Red Canyon Habitat Restoration Project Phase II
Project ID: 6673
Status: Proposed
Fiscal Year: 2027
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Kendall Bagley
PM Agency: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
PM Office: Southern Region
Lead: Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
This project consists of two-way chaining 878 acres of phase III pinyon and juniper to remove trees and re-establish the perennial grass, forb and sagebrush communities. This project will allow improved forage for livestock and wintering mule deer and elk herds on the east side of the Pahvant Mountain Range in Central Utah. This project will be implemented on USFS Property, overseen from the Fillmore Forest Service Area Office.
Location:
This project is located on the east side of the Pahvant Mtn Range, at the mouth of Red Canyon west of Aurora, Utah. Project will be implemented on Forest Service Properties. Project is located within T21 South R2 West; Sections 21, 27, 28, 29, and 33.
Project Need
Need For Project:
Over the past fifty years, the east slope of the Pahvant Mountains has seen a gradual shift from sagebrush/bunchgrass communities to thick stands of Utah juniper and two-needle pinyon pine. In the current state, much of the Ezra Flat/Red Canyon area is not effective in providing habitat for many of the wildlife species found there. The dense pinyon-juniper over-story also increases the risk of wildland fire, alters snow accumulation patterns, and increases overland flow and erosion during high runoff events. The project area is classified by UDWR as Crucial winter range for deer and high value winter range for elk. Populations for both species have been consistently below UDWR objectives for the Pahvant Herd Unit (21b) and poor winter range conditions resulting from expansion of pinyon/juniper into sagebrush ecosystems is a key factor. This project will create and improve foraging habitat and directly benefit both wildlife and livestock. By increasing overall site productivity, this treatment will also increase populations of small mammals and insects, which are important prey species for reptiles such as the Utah Milksnake and Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake, as well as wild turkey and the multiple species of migratory birds that nest in the area. Current conditions are also impacting livestock grazing and dense stands of p/j has reduced and in a few areas all but eliminated native grasses and forbs to the point that the project area has not been able to support cattle grazing for roughly ten years. The Ezra Flat Range Trend study data shows that perennial grasses and forbs are lacking and may require reseeding to recover in the near future. Addressing the winter range issues and providing additional forage will also benefit local agriculture by providing deer and elk an alternative to cultivated crops in the flats. The project area drains into the Sevier River, which is an important source of water locally and sediment load is always an issue. The lack of an understory and relatively high percentage of bare ground make the area proposed for treatment more prone to erosion and loss of topsoil. Re-establishing a resilient community that includes deep rooted perennial grasses will conserve topsoil and improve watershed functioning. Given the high social and economic importance of hunting and livestock production in the local area the Fillmore Ranger District, Utah Division of Wildlife, BLM and local permittees have combined to focus on improving and restoring winter range on the east slope of the Pahvant Mountains. This project is part of that effort and is designed to improve habitat and range conditions on one of the most productive sites by removing encroaching phase II and phase III pinyon-juniper using a two-way chaining and re-seeding. The two-way chaining will remove >80% of the p/j over-story, releasing the existing under-story from competition while the reseeding will re-establish important herbaceous species in areas where they were reduced or eliminated. This project is a great cooperation between State, and Federal Agencies along with Livestock Producers working together to meet a common goal of developing additional habitat for Wildlife and Livestock within Central Utah.
Objectives:
The overall objective is to increase habitat quality and quantity for wintering big game and sagebrush oriented wildlife, and to provide increased livestock forage by removing pinyon-juniper trees and develop a healthy rangeland community with diverse age classes and species composition. Additional objectives include reducing fuels and improving watershed functioning. Specific objectives include reduction on of pinyon-juniper cover to <20% within treatment polygons and five-year post treatment cover values for perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs within 60% of NRCS Ecological Site Description for Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) sites. Strategically located "leave islands" of pinyon-juniper may be included to provide thermal and hiding cover for big game. This project will partner with the UDWR, SITLA and Fillmore Forest Service to accomplish this task.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Project timing is critical with increasing pinyon-juniper cover expanding, including the increased loss of grasses and forbs that are important to wildlife and livestock grazing. The increased risk of wildland fire frequency and severity, increased risk of invasive plant species such as Cheatgrass, Scotch and Russian Thistle replacing native and desirable introduced plants. Increased risk of soil erosion, and lower quality and quantity of water due to continued decreases in watershed functioning. Nearly all of these are present to some extent, in much of the project area many combined to greatly limit the uses and benefits this section of land historically. All of these threats resulted from pinyon-juniper expansion altering the native sagebrush/bunchgrass community, and this project will address these risks by setting back succession of the upland sage-step community and restoring the site or at least improving it to a functional state. This project over time with no restoration efforts has increased invasive grass species within the project site, pinyon-juniper encroachment and increased soil erosion with little to no productive rangeland conditions. Late Phase II to early Phase III Pinyon-Juniper reduces the native understory of browse, shrubs and herbaceous plants species, reducing/removing PJ will allow for increased shrub, forbs and grass species to respond within the treatment site through reseeding efforts associated with this project. We continue to implement work in this area, this project is associated with larger scale projects WRI #5238, #6105, and #6661 to the north that have been implemented this past year. The Fillmore Forest Service has implemented ~950 acres of bullhog mastication work within the Hans Pumpernickel Project both Phase I and Phase II. Completed ~2 miles of riparian fence this past year and have a contract available for ~2,785 of hand cut and pile work along with lop and scatter work. The archaeology survey work has been completed for the project to move forward, it was completed last summer. Mule Deer within the Fillmore WMU: The Fillmore, Oak Creek mule deer management plan sets a population objective of 2,000 deer. The most recent estimate in 2022 showed the population is under objective at 1,420. Fawn production and recruitment are closely tied to habitat quality and availability. Recent surveys have shown consistently lower ratios of fawns per 100 does in comparison to neighboring units. These low rates of recruitment are directly influencing the overall decline of mule deer on the unit. HABITAT MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES - Maintain or enhance forage production through direct range improvements on winter and summer deer range throughout the unit to achieve population management objectives. - Maintain critical fawning habitat in good condition. Fawn recruitment is a major concern on this unit and may be the single greatest factor limiting the population. - Work with federal and state partners in fire rehabilitation and prevention on crucial deer habitat through the WRI process. HABITAT PROTECTION/IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTAINENCE - Work with public land management agencies to develop specific vegetative objectives to maintain the quality of important deer use areas. - Continue to coordinate with land management agencies in planning and evaluating resource uses and developments that could impact habitat quality - Coordinate with federal and state partners in designing projects that will improve fire resiliency and protect areas of crucial habitat. - Reduce expansion of Pinion-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinion-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects. - Cooperate with federal land management agencies and local governments in developing and administering access management plans for the purposes of habitat protection and to provide refuges. - Future habitat work should be concentrated on the following areas. o WMA's. o Winter range along east side of unit. o Quaking Aspen forests unit wide. Wildlife Monitoring of Mule Deer this year (fall 23') within the Willow Creek area of the Pahvant consisted of collaring 3 female doe's this fall. Female doe's were in great condition the majority of locations have not been uploaded on Wildlife Tracker as of late due to the fact the collar information has not been sent to BYU from the recent capture. Data from wildlife tracker when obtain will be uploaded to this documents tab. Information from past collared data (10 years) is in the documents tab of this project, information shows collared deer utilizing the east side of the Pahvant Unit. In addition new treatment areas have been opened up and over the past several years creating additional forage for wintering mule deer. Elk populations on the Pahvant WMU are under objective, increased winter range forage is critical for elk use on the east side of the Pahvant Mtn Range. The FS has been proactive in treating several thousand acres over the last two years that will increase the wintering carrying capacity of elk in this area. The project will allow for an increase of over an additional 1,000 acres of winter range to be utilized by elk in the wintering months. In addition to the below goals/objectives are identified in the Turkey Statewide Plan: General Suitable habitat includes three key ingredients: trees, forbs and grass. Regardless of the type of environment, this combination must exist for turkeys to thrive. Trees provide food, daytime loafing and escape cover, and- --most importantly -- nighttime roost sites. Grasses and forbs provide food for adults and are especially important to poults as an environment in which they can efficiently forage for insects. Brood Rearing: During the first eight weeks after hatching, there are three essential components of brood rearing habitat. First - Poults need an environment that produces an abundance of insects. Second - Poults need habitat in which they can frequently and efficiently forage throughout the day. Third - Poults need an area that provides enough cover to hide, but allows the adult hen unobstructed vision for protection from predators. Therefore, the fundamental component of brood rearing habitat is herbaceous vegetation interspersed with trees. Herbaceous vegetation is key because it provides an ideal foraging environment for poults. Fall and Winter: Wild turkeys seek two imperative habitat ingredients in the fall and winter --food and roosting cover. Vegetation that turkeys utilize during the fall and winter is highly varied. Turkeys increase their use of forested cover during the fall and winter and decrease their use of open areas. Mast (pine nuts, acorns, berries) is the primary food source during fall and winter. Habitat value increases with higher proportions of mast-producing species in the forest and their degree of maturity. In mountainous environments, spring seeps are an important source of fall and winter food. Seeps provide invertebrates, mast and green vegetation. Because such water does not freeze, it provides a microclimate that allows foraging throughout the winter. This treatment will allow for increased foraging valve for young poults and adults due to increased forage from the reseed grasses, forbs and shrub species within the treatment area. Domestic Livestock benefit has improved ten fold by implementing these types of rangeland projects. Over the last 15 - 20 years grazing in this area of the Cedar Ridge allotment has been non-existence due to the fact of no understory, phase II and III pinyon and juniper woodlands and little to no opportunity for grazing to occur on this allotment. This restoration effort of chaining over 1,100 acres will improve the understory, increase grass, forb and shrub diversity and improve the overall rangeland health in this allotment for future grazing to occur. This treatment will definitely improve grazing rotations and seasonal use allowing the Fillmore Forest Service to increase grazing duration and implement future management tools in the the future. Golden and Bald Eagles will benefit form this type of restoration treatment as well typically these eagles are found in open country, especially in mountainous regions. They feeds mainly on small mammals, especially rabbits, marmots, and ground squirrels, but it also eats insects, snakes, birds, juvenile ungulates, and carrion. This chaining project will allow for increased open space for hunting small mammals and other pray due to the reduction in pinyon and juniper woodlands. The increased of understory of grasses forbs and shrubs should increase small mammals and other prey species for the Bald and Golden Eagles to prey upon. Utah Milk snake and the Soroan Mountain Kingsnake occupy a variety of habitats, including farmland, disturbed areas, meadows, river bottoms, bogs, rocky hillsides, and coniferous and deciduous forests. To support these snakes, these habitat types must have plenty of cover and a healthy rodent population. Information on the limited due to the survey work of UDWR, some survey work was conducted by Jimi Gragg in 2019 stated: "On the maps - we have positive-occurrence data only for these species. We have a distribution-modeling project that'll start in the fall, but we will begin with higher priorities. It will be a few years until we get around to those 2 (although they are pretty ideal candidates - from a technical standpoint - to model, I think). As far as value of habitat - I've tried to address that before. Basically, *all* snakes are predators. These 2 feed exclusively on vertebrates - lizards primarily, and small mammals to a lesser extent. That prey base depends on a landscape that isn't excessively dominated by woody plants, and which also isn't depleted of its herbaceous component. Basically, there needs to be enough seeds and bugs - same story as for so much small wildlife. The location, objectives, and methods of this proposal are well aligned to benefit these 2 snake species. Hope this is helpful". With the reduction of pinyon and juniper woodland, and the increased cover from spoil piles of trees and limbs from the treatment we expect to increase the foraging range for these two predatory snakes and the availability of small mammals and insects across this treatment. Thus improving habitat for the Utah Milk Snake and Sonoran Mountain King Snake. Bighorn Sheep have also been discussed in this area for future re-introduction by the UDWR, partnering with SFW and FNAWS. The lower private landowner has already agreed to sell the grazing allotment for domestic sheep in this area, thus making way for the possible introduction of Bighorn Sheep. This project would benefit Bighorn Sheep as a possible wintering habitat, providing critical nutritional value from the grass, forb and shrub species that will be planted. The open concept of the chaining treatment allows for increased visibility to escape from predatory animals such as cougars, coyotes and bobcats. In addition as this partnership is in the early stages if and when this reintroduction occurs the UDWR, SFW and FNAWS will be collaring the sheep and additional data will be used to help guide future restoration efforts in this area of the Pahvant Mtn Range. This project was the District Biologist (Mike Wardle) #4 Mule Deer project within the Pahvant WMU. This project also was the #4 Turkey project within the Pahvant WMU.
Relation To Management Plan:
The pinyon-juniper and big sagebrush areas lie within the Lowland Sagebrush Steppe Habitat type which is one of the key habitats identified in the Wildlife Action Plan (WAP) The proposed projects will address some of the habitat management strategies outlined in the deer and elk management plans for herd unit 21B (Fillmore Pahvant Unit ) including: *Continue to improve and restore sagebrush steppe habitats critical to deer according to DWRs Habitat Initiative. *Maintain habitat quantity and quality at a level adequate to support the stated population objectives while at the same time not resulting in an overall downward trend in range condition and watershed quality. *Work cooperatively with land management agencies and private landowners to plan and implement improvement projects for the purpose of enhancing wildlife habitat and range resources in general. *The project also helps fulfill the state mule deer management plan section IV Habitat Goal: Conserve and improve mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges. *The proposed projects will address the following goals and objectives of the Division of Wildlife Resources most recent strategic management plan: *Resource Goal: expand wildlife populations and conserve sensitive species by protecting and improving wildlife habitat. *Objective 1: protect existing wildlife habitat and improve 500,000 acres of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state. *Objective 3: conserve sensitive species to prevent them from becoming listed as threatened or endangered. *Constituency Goal: Achieve broad-based support for Division programs and budgets by demonstrating the value of wildlife to all citizens of Utah. *Objective 2: improve communication with wildlife organizations, public officials, private landowners, and government agencies to obtain support for Division programs. *UDWR SR critical big game winter range are important browse communities that need to be enhanced and improved. The Division will employ a variety of methods to achieve this including prescribed grazing, prescribed burning, reseeding and seedling transplants, also mechanical treatments. Priority areas will include sagebrush-steppe and mountain browse communities. Falls within the rangeland focus area for WRI wildlife species for mule deer and elk. *This plan is consistent with the Fishlake National Forest Plan for wildlife habitat enhancement and fuels management to improve habitat, reduce fuel loading, and protect against catastrophic wildfire. *Other project have been completed by the Forest Service and BLM in past years within the Willow Creek Canyon HUC 12 area. *Project within the are also benefit the management plans objectives of the lower Sevier River Watershed, as this will reduced sediment run off and create a healthy rangeland communities. *Management Plans are also in conjunction with NRCS overall goals of healthy rangelands and communities, improving watersheds and reducing erosion and sediment. The Natural Resources Conservation Service provides leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, and improve our natural resources and environment Project would also be relevant to NCS Goals and supported through the FS National Cohesive Strategies. CAT FIRE Objectives and Strategies: In 2013, the State of Utah developed the Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy (CAT FIRE) in response to the severe 2012 fire season. Reducing the catastrophic wildfire requires attention to three interdependent goals identified in the National Cohesive Wildfire Management Strategy -- Restore and Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Wildfire Response. These goals have been embraced throughout the development of the state's CAT FIRE strategy. Mitigation of hazardous fuels can change fire behavior making it easier to suppress. The effects of the mitigation, however, are not limited to life and property safety but will also affect forest health, water quality, vegetative species abundance, etc. As we continue to implement projects across the landscapes in Utah, the only way to truly be successful is to integrate existing programs, utilize local and federal partners and continue to educate the general public to create the desired shift towards more resilient communities and ecosystems. *Richfield Field Office RMP (2008) pg 76 - Manage for a mix of vegetative types, structural stages, and provide for native plant, fish, and wildlife habitats. -Sustain or reestablish the integrity of the sagebrush biome to provide the amount, continuity, and quality of habitat that is necessary to maintain sustainable populations of Greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent wildlife species. MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: a. Treat areas determined to need reseeding with a variety of plant species that are desirable for wildlife habitat, livestock, watershed management, and other resource values while maintaining vegetation species diversity. b. implement additional treatments to achieve Standards for Rangeland Health and desired vegetation condition. Vegetation treatments conducted up to 1,472,000 acres over the life of the plan. These acreage figures include all vegetation and fire fuels treatments. Central Utah FMP: - greater use of vegetation management to meet resource management objectives - hazardous fuels treatments will be used to restore ecosystems; protect human, natural and cultural resources; and reduce the threat of wildfire to communities - sagebrush steppe communities will be a high priority for ESR and fuel reduction to avoid catastrophic fires in these areas In addition to the above listed objectives the below goals/objectives are identified in the Turkey Statewide Plan: General Suitable habitat includes three key ingredients: trees, forbs and grass. Regardless of the type of environment, this combination must exist for turkeys to thrive. Trees provide food, daytime loafing and escape cover, and- --most importantly -- nighttime roost sites. Grasses and forbs provide food for adults and are especially important to poults as an environment in which they can efficiently forage for insects. Brood Rearing: During the first eight weeks after hatching, there are three essential components of brood rearing habitat. First - Poults need an environment that produces an abundance of insects. Second - Poults need habitat in which they can frequently and efficiently forage throughout the day. Third - Poults need an area that provides enough cover to hide, but allows the adult hen unobstructed vision for protection from predators. Therefore, the fundamental component of brood rearing habitat is herbaceous vegetation interspersed with trees. Herbaceous vegetation is key because it provides an ideal foraging environment for poults. Fall and Winter: Wild turkeys seek two imperative habitat ingredients in the fall and winter --food and roosting cover. Vegetation that turkeys utilize during the fall and winter is highly varied. Turkeys increase their use of forested cover during the fall and winter and decrease their use of open areas. Mast (pine nuts, acorns, berries) is the primary food source during fall and winter. Habitat value increases with higher proportions of mast-producing species in the forest and their degree of maturity. In mountainous environments, spring seeps are an important source of fall and winter food. Seeps provide invertebrates, mast and green vegetation. Because such water does not freeze, it provides a microclimate that allows foraging throughout the winter. **I have also included information pertaining to the State of Utah Resource Management Plan, Mule Deer Management Plan for the Fillmore Pahvant, Utah Statewide Turkey Plan and the Sevier County Resource Management Plan located in the Documents Tab of this project.
Fire / Fuels:
This project will reduce fuel loading by removing the pinyon-juniper trees with a two-way chaining treatment, as well as with a phase I lop and scatter treatment. Reseeding the site and establishing a resilient and competitive community of perennial grasses and forbs will help prevent the site from being dominated by invasive annuals such as cheatgrass that perpetuate a rapid fire cycle. Treatments like this have been proven to prevent wildfire from spreading following an ignition event, and this particular treatment will create several barriers or buffers between treated and non treated areas that will be critical for controlling or containing wildfires. The FFO Forest Service and the Richfield BLM Fuels have implemented several prior projects that reduced the likelyhood of wildfire in the area and adjacent to this project, these projects consisted of clear cutting, burning and reseeding along with cut and pile projects. This project will help protect valuable infrastructures, from Catastrophic Wildfires, such as homes, summer cabins, outbuildings, hay sheds, livestock corrals and mostly the community of Aurora, Utah which has over 500 residents. This project will also have an effect on the Hwy 50 that is a critical travel corridor, and has been shut down in the past due to the Sawmill Fire, and Gap Fire. The size of the treatment is around 878 acres and is within 4-6 miles of several structures including homes, and out buildings, and within 10 miles of Aurora, UT. This treatment will reduce fuel loads and improve critical habitat for mule deer, elk and turkeys in the future, along with providing additional forage for livestock. I have updated the FFSL Risk Assessment in the documents tab for additional information on the fuel loading, flame length, water resource concerns, and at risk fire potential. We are looking as the project stands today at a Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Condition Class III with the implementation of this treatment we would expect to drop to a FRCC Class I giving us some good ecological integrity in the treatment with improved understory and shrub components. This would reduce the flame height and fuel loading in the areas and look to prevent Catastrophic Wildfires in the area.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The current condition of much of the project area is Phase III pinyon-juniper stands with little to no understory of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Prior to treatment, the estimated bare ground cover on the nearby Ezra Flat study site average almost 30%, well above the desired condition and added to the risk of soil erosion. Meeting the project objectives would reduce bare ground (reduced 5% of Ezra Flat), increase vegetative cover, increase infiltration, reduce overland flow, and ultimately increase stream flow and reduce sedimentation and phosphorous loading into the Sevier River and water supplies of the nearby town of Aurora. These benefits have been documented by research done in similar ecosystems (Deboolt et al, 2008). I found a webinar by the NRCS where the presenter mentions through her study that 130 pinyon and juniper trees she sampled within an acre (33% pinyon, 9% juniper and 58% inter-space) over a twelve month period would utilize and estimated 280,000 liters of water per acre per year or approximately 23% of an acre foot. And while the Quality of water will not be overwhelming the first year after treatment it becomes significant over time. This type of treatment will benefit the soil over the long term, due to increasing plants that will utilize the excess water, overland flows of rills will be filled in, chance for overland flooding will be minimized allowing for springs and seep to start appearing and improved rangeland conditions will benefit overall. With the first phase of this project we implemented several miles of pipeline and troughs that have allowed for the collection of water at the spring development and constructed head box and deliver it overland through a pipe line. This reduced existing impacts at the source by allowing livestock to be fenced out of the spring area itself, improving water quality and providing better protection of riparian vegetation around the spring. The increased efficiency should also improve water quantity through increased efficiency and reduced evaporation. The quality of the water will be improved at the destination, as it will be held in water troughs that allow cattle and wildlife to drink clean clear water verse allowing water to be lost or made unavailable in a damaged seep. Water Right is held by the Fillmore Forest Service, approval has been granted to complete this project. Water Right #63-1782, application/claim# D2304, Information from the Sevier County Resources Plan addressing water Quality and Quantity: DESIRED MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1. Access for municipal water and secondary water development, quality management, or infrastructure construction or maintenance on federal public lands must be granted as soon as possible in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of citizens. 2. Develop improved methods to reduce and remove sediment in storage reservoirs and continue stream bank stabilization efforts. 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. 4. Sevier County will participate in watershed management on public and private lands to optimize quality and quantity of water. 6. Support projects to increase water quality and quantity in the county. 7. Maintain and improve our fresh water supplies and watersheds, and increase our watershed production capabilities. 8. Conserve and preserve water for agricultural uses in the county. 9. Sevier County shall protect ground, spring, and surface water quality. 19. The county encourages actions by individuals, groups, and local governments that are aimed at improving water quality and supporting the hydrology of the county. Also the addressing of the TMDL from the Lower Sevier River Watershed Plan states that through water and overland flows we can have high amounts of phosphors in the system that can drain into the Sevier River watershed. The implementation of this project would seem to help control it as we will be reseeding grasses, forbs and shrubs that would help control the overland flow slow down the sediment discharge in to the Lower Sevier River and reduce sediment, phosphors and other nutrient load by reducing the pinyon-juniper trees and improving the uplands. In addition other studies show support of water quality and quantity as mentioned below: In a study from 2008, Deboodt, et. al (2008) mentions that juniper trees can use up to 30 gallons of water a day, when adequate moisture is present. It also states that Vegetative modeling has shown that 9 to 35 trees per acre can utilize all the precipitation delivered to a site in a 13-in annual precipitation zone. In their study researchers monitored two watersheds 12 years prior to treatment (cutting). After the treatment analysis indicated that juniper reduction significantly increased late season spring flow by 225%, increased days of recorded groundwater by an average of 41 days , and increased the relative availability of late season soil moisture to soil depths of .76 meters. It was also noted that managing vegetation for water yield may be obtainable at a much lower precipitation threshold than what was previously understood. Baker, et. al (1984) found a 157% increase in stream flows over a 147 ha pinyon and juniper treatment. Roundy, et. al. (2014) has shown that mechanical treatments to remove pinyon and juniper increase time that soil water is available. Even four years after treatment, treated areas showed from 8.6 days to-18 days additional water availability at high elevation sites. Roth, et. All (2017) stated snow pack is deeper and last longer in the open site at the low and mid sites (4-26 and 11-33 days, respectively). Additional research by Young, et. al. (2013) also showed a relationship between tree removal and soil climates and wet days on these sites, which while providing more available moisture for desired vegetation could also provide moisture for weeds. Numerous studies have shown that increased infiltration rates and less overland flow improve both water quality and quantity. Reducing pinyon and juniper trees, according the available research should increase snow pack, and time that snow pack is on the ground, increase spring flows, and increase soil moisture. It is expected that similar results will happen in this area after the treatment takes place. By maintaining watershed function, long-term water quality will be maintained or enhanced. Both the potential increase in herbaceous vegetation and the masticated or chained tree material should help stabilize the soils by reducing erosion and protect the water quality throughout the watershed. By removing PJ this should allow for more precipitation to contact the soil and increase biomass on the ground. In areas where hand thinning will be used there should be adequate vegetation to avoid soil erosion but this should increase the amount of water into the system instead of evaporating before it reaches the ground. Wet meadows and upland plants benefit by utilizing the increase soil moisture, providing for better resiliency during drought years. This provides for an increase in water quantity for herbaceous plants on sites where PJ is removed. Treatments on this project will be occurring in sagebrush and mountain mixed brush ecological communities. Restoring uplands within all of these ecological communities will reduce impacts from future wildfires along with reducing risks of future impairment to the watersheds. Where water resources on public and private 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.
Compliance:
All NEPA and Culture Resources have been completed and this project is ready to be implemented. UDWR Project Manager will consult with Arie Leeflang to make sure all information is correct. Additional information maybe requested from the Federal Agencies associated with NEPA documents, WRI/UDWR funded the Arch Surveys and the final report is due June 1st 2023. This was completed with WRI #6661 project is expected to move forward fall of 2024.
Methods:
This Phase II project will include a 878 acre two-way chaining of phase II and III pinyon and juniper. The chaining treatment will consist of using two (2) D-8 cats to pull and "Ely" anchor chain on the first and second passes. Aerial seeded will be implemented/completed prior to the first chaining pass, seed mix will consist of a diverse mixture of grasses and forbs. We would also like to use a dribbler attached to each D-8 cat to allow the planting of browse species. Travel corridors will be kept intact allowing for thermal and escape cover for wildlife in the area. Culture Resource issues have been completed on this project, this will be a joint effort through the UDWR and USFS personnel. UDWR is in favor adding additional utilization to the Cedar Ridge Allotment to benefit wildlife and allow additional winter range to be more fully utilized by both wildlife and livestock. As cooperative agreements are put into place the UDWR will work with the USFS to contract this project, State Purchasing along with preferred contract vendors will be used in implementing this project. Contract Chaining Specifications from the first phase of this project is enclosed as an EXMPLE: SPECIFIC TASKS: Work Limits: Only areas shown on the Project Map will be treated. The project areas will be identified with flagging and or verbally. It will be the contractor's responsibility to provide a GPS that is capable of loading project shapefiles of the treatment areas from a computer if necessary for the contractor or employees. Chaining: The two-way chaining shall be performed in an organized systematic manner as determined in the pre-work conference. This requires skilled operators. Seeding: Aerial Seeding will take place prior to the first pass of the two-way chaining of the project. The State will do all they can to ensure the seeding takes place in a timely manner. Tracked Cats must be capable of pulling the chains at a speed sufficient to roll the chain and prevent litter piling. Chain shall not be pulled at a speed in excess of 4 mph. The tractors will be operated with a maximum lateral spacing of 100 feet for this contract. The Government representative has the option of reducing tractor spacing below the minimum specified to accommodate specific terrain or conditions. The seed dribblers will be used on the back-chaining pass. The contractor is responsible for keeping the seed hoppers on these dribblers filled with seed at all times. Trees will be left as they lie following the chaining, no piling or windrowing will be required. Any internal roads through the project site must be cleared of all debris left by the chaining operation.
Monitoring:
Monitoring plans will include UDWR and USFS bi-annual big game classifications used to monitor production and subsequent survival of area deer and elk herds. Also, the Project Manager will establish a set of vegetation and photo points within a transect to collect pre and post treatment data. UDWR may ask for the GBRC Range Trend Crew to set a permanent vegetation transect for future monitoring of this project although there is a established Range Trend Site (Ezra) that is located in a previous treatment that will be read or surveyed for vegetation data every five years depending on their workload, in which this data can be uploaded in the proper forms. We will also be monitoring the chaining aspect of this project out three-seven years and removing all whips that may be left during the treatment, The Fillmore Forest Service will enter into a MOU agreement with the Permittee before the project is implemented. In addition the USFS will also be conducting an extensive weed monitoring program that will be associated with this project, additional funding provided through this project will help the Fillmore Field Office control noxious weeds that may be present after the chaining project occurs. Within the first phase some noxious weeds were present and some beetles were released to control the musk thistle. They are still present today within the phase I treatment area. USFS Range Conservationist will be monitoring the establishment of the seeded species, this in turn will determine when grazing may be implemented after the chaining project is complete. In addition we have looked at Wildlife Tracker Data and have attached a map in the Documents sections showing the amount of Mule Deer Use within the Project location site. We continue to work with Mike Wardle District UDWR Biologist on tracking the movement of mule deer within these Terrestrial Habitat Treatments.
Partners:
Partners for this project consist of the Fillmore Forest Service, UDWR and the Wasdens Ranch and X-Bar Livestock. All partners are supportive of this project and are willing to commit a lot of time and effort towards making this project a success. This includes resting the treatment from grazing for two growing seasons. In addition the general public and sportsman that enjoy hunting and recreating in this area will also benefit from the Habitat Restoration work that will be completed, the improvements made will last for several years to come. We have been working along the line of including all Federal and State Partners as well as livestock permittees in this effort, we have completed work on the BLM properties in FY19'. Contact with the Grazing Permittees took place in January of 2025, UGIP and the Grazing Permittee may help with some aspects of this project for FY26 Funding. We are looking at the success of methods that will work on the Federal properties and would like to have a showcase for the private landowners to look at as we move forward in the coming years. Past Partners also include BLM, MDF, SFW, Habitat Council, Get Hushin (Eric Chesser), Water Development Funding. Continued support from Conservation Groups, UGIP, Local State Governments, USFWS, Sevier County Commissioners is critical to help provide funding or support in making projects like this successful.
Future Management:
The USFS will work with Wasden Ranch and X-Bar Livestock Grazing to implement a rest rotational grazing system on the chaining consistent with the Fishlake National Forest management plan. Grazing will also be suspended for two growing seasons post treatment to allow the grass and forb species to establish. This will be written into the Annual Operating Instructions signed by the permitees each spring prior to grazing on the Forest. UDWR, Forest Service and the BLM are strongly committed to improving habitat through restoration efforts to meet overall regional goals and objectives for wildlife and livestock grazing in this area. Success will be determined by the Management Plans of the Forest Service, BLM and UDWR along with the grazing permittees through proper grazing systems that allow for healthy rangeland communities. The BLM grazing permit states that the allotment will be managed to: a) provide for livestock grazing while maintaining rangeland in properly functioning condition. b) maintain healthy, sustainable rangeland ecosystems and restore degraded rangelands to meet Utah's Standards for Rangeland Health and to provide a wide range of public values... c) integrate livestock use and associated management practices with other multiple use needs and objectives to maintain, protect, and improve rangeland health. d) monitor and evaluate grazing allotments to maintain or improve rangeland productivity. This particular Forest Allotment has been deferred from grazing for at least the last 10 years, because it simply didn't produce enough grass to make grazing feasible. The permitees are very motivated and committed to management that will insure productivity and maximize the useful life of this project. Fillmore Forest Service and UDWR will be working together to improve this allotment and improve the distribution of cattle during the grazing period for both agencies. Additional phases of this project are in the works.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
This chaining and reseeding project will increase the understory of the treatment area dramatically, allowing for increased feed for grazing livestock on the Forest Service Cedar Ridge Allotment and BLM Properties. Pinyon Juniper trees are very dense and little to no understory is present. This project will increase grasses, forbs and shrubs species for livestock due to native and non-native seeded species included in the mix. The chaining aspect will open up areas to sunlight, reducing overall pinyon-juniper stands and allow of the establishment of seeded species to occur. Domestic livestock will be grazed on a rotation type system after two to three growing seasons, improved distribution can a will occur due to improved understory, the addition of the new pipeline and the three new watering troughs will allow for improved distribution of livestock and better grazing management practices. Other sustainable uses towards this project will be the use of additional firewood that will be available, cutting of cedar post, access to additional hunting opportunities for big game such as mule deer and elk. Additional opportunities will be opened up for turkey hunting and upland game hunting as well. With the Sevier County ATV Jamboree each year, riders from across the country enjoy riding trails in this area and enjoy camping and recreating. Red Canyon has a great hiking trail that takes you to the top of the Pahvant Mtn Range where you can enjoy red rock vistas and scenic surroundings.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$289,330.00 $0.00 $289,330.00 $2,500.00 $291,830.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Funding expense for the two-way chaining of this project. Estimated at $175/Ac for 878 ac $153,650.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Contractual Services Estimated expenses for the aerial seeding of this project. 878 acres at $12/Ac $5,268.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Seed (GBRC) Expenses estimated for the primary seed, and dribbler mix. $64,281.50 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Other Funding requested from USFS for Noxious Weed Control $4,390.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Personal Services (permanent employee) In-kind from UDWR Employee to overseen and prep project for implementation $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2027
Other Materials to flag project, horse hire and necessary materials to implement the project. $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Seed (GBRC) UGIP Funding towards the project towards the purchase of the seed. $55,972.50 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Contractual Services Funding from UGIP for aerial application of the seed. $5,268.00 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$289,330.00 $0.00 $289,330.00 $2,500.00 $291,830.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind In-kind from UDWR Employee towards this project. $0.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2027
UDAF-Grazing Improvement Fund (GIP) Funding request from UGIP - through grazing permittee $61,240.50 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Utah's Watershed Restoration Initiative (UWRI) Funding from WRI towards this project. $228,089.50 $0.00 $0.00 2027
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bald Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Data Gaps - Persistent Declines in Prey Species NA
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Sonoran Mountain Kingsnake N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Utah Milksnake N4
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Low
Utah Milksnake N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Pinyon Jay N3
Threat Impact
Brush Eradication / Vegetation Treatments Medium
Pinyon Jay N3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Pinyon Jay N3
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Low
Habitats
Habitat
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/24/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kevin Gunnell
The range trend monitoring site (28R-1) is not within the treatment polygon as is referenced in the project description, but is in an older adjacent project. You should probably correct some of the statements in relation to that site. Seed mix looks good. You could consider big bluegrass or muttongrass instead of, or in mixture with Sandberg bluegrass to provide additional forage since precip is likely over 12".
Comment 01/24/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Kevin, I made the changes to the monitoring aspect and the range trend site that was associated with the previous treatment, thanks for catching that. As for the seeded species I will continue to work with the FS as it pertains to the seed mix. If project is funded and seed is available we would work with GBRC to make the adjustments as needed. Thanks for the comment.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
This is a good looking project that lays within crucial habitat for Deer & Elk that will greatly benefit the local wildlife. What is the possibility of securing some funds with NRCS & the producer?
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Jacob, Thanks for the great comment. During the first phase of this project the livestock producer help out a great deal, provided a lot of in kind assistance towards the project. I would anticipate that this would be the case again, the livestock producer will be providing some in-kind towards this phase of the project as well. NRCS has a continual sign up and we can work with the USFS/NRCS and producer to see if this is a possibility. Thanks again for the comment.
Comment 02/06/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Kendall, Because you are doing this in my backyard I feel obligated to read more carefully. I am glad to see that you are planning on leave areas. Having walked most if not all of the previous treatments in the area I can tell you that in this area use by deer drops off greatly the further you are from cover (the exceptions is when topography provides cover). Hope you are able to leave corridors and large well placed islands. Thanks for the good work.
Comment 02/14/2023 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Scott, as with any chaining project we anticipate the opportunities to leave islands and travel corridors as we implement this project. Thanks for the great comments towards this project.
Comment 01/28/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Judi Brawer
Hi Kendall, I have a number of comments/questions. 1. The Title Page states that this project will remove PJ and "re-establish the native grass and sagebrush community." However, your seed mix includes a number of non-natives: Alfalfa, small burnet, sainfoin, Russian wildrye, cicer milkvetch, forage kochia. (NOTE: you have small burnet on the list twice at different lbs/acre). What are the appropriate native grasses and forbs for this area? (See comment re: ecological sites). 2. You state: "Specific objectives include reduction on of pinyon-juniper cover to <20% within treatment polygons and five-year post treatment cover values for perennial grasses, forbs and shrubs within 60% of NRCS Ecological Site Description for Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) sites." Is that the ecological site for this whole area is? According to the NRCS website for this ecological site, the project area either hasn't been mapped, or this is not the correct ecological site for this area. https://edit.jornada.nmsu.edu/catalogs/esd/028A/R028AY325UT Associated sites for Upland Shallow Loam (Black Sagebrush) include Upland Shallow Loam (Utah Juniper -- Singleleaf Pinyon), and Upland Stony Loam (Pinyon-Utah Juniper). It appears that at least part of the project area has been mapped as an Upland Shallow Loam (Utah Juniper -- Singleleaf Pinyon). https://edit.jornada.nmsu.edu/catalogs/esd/028A/R028AY324UT. In this type of ecological site, such extensive removal of PJ is not warranted. 3.You state that this project will "ultimately increase stream flow and reduce sedimentation and phosphorous loading into the Sevier River and water supplies of the nearby town of Aurora." As has been discussed and debated in UWRI projects and ranking for many years, the effects of conifer removal on water yield is variable and inconsistent at best.
Comment 01/29/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Judi, as per the questions and comments pertaining to the phase II portion of this project, the seed mix was determined by the Fillmore FS, with a diversity of introduced and native grasses, forbs and shrubs, this was addressed in our presentation meeting by the Range Conservationist for the USFS. The phase I project looks great and has matured over the past several years. Opportunity to seed non-natives is sometimes based on price of species, availability, availability to compete with invasive annual grass species, soil stability and increased forage value for livestock and wildlife species. The seed mix does have different rates for the small burnet, higher of the two rates will be aerially seeded, lower rate will be used in dribbler mix as stated in the proposal and in the seed mix portion of the project. I have uploaded a few Range Trend pictures showing the Ezra Flat Site (21R-18). Several pictures (3) show 2013 PJ encroachment before treatment, in 2016 USFS treated the site through a bullhog method. In 2019 UDWR/USFS single and two-way chained adjacent areas of this project reducing pinyon and juniper encroachment, leaving travel corridors and islands for wildlife. The two ecological sites I have looked at on the wed soil survey are R028AY310UT and R028AY230UT for information. The Range site data is using R047XA332UT. I have uploaded some information as well on the Ecological Sites. As for the overall reduction of soil movement and sediment loading into the Sevier River Watershed, removal of phase II and II pinyon and juniper trees with little to no understory can only help the reduce movement of soil by increasing the herbaceous understory through reseeding efforts keeping the soil in tack during rain, and snow melting events. Water use would be utilized by the grasses, forbs and shrubs as stated in the proposal. We do know there are certain findings stating our project has the potential to maybe increase available water but we also know recent literature also suggest it might not and may be hard to measure. We do believe because of the scale of our treatment, diversity in design, the streams and springs directly in our project areas on USFS land we at a minimum have the potential to maintain current available water with a reasonable hope we are going to see some of these springs, seeps, and hydrologies increase.
Comment 01/29/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Kendall, great looking project. I like the seed mix looks fairly well balanced and will serve its purpose. Secondly what the possibility in securing some funding through partnerships with (UDAF/NRCS) ? Thanks !
Comment 01/29/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks again for the comment Jake, On Phase I of this project the grazing permittee provided a lot of in-kind cost share in forms of labor, equipment, and overall maintenance of the project. On Phase II the permittee is excited to see this restoration work completed, in-kind cost will include but not be limited hauling seed from GBRC to airport for the seeding aspect, future maintenance/repairs on the fence and water troughs. The FS has been working with the permittee, unsure if they have worked out any details for the funding from UGIP or NRCS on future phases related to this project. Thanks again Jake for the comment.
Comment 01/31/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Jacob Benson
Thanks for the response Kendall. Also on the species portion your claiming Bighorn Sheep. Is there Big Horns on project location? Thanks
Comment 01/31/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Jake, the UDWR, FS, and Sportsman Groups are working towards a Management Plan to introduce Big Horn Sheep on the Pahvant Mtn. This was one area they had recommend for release. I will remove the species form the list to be more in line with the recent project proposal. Thanks for the comment.
Comment 02/06/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
I'd like to say thanks for working in this area and for using a chain as the tool. Very appropriate for this soil and vegetation type. However, you know this is my backyard, so you are going to get questions and comments from me. I have noted a change in the deer movement with some of the last treatments in these areas. I hope that you leave stringers along high places that allow for long distance movement across the treatment areas. Not just little islands or stringers in drainages. Again, good project in a needed location.
Comment 02/06/2024 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Thanks Scott for the comment, this is an exciting project, hope we can get it completed this fall. The phase I treatment was very successful and has paid dividends for the mule deer, wild turkey and elk in this area as well as the improved forage for livestock. I would agree with your comment, the plan is to leave longer, wider and more transitioning islands within this phase II treatment. We can get you out on the ground to help with the design and use your expertise moving forward. Thanks Scott for the great comment.
Comment 01/27/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Kendall Great project and I appreciate your persistence in proposing these projects. First kudos for the get GIP as funding partner. Any funding partner makes these projects that much better. Also, your seed mix looks great, in my opinion. A couple of questions, first private lands looks like this project ends at the property line, have they been contacted? Second, I did see the FFSL Risk Assessment Report in the Documents Section, you might want to check on that. Third, you reference CWPP in the relation to management plans. CWPPs are tied to communities that have written and have gotten their plans approved by FFSL and local fire authorities. Can you upload the plan you are referencing or cite what CWPP you are relating the project too? I know this is the last thing you want to hear, but is there any chance that the Farm Bill Biologist or the FFSL Forest Coordinator could help get funding for this project, assuming it is not completed this year? These are great project, but all the dollars that we can get in WRI will help fund more projects. Thanks again for your years of hard work and all the improvements you have led in your area!
Comment 01/30/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryce Monroe
Stan, Thanks for the comment. I'm not sure where your seeing the Risk Assessment report I haven't been able to find it. Also I removed the CWPP talk from the section. I will let Kendall hit the other points.
Comment 01/30/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Bryce, Sorry I wrote did and meant did not see... That being said, in the Fire/Fuel section it states " I have updated the FFSL Risk Assessment in the documents tab for additional information on the fuel loading, flame length, water resource concerns, and at risk fire potential." This is the Risk Assessment I am not seeing in the Document section.
Comment 01/31/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Bryce Monroe
Stan, yes sorry ,must have spaced uploading them. They are now in the documents. Thanks!
Comment 02/13/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Stan, Thanks for the comment on this project, looks like Bryce Monroe has followed up with some of the questions that you were looking for as it pertained to the Fire Risk Assessment portion. I will follow up on other questions that you u have asked about this project. First, as it pertains to the private lands portion, in Phase I we completed some water developments that benefited the property owner, they have no intension at this time to do any further work as the owner has leased the property to another induvial. As far as the livestock permittee working through GIP or NRCS or FFSL Forest Coordinator that would be great. In conversations with the permittee they only use the FS permit for a short time before they move to the summer allotment. Concerns are long term contracts, how the funding effects his income taxes, amount of time the allotment will be used in relationship to the contract agreements he will have to commit to. He is a good permittee and was very helpful in Phase I with the pipeline and trough installation. He is working through Tom Tippets on the one time funding from GIP this year. Opportunities may present itself in the future to work on other funding sources.
Comment 02/03/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Danielle Finlayson
Kendall - Looks like a great project that could benefit many species. As conservation biologists we are still very hesitant to list pinyon jays as a benefitting species for PJ removal. There is anecdotal evidence that some treatments may benefit jays in certain situations, but no published research. By putting them on there you may draw more (possibly unwanted) attention to your project. That being said, if you could use a mosaic pattern and incorporate more heterogeneity and feather edges that would be the best for jays. Also if there is a stand of good consistently masting pinyon pine that you know of consider leaving those.
Comment 02/13/2025 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Danielle, thanks for the comment and concerns with the Pinyon-Jay aspect of this project. In planning and designing these projects we will look to leave wildlife corridors and mosaic type patterns across the landscape. Working with Sean Kelly (FS Biologist) we can plan on leaving stands of pinyon and creating an edge effect as foraging Pinyon- Jays can utilize within this treatment. Thanks again for the comment on this project.
Comment 01/21/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Martin Esplin
For FY 27, I want to be sure the work being done on BLM land and Forest Service land. From the map, most of the proposed work to be done is on Forest Service and a little over two acres on BLM. Is this phase of the project only on Forest Service?
Comment 01/21/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Martin, This phase of the project is only for treating USFS Land, all arch clearances and survey work have been done on USFS and BLM land for past projects. If project is funded we will make sure to address the GPS error of BLM. Thanks for the comment...
Comment 01/22/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
I really appreciate all the work you guys have been accomplishing in this area over the last several year. It's kind of overlooked by a lot of people and surprisingly very productive range when you start to take a look at it. Thanks for the nice ground photos in the treatment areas, the range trend pics, and all the other documentation. Also I like snakes!!! Lastly, one of my favorite subjects is plant material so I'll ask you to speak on a couple comments I have........ Very diverse seed mix from a species standpoint, but one of my soap boxes is diversity includes seasonality. I notice everything is generally cool-season plants. Maybe adding a warm-season grass and forb would be nice. I also talk about fourwing saltbush a lot as an excellent restoration species that gets under utilized. I think it would work well in this area if there were room for it in the mix. It's shorter lived than the other species in the mix and generally establishes quick and grows faster. Just a thought.
Comment 01/22/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Clint, Thanks as always for the great comments... moving forward I'm glad you pointed out the species on the seed mix, I needed to update the seed mix to the new template, I added a few warm season grasses that would allow for more diversity in this area. I always appreciate your thoughts on the seeded species for these projects. Thanks...
Comment 02/04/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Stan Gurley
Kendall Thanks so much for getting GIP as a partner! Also thanks for considering the noxious weeds! UDAF just opened the ISM grant that could also be used for that. Thanks again, great project!
Comment 02/05/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Mike Popejoy
Hi Kendall. Will this project identify and retain old-growth pinyon and juniper? Will it include surveys for pinyon jays? If invasives are already present as you mention, the soil disturbance from chaining is likely to facilitate their spread. Why wouldn't mastication be preferred? Chaining often leaves hard edges. Do you have any plans to feather those edges?
Comment 02/10/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
Mike, Thanks for the comment, we completed the Red Canyon Phase I portion several years ago and have seen great success through the chaining aspect of the project. We will look to retain old grow trees in the development of the project leaving isolated islands that will preserve the old growth trees. As per the survey work for pinyon jays I will reach out to the USFS Biologist for his help and input on this aspect see of surveys can be done pre treatment. We could defiantly consider aspects of feathering edges through the planning process. Thanks for the comment.
Comment 02/17/2026 Type: 1 Commenter: Kendall Bagley
The Red Canyon Habitat Restoration Project Phase II ranked as the #3 Mule Deer project from the Central Utah Mule Deer Working Group. This project will defiantly benefit mule deer on the east side of the Pahvant WMU, with an improvement to winter range and improved fall forage that will help increase body weight and fat reserves in mule deer.
Comment 01/12/2024 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Make sure you have the correct Fiscal Year selected on the title page to be included in the new proposals. Today's deadline is for FY25 projects. We are already half way through FY24. Thanks.
Comment 01/23/2025 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
If you plan on running any of the GIP funds through DWR finance system it needs to be listed in the Through WRI/DWR column. The seed purchase would be all through WRI/DWR if it is coming from GBRC. Please update that. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
13782 Terrestrial Treatment Area Anchor chain Ely (2-way)
13782 Terrestrial Treatment Area Seeding (primary) Broadcast (aerial-fixed wing)
Project Map
Project Map