for sage-grouse brood-rearing habitat while maintaining sagebrush nesting cover. 2) Increase forage availability for livestock and other wildlife species. 3) Increase the heterogeneity of vegetation communities within a large intact sagebrush landscape.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Habitat loss has been identified as one of the primary threats to sage-grouse populations in Utah by the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State of Utah. Treating sagebrush stands to reset succession to an earlier seral stage affects, either directly or indirectly, three of the four key sage-grouse threats identified by the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives Final Report (February 2013) for the Greater Parker Mountain sage-grouse population. For convenience, these threats are listed below: 1) Loss or degradation of habitat (primarily due to vegetation succession) 2) Conversion of habitat (sagebrush to pinyon-juniper or cheatgrass at the lower elevations) 3) Increased risk of predation because of expansion of, or changes in, the native predator community in response to anthropogenic factors, and 4) Habitat fragmentation from loss or degradation of habitat that results in a loss of sage-grouse habitat connectivity. Chick survival is one of the key components to maintaining and increasing sage-grouse populations. By increasing forbs, and the associated insects, in known brooding areas sage-grouse broods can be benefited. Although this project will reduce sagebrush cover, which could be looked at as a potential habitat loss, the proposed prescription of small scale and spread-out timing of treatments has been designed specifically to not put the sage-grouse population at risk. Similar treatments on Parker Mountain in the past have resulted in increased forbs and were strongly selected for by sage-grouse broods. These same treatments have had sagebrush cover return to pre-treatment levels within as quickly as 10 years. This action is a proven, low cost method for increasing habitat sustainability across the Parker for the grouse, deer, pronghorn, elk, domestic livestock and a myriad of other sagebrush obligate species. Parker Mountain is relatively high in elevation and currently is at low risk to cheatgrass expansion or other invasive plants.
Relation To Management Plan:
Many if not all of these management plans mention removing p/j in landscapes. They also mention vegetation treatment projects to maintain, restore and enhance habitats. This project is based on research that shows maintenance, restoration and enhancement of habitats for a large number of species occupying the Sagebrush areas of the Parker Mountain can be accomplished using the treatment methods outlined. Please reference the two papers in the documents section. However, for your reading pleasure I have included all the usual references... . 1) Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) also referred to as the "forest plan" IV-3. Integrate vegetation management with resource management to maintain productivity and provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. LRMP, IV-3. Coordinate wildlife and fish habitat management with State and other Federal and local agencies. LRMP, IV-4. Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals. 2) US Forest Service Greater Sage-grouse Utah Amendment, September 2015. Objective: Every 10 years for the next 50 years, improve greater sage-grouse (GRSG) habitat by removing invading conifers. Desired Conditions: In GRSG seasonal habitat, capable of producing sagebrush, has less than 10% conifer canopy cover. Vegetation treatment projects should be conducted if they maintain, restore ore enhance desired conditions for sage-grouse. 3)Parker Mountain Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Local Conservation Plan, October 1, 2006. 2. Strategy: by 2011, make an assessment of non-desirable/invasive vegetation in sage-grouse habitats. 2.5. Action: Treat areas where undesirable vegetation has become, or is at risk of becoming a factor in sage-grouse habitat loss or fragmentation. 4) Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah January 11, 2019 4c. Using WRI, remove conifer as appropriate in areas protected by federal, state and private landowners to ensure that existing functional habitat remain. 4d. Using WRI, maintain existing sage-grouse habitats by offsetting the impacts due to conifer encroachment by creating additional habitat within or adjacent to occupied habitats at an equal rate each year - or 25,000 acres each year- whichever is greater. 4e. Increase sage-grouse habitats by using the WRI- and other state, federal and private partnerships- to restore or create 50,000 acres if habitat within or adjacent of occupied habitats each year in addition to 4d. 5) Conservation Plan for Greater Sage-grouse in Utah, February 14, 2013. Sage-grouse Management Goal: Protect, maintain, improve and enhance sage-grouse populations and habitats within the established Sage-grouse Management Areas. 2.0.3 Objective 3 - Habitat: Enhance an average of 25,000 acres of sage-grouse habitat in Sage-grouse Management Areas annually. 2.0.4 Objective 4 - Habitat: Increase the total amount of sage-grouse habitat acreage within Sage-grouse Management Areas by an average of 50,000 acres per year, through management actions targeting Opportunity Areas. 5.4.1 Aggressively remove encroaching conifers and other plant species to expand greater sage-grouse habitat where possible. 6)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Conservation Objectives: Final Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. February 2013. General Conservation Objectives: 1. Stop population declines and habitat loss. 2. Implement targeted habitat management and restoration. Specific Conservation Objectives: 1. Retain sage-grouse habitats within PAC's. 3. Restore and rehabilitate degraded sage-grouse habitats in PAC's. Conservation Objective: Maintain and restore healthy native sagebrush plant communities within the range of sage-grouse Conservation Objective: Remove pinyon/juniper from areas of sagebrush that are most likely to support sage-grouse (post-removal) at a rate that is at least equal to the rate of pinyon/juniper incursion. -Prioritize the use of mechanical treatments. -Reduce juniper cover in sage-grouse habitats to less than 5% but preferably eliminate entirely. -Employ all necessary management actions to maintain the benefit of juniper removal for sage-grouse habitats. 7) Utah Wildlife Action Plan, 2015 Publication Number 15-14, State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Effective 2015-2025 -- Promoting and funding restoration that reduces the uncharacteristic and surpluses of older age class, including: Dixie/chain harrow, brush mowing or other treatments that reduce the older age class and stimulate the younger/mid age classes; herbicide or mechanical treatment of non-native invasive species such smooth brome; single tree mulching/cutting of invading conifer (p.51). 8) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer. 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. 9) Plateau Deer Herd Management Plan Unit #25 (2015) - Habitat Management Objectives -- Encourage vegetation manipulation projects and seeding to increase the availability, abundance, and nutritional content of browse, grass, and forb species. Strategies: Habitat Protection, Improvement and Maintenance - Reduce expansion of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinyon-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop & scatter, bullhog and chaining projects; maintain summer fawning areas by increasing beneficial habitat work in summer and transitional habitat areas.(p3-4) 10) Sevier County Resource Management Plan 2017- Water Quality and Hydrology. This action is congruent with Desired Management Practice number 3. Where water resources on public lands have diminished because grasses have succeeded to pinyon-juniper and other woody vegetation, a vigorous program of mechanical treatments should be applied to promptly remove this woody vegetation and biomass, stimulate the return of the grasses to historic levels, and thereby provide a watershed that maximizes water yield and water quality for livestock, wildlife, and human uses.(pg 24)
Fire / Fuels:
The Wildfire Risk Index for the proposed project area ranges from very high to very very low due to variations in moisture across the mountain. Treating the oldest, largest sagebrush in these habitats should moderate expected flame length in the event of a fire. This project resets plant succession a portion of the Parker sagebrush communities to make them more resilient and sets succession back to a less fire prone condition. In addition, the skeletons of the sagebrush that die after treatment continue to catch wind driven snow which creates wetter conditions in the sagebrush stands. This project also helps by breaking up the continuity of mature fuels and limiting the ability of wildfire to spread into priority sage-grouse nesting, brood-rearing, and winter habitat. Implementation of this action would be consistent with the 2015 Sage-Grouse Utah Plan Amendment.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Mature sagebrush are opportunistic water users; they readily out-compete understory species which eventually die off. Removing some of the old, decadent sagebrush is critical for restoring sagebrush habitat and ecosystem resilience because of the water available to other species once they are reduced. Project activities would regenerate improved understory conditions, grass, forbs, and young shrubs which should improve water quality by leading to less generation of sediment during overland flow events and thereby delivering less sediment to riparian areas, rivers, and catchment reservoirs. Reducing sediment can decrease pollutants in impaired waterbodies downstream by reducing phosphorus loading associated with sediment mobilization during such flow events. Additionally, vegetation treatments would be designed to reduce the risk of severe wildfire and all of the associated undesirable water quality effects.
Compliance:
All applicable NEPA clearances have been obtained for this project on USFS, BLM(DOI-BLM-UT-C020-2018-0021-EA) and SITLA properties.
Methods:
When applying Tebuthiuron for sage-grouse brood rearing habitat treatments, a low rate of active ingredient that results in partial kill of sagebrush is most desirable. Soil texture and depth, sagebrush vigor, precipitation regimes, and other environmental conditions will affect the resulting percentage of sagebrush killed. Pretreatment data measuring these various factors would help guide the best application rate. Caution should be exercised in applying these observations and treatment techniques to sites with different elevations, annual precipitation, subspecies of big sagebrush, or soil substrates. It is also critical that sage-grouse seasonal use patterns of the landscape be identified and delineated prior to implementation of sagebrush treatment projects because sagebrush removal in areas where wintering or nesting habitat is a limiting factor may have devastating consequences. Because we have well documented treatment responses from our treatments in the early 2000's we are confident we can create a project that will have long term benefits for the Parker Sage-grouse, wild and domestic grazing ungulates and other sagebrush obligate species.
Monitoring:
Active sage-grouse leks within or adjacent to the project area will continue to be monitored annually in the spring by the UDWR with the help of Parker Mountain Adaptive Resource (PARM) local working group, to determine population trends and possible relationships to project implementation. We also have the original treatment exclosures still in place on the Parker Mountain. We will use these long term exclosures to help assess treatment results.
Partners:
The Parker Mountain Adaptive Resource Management Local Working Group (PARM) proposes this project. Group members include representatives from: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah State University, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service, State of Utah Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands, Wayne County Commission, Private Landowners, Utah Division of State Institutional and Trust Lands, Division of Wildlife Resources, and USU extension.
Future Management:
Our results suggest that small sagebrush treatments create resource patches that are particularly attractive to sage grouse broods within large, contiguous brood-rearing areas dominated by mountain big sagebrush. This area will be maintained as sagebrush habitat. Potential threats include noxious weed invasion, cross-country OHV use, invasion from conifers and drought. Periodic visual inspection, photo points, and vegetation monitoring will occur to assess current conditions and track trends over time.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
As sage becomes large and decadent they outcompete understory vegetation for water and nutrients. Over time, these understory species become less productive and vigorous and eventually die out. Treating these sagebrush stands releases understory grasses and forbs from competition, which increases plant vigor and rangeland productivity. The Parker Mountain hosts one of four huntable populations of Sage-grouse in the state of Utah. In addition the Parker has contributed to recovery populations of GRSG in the Strawberry Valley, West Box Elder County and the Sheeprock Mountains SGMA's. You may correctly observe that the Parker provides a "nursery stock" of GRSG for other areas in our state. The Parker also contains the most productive GRSG habitat in Southern Utah. The Parker also has a huntable herd of pronghorn that have provided an incredible amount of recreation for our sportsman in the last 50 years. This pronghorn herd has also contributed to transplants and augmentations to pronghorn herds in Utah, Idaho, Nevada and Arizona. Mule deer use the Parker for all phases of their life cycles and elk use the Parker extensively during the winter months. Livestock grazing is also a sustainable use on the Parker Mountain. As you travel the Parker it is often possible to delineate where the treatments took place twenty years ago by observing where livestock choose to graze. Even after twenty years the areas inside the old treatments have a more nutritious understory than the adjacent areas that were not treated.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$25,823.00 $0.00 $25,823.00 $10,000.00 $35,823.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Personal Services (permanent employee) UDWR Biologist time to plan and oversee the project $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2023
Contractual Services Aerial SPIKE Application Contract. 833 acres@ $15/acre $12,495.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Materials and Supplies 1,666 pounds of Tebuthiron for the treatment application. $13,328.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$29,287.00 $0.00 $29,287.00 $10,464.49 $39,751.49
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2023
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $464.49 2024
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Safari Club International (SCI) S026 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $18,323.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
DNR Watershed U004 $3,464.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Medium
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
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
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Pronghorn R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments High
Pygmy Rabbit N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Utah Prairie Dog N1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Habitats
Habitat
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (historic) Very High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/14/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Great project, I like the direction this is going and Spike is an excellent tool! Is there any chance the permittee could contribute financially with a NRCS application ? Thanks
Comment 01/14/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
We partnered with the Parker Mountain Grazers for about $120K worth of pond projects over the last ten years or so. I didn't ask about a GIP application at our planning meetings and it wasn't brought up by the grazers or our NRCS partners who were all in attendance. Short answer is...I'm not sure?
Comment 01/18/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Thanks for responding !
Comment 01/17/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Hall
Great question. There will be several phases of this project, and we definitely have a goal of including permittees through an NRCS contract in the coming phases (we just didn't quite make the deadline this year).
Comment 01/18/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Sometimes the deadlines shift around . Thanks for responding.
Comment 01/20/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
First of all I want to give you bonus points for pointing out the fact Parker is an identified Important Bird Area designation. I use those Audubon designation all the time and have never seen anyone else use them. Secondly, you may want point out how UPD will be benefitting, I didn't see it in the narrative.
Comment 01/24/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
Thanks for the bonus points Clint! I'll get some comments into the narrative for the UPD benefit.
Comment 01/21/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Nicki Frey
To mimic Clint, I'd like some information on how the treatment will impact UPD and pygmy rabbits. I couldn't find that info in the needs or relationship to management plans. Also, for this year you are doing 833, as Phase 1? And the map is just showing those 833? Or is the map showing all the phases? Or are you doing all the phases in the same year?
Comment 01/24/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
On the maps tab there are 4 different terrestrial treatments listed. As you click on each of the four treatments the map will highlight the four phases. 833 acres in year one and 4,100 acres over the total of the four phases. As I mentioned in Clint's reply I'll get the UPD comments into the narrative.
Comment 02/01/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Honorable Mr. Lamb, I like it better when we work on fish projects. Thanks for outlining why this project is so good for Parker Mountain sage chickens. I was instructed by a certain someone to ask you where the SGI funds are in this project. I wish a fish could get its whole own initiative. You know if you put in a map of all that telemetry data you allude to in the proposal. I could give you bonus points for ENHANCED PROJECT LOCATION/DESIGN, right?
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
I am working on the telemetry maps with Jess currently. The maps will show telemetry points on the Parker related to our current proposal. The maps will also show locations from Bird dog "flush counts" that have been occurring on the Parker for many years. These flush counts have been used to guide management actions on the Parker in past Spike treatments.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Barbara Sugarman
Hi Jim, I think that Utah prairie dogs could potentially be benefitted by this project, but I am not sure that the benefit will be substantial. There are a few large Utah prairie dog colonies near the Spike treatment, but I think that the post-treatment dead sagebrush may not allow for greater connectivity between colonies. In addition, I believe that the fall is a good time of year to distribute Spike so that Utah prairie dogs do not accidentally consume the pellets. Cheers, Barbara Sugarman
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
Thank you for your comments on UPD Barbara. I'll hope for the limited benefit to them.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
JIm, Can you explain how removing sagebrush will benefit pygmy rabbits - an old-growth sagebrush obligate? Keith
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
The benefit would be a better understory for foraging in stands of older brush that still provide cover for the pygmy rabbits.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Heather Talley
Hey Jim! Will you please reply to this comment with links to the research projects that illustrate sage-grouse utilization of the treatment area, such as proximity to leks and broods? Will you please also add those locations to the project map so we can visualize the lekking and brood-rearing areas in relation to the project? Thank you!
Comment 02/04/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
Those telemetry maps are included in the documents section of this project. Thank you.
Comment 02/04/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Grasses and forbs make up a substantial portion of their diets in spring and summer. However, sagebrush is their primary food source - up to 99% in winter! I suggest you make certain not to use spike in or within 100 m of occupied habitats - probably primarily draws, swales with deeper soils and taller/denser sagebrush. Pre-treatment surveys are a VERY good idea.
Comment 02/04/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
I think Scott Chamberlain, our PARM partners and I can get surveys done in front of the phased work. Thanks Keith.
Comment 02/06/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
1. In the need for this project, you state that "past treatment areas across the mountain have now returned, or will return shortly, to pre-treatment conditions with high shrub canopy potentially limiting the understory." What is the cause of these previously treated areas returning to pre-treatment conditions "within as quickly as 10 years"? One reason that sagebrush ecological sites transition to degraded conditions with dense sagebrush is livestock grazing. What impacts is livestock grazing having in this area, and what are the agencies doing to change grazing management to address these impacts? 2. What are the impacts of tebuthiuron, which is non-selective, on other plants within the project area? Other impacts -- to insects, birds, other wildlife species? 3. What are the agencies doing to re-introduce fire into this area so that there's less need to constantly go back and re-treat?
Comment 02/08/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Brant Hallows
The following information is from the ecological risk assessment section of the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States: The toxicity studies used small mammals and honeybees as surrogates to represent vertebrates and invertebrates respectively because they are the most sensitive terrestrial receptors. "Tebuthiuron is essentially non-toxic to birds and slightly toxic to honeybees. Based on a honeybee dermal toxicity study, tebuthiuron appers to have low toxicity to terrestrial invertebrates. Tebuthiuron is considered to have moderate toxicity to mammals." Those studies were using a spray formulation of the chemical and used both the typical and maximum application rates. Although the EIS states that moderate and slight toxicity may occur, this project will even further reduce impacts to insect or animals for two reasons. 1. This project has elected to use a pelletized formulation instead of a spray formulation. The pellets will have no potential to land on and leave residue on animals and insects that will be adsorbed through dermal tissue contact as occurred in the study. Vegetation also will not have surfaces coated by residue that could then be consumed by small animals or insects. 2. Although the exact application rate is yet to be determined, it will be nowhere near the maximum application rate and will most likely be at or even below the typical application rate in order to simply thin the sagebrush. You are right that it can be used as a non-selective herbicide. However, applying it at such a low rate on already established forbs and grasses in the dormant season will not cause mortality in any non-target vegetation species.
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Judi, The issue of grazing contributing the previously treated patches thickening back up was extensively discussed. The layout of the treatment patches was done in part so it would influence grazing use patterns. The treatment patches are all more than a ¼ mile from water, they are smaller & medium patch sizes and well scattered. Also, the permittees have added water sources by cleaning and lining dozens of ponds. By spreading out the grazing we hope to reduce pressure on both the traditionally used areas and the newly treated spots.
Comment 02/07/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Thanks so much for your response, Scott. One more question: What cultural surveys and tribal consultation are being/have been conducted for this project?
Comment 02/14/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Jim Lamb
No ground disturbance is planned for this project. However, All surveys both wildlife and cultural will be completed prior to implementation and will have SHPO concurrence.
Comment 08/30/2023 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
Thank you for submitting your completion form on time. The completion report says that 825 acres was completed, but the map features is showing a total of 4,160 acres. These need to match. There is a polygon for the 825 acres, so maybe the other polygons may just need to be delete? 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
Thanks for fixing the acres on your map features. One other thing that I need you to fix on the map is the method of application. It says that you used fixed wing, but the report and pics say helicopter.
Completion
Start Date:
05/23/2023
End Date:
05/23/2023
FY Implemented:
2023
Final Methods:
Spike was applied to 825 acres with a helicopter on May 23, 2023. Shape files were provided that illustrate the paths where the Spike was applied in the polygons.
Project Narrative:
Spike was applied at a rate of 2 pounds/acre in polygons located on SITLA and USFS lands on the Parker Mountain. The active amount of the chemical was 2% in this application. Product was applied in the spring just as snow was finishing melting.
Future Management:
Our results suggest that small sagebrush treatments create resource patches that are particularly attractive to sage grouse broods within large, contiguous brood-rearing areas dominated by mountain big sagebrush. These resource patches also benefit grazing ungulates on the Parker. In the past we have noticed increased use in these treated polygons by Mule Deer and Pronghorn as they raise fawns. This area will be maintained as sagebrush habitat. Potential threats include noxious weed invasion, cross-country OHV use, invasion from conifers and drought. Periodic visual inspection, photo points, and vegetation monitoring will occur to assess current conditions and track trends over time. The effectiveness of this treatment will become apparent in the next 3-5 years as the chemical kills some of the Sagebrush. Treated polygons will be walked occasionally as time passes to check the effectiveness of the treatment.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
13056 Terrestrial Treatment Area Herbicide application Aerial (helicopter)
Project Map
Project Map