## Eastern Oregon: The Vale Project

# Bob Kindschy, Al Logosz, Chad McBurney, Roger Mertens, Ed Spang

Field Notes from Legacy Program tour of a portion of the Vale District,
Bureau of Land Management: August 2002

Facilitators:

Bruce Van Haveren, NSTC Denver

Bill Wagner, Utah

[Retired BLM Professionals:]{.underline}

Ed Spang

Chad McBurney

Al Logosz

Roger Mertens

Robert Kindschy

SUMMARY

\* It was unfortunate that no current BLM field staff participated
during the tour. Hence all conclusions were based upon observations of
present vegetative species composition, density and vigor. The only
information we had to compare existing vegetation with was what we
remembered and Dr. Harold Heady\'s 1977 evaluation of the Vale Project.

\* We recognized that year 2002 was a severe drought and several prior
years also had below average precipitation. We also recognized the
treatment sites were completed 35 to 40 years ago and all (except some
exclosures) have subsequently been grazed by livestock.

\* We believe most chemical (herbicide) treatment projects have at least
as much, if not more, sagebrush density as was present prior to
treatment. An exception being several sites which have been burned by
wildfire. We aged sagebrush in several seedings using saw cut cross
sections which revealed annual growth rings. A majority of plants were
20 to 25 years old (1977 to 1982). Sagebrush in the Antelope and Battle
Creek seedings occasionally exceeded 30 years of age. (Photo #9)
Speculation as to why plant species regression was so prevalent would
require data on actual use, plant utilization, trend, management plan
information and weather data. Such data were not available to us.
However comparison of sites open to managed grazing with those sites
protected from livestock left little doubt grazing use was a major
contributing factor over the long term.

\* A majority of crested wheatgrass seedings now support sagebrush
stands at or near pretreatment levels. (Photo's #2, 5, 8, 9, 25, and 26)
Most preferred grasses, including crested wheatgrass, are of low vigor,
small basal size, and greatly reduced in frequency. This was especially
evident when protective study exclosures were available for comparison.

\* Facility maintenance, especially riparian fences, had been infrequent
or absent in some allotments. ((Photo's #13, and 14) Informational signs
were badly deteriorated and often no longer relevant due to vegetation
change. (Photo #10)

\* Overall, we concluded plant species composition and density were
approaching that present prior to the Vale project. (Photo's #8, 25, and
26)

\* Happily there were some neat successes. Succor Creek riparian,
several \"noodle-bowl\" exclosures (Photo's #11, 12, 16, 17, and 19),
Bogus Creek riparian communities, Jackies Butte fire rehabilitation
seedings (Photo #23), Disaster Peak seeding, and the extensive riparian
recovery in the Trout Creek Working Group area of concern.

\* The areas reviewed and projects viewed did not reflect the long-term
goals of the Vale Project. The personnel of the 1960's and 70's for some
reason didn't leave sufficient tracts to insure continued intensive
field management practices. It is now imperative that present and future
land manager's look closely at the past developments on the ground,
present-day uses and management. In doing so, these public lands not in
acceptable condition must be managed for ecological resource
improvement. Further, the legacy of the past with the improvements and
administration actions are lost in only a few short decades unless
actions of the past remain in full view of the District Employees.

\* We respectively request that the Vale Project efforts continue to be
made available to all present and future personnel. District training
programs should include in-depth information on the Project and
subsequent year's activities. This would assure that the legacy would be
carried forward allowing for aggressive and effective land management
activities. If this is not done then the sole of the Vale Project will
be lost forever.

\* We hope that our review can be used in a positive way to assure that
future management and developments, affecting the biological communities
are in keeping with quality resource decisions and wise management
practices.

\* We thank the Bureau for the opportunity to take part in the Legacy
Program and hope we may someday be asked again for our input into
present day management activities.

IT WAS A GOOD WEEK

TOUR NOTES

### 12 August 2002 

Following a meeting with Vale BLM staff, we proceeded south through the
seedings along Lytle Blvd. Consensus was that they looked good. A good
mix of native grasses and sagebrush with lots of introduced crested
wheatgrass.

We observed the native range and fire rehab seeding along the Adrain to
Succor Creek road. We stopped to examine one of the two exclosures which
looked good considering the site and drought.

Succor Creek riparian succession amazed the group. Kindschy had a 1958
35mm transparency which, when viewed at the photo site, was an amazing
successional story.

Spring Creek seeding (nearest Rockville) is about gone. Spring Basin and
Spring Mountain seedings look fairly good considering the drought. The
Dog Creek Noodlebowl contained some water and resident willows are
recovering from past mechanical work.

Big Ridge seeding was hiked at two stops. A search revealed Nomad
alfalfa scattered sparingly at each site. This seeding is 36 years of
age. All of us remembered this seeding as one of the best in the
district. The April 2002 Southeast Oregon Resource Management Plan ranks
this seeding as \"excellent\" with \"static\" trend, when, in fact, it
is difficult to recognize as a seeded site. (Photo's #2, 3)

Shellrock brush control is no longer evident, as seemed typical of many
sagebrush herbicide treatments locally.

Schnable Creek seeding looked good. Much of the area has burned at least
once since treatment. No sagebrush is present throughout a large,
adjacent area. There is a lack of habitat diversity as a consequence.

Mud Lake well and northwestern Cow Creek present a vast landscape of
bunchgrasses. A pipeline from the well was providing water for the
cattle seen grazing. A beautiful rangeland aspect except for a total
lack of sagebrush. We believed this to be largely a result of fire
coupled with a lack of sagebrush seed sources and historically
conservative livestock use.

Owyhee Butte seeding complex pastures were all closely grazed. In fact
cattle were still present. It is likely little growth occurred due to
drought. Much of the area needs a close management watch to preserve the
crested wheatgrass as sagebrush appears to be increasing quite rapidly.
Pasture #4 appeared to have burned recently which showed what controlled
burning of sagebrush encroached seedings can accomplish. (Photo's #4 and
5)

### 13 August 2002

We spent time at the CCC exclosure of 1939; it is adjacent to the
Antelope seeding. This is an important \"bench-mark\'\" site which, like
most of the livestock exclusion sites throughout the District, provides
an opportunity to judge management effectiveness on adjacent rangelands.
(Photo's #6 and 7)

Antelope seeding was very closely used. Cattle had made a through and
complete search for grass. Stockmen were gathering and removing cattle
as we toured. Grasses appeared weak while sagebrush is filling the void.
This seeding, once a beautiful stand of crested wheatgrass, has but a
brief future under present management. The same applies to the adjacent
much more recent control burn and seed site. We suggest the interpretive
sign be removed considering the present condition of this site. (Photo's
#8, 9 and 10)

The recent RMP showed all suspended livestock use in the Antelope
Allotment have been restored and identifies the Antelope and Greeley
seedings as \"excellent seedings\" with static trend. (Photo's #8, 26
and 28) From what we observed we must question why livestock use was
restored as well as the condition and trend of these seedings.

Cantor Corral pit or \"noodle-bowl\" was almost dry. Protected riparian
and upland vegetation looked wonderful. (Photo's #11 and 12)

The reservoir which stores water for the long pipeline across the bottom
of Antelope (irrigation) reservoir was almost dry and full of cattle.
The site is fenced to exclude stock but the gate was thrown back, which,
according to Kindschy, is often the case. (Photo 13)

We inspected an old spring development which still is producing water
but the pipe to the tank is not functional so cattle and wildlife have
but a mouthful every minute or so. Likely a case of non-maintenance on
the part of stockmen as well as a lack of enforcement on the part of
BLM. (Photo's #14 and 15)

Higher elevation rangelands looked fairly good. Gluch Pit exclosure
exhibited beautiful near \"climax\" upland vegetation. (Photo 16) The
pond was full and spilling. Riparian vegetation presented a most
pleasing aspect. (Photo's #17, 18 and 19)

Gluch seeding had been cleaned to the soil surface. (Photo #20) No
cattle present but some water troughs were full for wildlife use.
Unfortunately this was the only instance of this we observed during the
four day tour. It had been Vale District policy to maintain water in
pipeline systems until autumn draining. We seldom observed \"bird
ramps\" in water troughs during the tour.

We then made a quick stop at the Rock Creek Reservoir to look at the
wildlife islands. (Photo's #21 and 22)

Fire rehab seedings in lower elevation of Jackies Butte looked amazingly
good; excellent establishment with a good mix of plant species. (Photo's
#23 and 24)

Winter range area is nearly devoid of all vegetation except a sparse
stand of one or two inch cheatgrass. Although drought aggravated, there
are few desirable perennial plants present.

Beautiful 8,900 acre Battle Creek seeding appears to have been lost. A
search under the abundant sagebrush reveals a few small crested
wheatgrass plants. We spent several hours examining and discussing this
regression to pre-treatment status. McBurney recalled that annual
cheatgrass was uncommon at the time of seeding. It is now the most
prevalent grass. Such encroachment of weed plants forecasts future
degradation when Halogeton and knapweeds invade the openings left by
failed perennial crested wheatgrass. Was it a poor droughty site or due
to years of improper management? We concluded it was likely a
combination of the two. Later examination of nearby Overshoe seeding and
its included protective exclosure strengthened the case for improper
management as the primary cause. (Photo 25)

[14 August 2002]{.underline}

We bid Bruce, Bill and Ed goodbye this morning. The four of us past Vale
District professionals headed southwest with our first stop at the Vale
Project Interpretive Site. The sign needs maintenance. The fenced area
around the sign shows a good comparison of a recent (1980's) protected
area to heavy use in the Greeley Seeding. (Photo's #27, and 28). Our
next stop was at the Rome Seeding complex of the late 1950s to early
1960s. We observed \"fair\" conditions but with close livestock use of
the drought inhibited crested wheatgrass. Cattle were still present in
some pastures. Sagebrush appeared to be increasing overall except in the
areas around the well which appear to have burned in recent years. There
was also an area of noxious weed invasion south and west of the well.
(Photo's #29 and 30)

At Basque Station we turned east to the Overshoe seeding. It was as
disappointing as Battle Creek seeding although probably not quite as
degraded. There are weak little crested wheatgrass hiding beneath many
of the abundant sagebrush. Overall aspect is very nearly that of
pretreatment. Interesting here though, is a protective exclosure. It,
like so many others constructed during the Vale Project, was seeded to
three different grasses on 2/3 of the area. The remaining 1/3 was left
as native vegetation. Crested wheatgrass has been successful and
dominates the entire exclosure now. There is a sagebrush over story but
of much less density than that common to the seeding. We concluded that
the marked difference in vegetation between the exclosure and seeding
was a result of livestock use of the seeding which failed to meet the
physiological need of crested wheatgrass for growth, food manufacture
and storage, and reproduction. Exclosures are vital sources of
\"benchmark\" information which enable evaluation of adjacent managed
rangelands. It is strongly recommended that BLM update the inventory and
maintenance needs of exclosures.

Battle Creek seeding was revisited at several locations. Same degraded
condition observed. A neat gravity flow water system waters the area.
Remains of a wildlife watering device were observed. There had been no
maintenance. In fact the device had been removed and the protective
fence was a tangle of downed wire. There was no water in the troughs for
wildlife in spite of the no cost gravity flow system. The source was
visited and had lots of spring fed water. The whole area appeared
unmanaged and degraded.

Thence eastward through native rangelands to the Potomac camp and
eventually the excellent old CCC road which we took to an early riparian
fisheries success, Rattlesnake reservoir. It had been fenced during the
Vale Project and is stocked with trout by Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife. The site is at the junction of the road to Anderson Crossing
and Star Valley so is very popular with the public. In addition,
normally abundant sage grouse and pronghorn antelope frequent the area.
The reservoir was nearly full of cattle. Fences were down and appeared
to have been abandoned for many years. All riparian vegetation had been
reduced to a green hew of the soil. We, and surely the visiting public,
wonder what the permitted rancher and administrating BLM were thinking.

Echave reservoir had been similarly fenced and had been a trout
fisheries. It mirrored the conditions of Rattlesnake reservoir.

Antelope creek in Lucky Seven (ex Campbell) allotment was visited. Good
stands of willow and associated riparian vegetation are present although
likely less than in the recent past. Uplands seemed about as we had
recalled in the past. We suspect past grazing systems, permitted numbers
of stock, and utilization standards are not being followed.

Two permittees, independent of each other, asked our group: \"When was
the last time BLM counted cattle?\" This suggests that running more
stock than licensed may be rather common. We couldn\'t help but wonder
what the utilization, actual use and trend studies have been showing. It
was a pity we weren\'t accompanied by some Vale range personnel.

Highway 95 splits two concurrent fire rehab seedings of the 1990s. The
seeding on the east looks good while the west and larger seeding appears
to have lost much of the original crested wheatgrass and is choked with
Russian thistle. Because all environmental factors except grazing were
equal one would have to address that issue.

Bankofier spray and seed area looked very good. Likely a product of
thoughtful management

Bretz seeding was of especial interest to Chad McBurney. We were all
pleased with its appearance and condition after 35 years. This was
considered the most droughty site seeded in the Southern Resource Area.
It's condition now tells us something about livestock control and use
when compared with most of the seedings we visited.

### 15 August 2001

Disaster Peak seeding was generally in good condition. The fourwinged
saltbush which was aerially seeded prior to drilling crested wheatgrass
was most impressive.

Disaster Peak exclosure proved most interesting. One of the best stands
of Whitmar wheatgrass we have seen dominates the northern test seeding.
An excellent stand of crested wheatgrass occupies the southern portion.
Intermediate wheatgrass is in the center but is much less in production
although ground cover may be greater than that of the bunch grasses.

Native grasses in the untreated uplands of Zimmerman Allotment and
Whitehorse Allotment looked fairly vigorous and appear to be at least
stable in trend. Shallow soils typical of the mountain top may limit
potential for improvement in the short term.

Whitehorse seeding was used but lightly if at all this year. It looked
much improved from prior years according to Kindschy.

Little Whitehorse Creek exclosures wowed everybody. A realization of
fantastic site potential.

Willow Creek, both managed rangeland and 1986 exclosures, proved to our
group that riparian ecosystems can experience successional improvement
with proper grazing. The Hot Springs area was most impressive with its
forest of willow and strong flowing clear stream water.

On the return to Vale we visited the Hooker Creek seeding. Again the
2001 RMP lists this an \"excellent seeding.\" It did appear in better
condition than adjacent Big Ridge seeding but crested wheatgrass plants
were sparse, show poor vigor and moderate to heavy livestock use. This
is one of the older seedings in the district and, in the 1960s, was very
productive. This was also the first seeding where a two pasture spring
use rotation was implemented. We don\'t know what management changes
have been made over the years but the low vigor of the crested and
increase of sagebrush indicate a need for change.

Each of us wrote of our observations and shared them. We were in strong
agreement that ecological problems were very evident. Although the urge
to assign blame was strong, we felt present land managers \-- both BLM
and livestock grazers \-- should review the files for past records of
condition and trend, actual use, utilization, weather and climate,
trespass and project maintenance.

On 16 September Jordan Field Officer Jerry Taylor and Range
Conservationist Cameron Rasor joined Bob Kindschy to visit many of the
troubled seeding sites. We agreed with the observations of this report.
Further, we developed a strategy to correct major problems including
rehabilitation, where required, due to a lack of desired perennial plant
species. No action threatens such sites with noxious weed invasion. Site
specific strategies will be developed in the spring of 2003 following
plant growth.

# Project Description

A. Name of Project or Area

Vale Rangeland Rehabilitation Project

B. Location (field office, allotment., watershed)

Vale District, Jordan and Malheur Field Offices

Allotments we looked at include

> Three Fingers, Rockville, Spring Mountain, East Cow Creek, Mahogany
> Mountain, Schnable Creek, McCain Springs, Lodge, West Cow Creek,
> Antelope, Willow Creek, Jackies Butte Summer and Winter, Campbell,
> Eiguren, Gilbert, 15-Mile Community, McCormick, Zimmerman, and
> Whitehorse Butte

C. Project Objectives (what were the stated project objectives?)

> Congress appropriated approximately \$10 million over a 10 year period
> beginning in 1962 to halt erosion, stabilize the livestock industry,
> and benefit other land uses. Supervision and management of the land
> uses were large parts of the Vale project.
>
> The Vale project was a pilot program where resource conservation
> practices were intensively applied to an entire BLM district. The
> project was to be of economic importance to those directly benefiting,
> but it also was of importance to all of the areas in the western
> United States where similar conditions exist. The dynamic program of
> the Vale project was to serve as an example for similar actions in
> many other places. Investments were designed to increase the
> productivity and benefits of the public lands during the project years
> and for generations in the future as well.

D. Management Goals (in terms of longer term expectations)

1.  Resource values

> Increase the usefulness and productivity of BLM-administered lands.
>
> Conserve soil and moisture to correct damage caused by erosion.
>
> Control the encroachment and spread of noxious weeds.
>
> Stabilize the livestock industry at the present or an increased level
> of production.
>
> Maintain and improve opportunities for wildlife and outdoor
> recreation.

2.  Vegetation changes

> Treat 700,000 acres with aircraft-applied herbicides (24D) where
> studies show there was sufficient native grasses to respond to brush
> removal. Plow and seed 400,000 acres where perennial grasses are so
> depleted that they cannot be restored by any other means. More than a
> thousand watering sources were planned for the Vale District (Wells,
> pipelines with multiple water troughs, reservoirs and spring
> developments). Improve range condition and trend on the remaining
> Public lands through proper use of the treated areas and intensive
> grazing management on the remaining native range.

E. Pre‑project baseline data and/or monitoring

1.  Transects or plots

> Fenced exclosures throughout the district starting in 1939 and
> continuing into the early years of the Vale Project. Each exclosure
> contained transects and photo points as well as various land
> treatments, different plant species seeded, and undisturbed control
> areas.

2.  Photo points

> Trend plots were first established in the treated areas starting in
> the mid 60's. These consisted of 3'X3' photo plots and wide angle
> photo shots. Browse transects where established and read in selected
> areas throughout the District.

3.  Type and location of documentation

> The study, project and allotment files should be located in the
> District Office in Vale.

# II Implementation

> Implementation dates (when implemented?)
>
> Between 1962 and 1972

## Describe treatments

> From the 1977 Heady report the following was completed through 1973.
>
> Brush Control 506,570 acres
>
> Seeding 267,193 acres
>
> Fencing 1,994 miles
>
> Reservoirs 583 each
>
> Springs 440 each
>
> Wells 28 each
>
> Pipelines 462.9 miles
>
> Water troughs 538 each
>
> Cattle guards 360 each
>
> Exclosures 69 each

## Post‑project land management

1.  Fencing, water developments

> Unknown
>
> 2.Grazing system (stocking rates, season of use, initial rest)
>
> Of the 20 allotments we visited only 8 are under AMP's.
>
> 3\. Follow‑up treatments (e.g. prescribed fire)
>
> None that we know of

## Post‑project monitoring

We were told that some range studies are being conducted each year but
the team was not provided access to this data.

1\. Transects or plots

2\. Photo points

3\. Type and location of documentation

III*.* Results.

A.  Observations and conclusions

> See attached report

## Were objectives met in terms of project objectives?

> No

B.  Were expectations met in terms of longer term goals and
    expectations?

> No

C.  Other conclusions (vegetation composition, cover, wildlife habitat,
    overall land health)

> See attached report

## What would you do differently today

> See attached report and recommendations listed below
>
> Put in place field level resource objectives

D.  What are the lessons learned that could be applied in this area in
    the future?

Review the past actions

Document ongoing activities

The Vale District is in a very fragile ecosystem (Annual precipitation
less the 10 inches per year) that needs intensive management and close
supervision.

# 

# IV. Recommendations

A. What recommendations do you have for the current field manager?

1.  Follow‑up treatments?

> Spring prescribed fire in many of the old land treatment areas
> followed by two growing seasons of rest and management plans developed
> to manage and maintain the health of the important plant community.
>
> Additional water developments to provide for better and more even
> distribution of livestock grazing. Additional water should only be
> developed in conjunction with intense AMP's that are properly studied
> and supervised.
>
> Project maintenance must be enforced. If the livestock operators have
> this responsibility then they must be held accountable or they do not
> turn out. We do question if the operators have the equipment and time
> to do some of the spring, well and pipeline maintenance. The Bureau
> should maintain wildlife, riparian, etc. projects and supervise their
> use or non-use.

2.  Management?

> Of the 20 allotments we visited only 8 are under AMP's. Allotment
> Management Plans have been a part of BLM since the late 60's and it is
> surprising that so many in the Vale district have not been completed
>
> 3\. Monitoring?
>
> Allotment monitoring studies (Trend, actual use, utilization and
> weather) should be keep current and summaries posted in each allotment
> file for use by the range staff.

Ed Spang
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Chad McBurney
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Al Logosz
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Roger Mertens
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Robert Kindschy
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

BLM Legacy Program Visit

Jarbidge Field Office; Twin Falls, Idaho

Gary Blincow, Natural Resource Specialist, Worland Field Office, Wyoming

Trip Agenda:

Monday, 8/12/02: Travel form Worland to Twin Falls.

Tuesday, 8/13/02: Met with the Field Office Manager, Eddie Guererro.
Reviewed project files of possible seeding and brush control projects to
visit. I selected 8 projects to visit for the field tour to be held on
Thursday. I started on a preliminary project visit field trip.

Wednesday, 8/14/02: Traveled to all of the selected projects in the
field to locate observation points and routes. I located some old photo
locations that I had and duplicated the photographs.

Thursday, 8/15/02: I met with the other Legacy participants at the Field
Office. We traveled to the selected project sites to view and discuss
crested wheatgrass seeding, chemical brush control and seeding after
wildfire.

Friday, 8/16/02: I closed out with the Field Office Manager and staff,
and left for Worland.

The selected project sites that we visited are listed as follows:

1.  Upper Pot Hole Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (Project \#
    1608)

2.  Three Tip Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (Project \# 4023)

3.  Buffer Sagebrush Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (Project \#
    1116)

4.  Buffer Extension Plowing and Seeding Crested Wheatgrass (Project \#
    1198)

5.  Buffer Extension Re-Drill of Crested Wheatgrass (Project \# 1199)

6.  Balanced Rock Plowing and Crested Wheatgrass Seeding (Project \#
    1009)

7.  Coonskin Chemical Sagebrush Spraying (Project #1163)

8.  Grassy Hills Wildfire Seeding (Project \# 0152)

The people that were on the field tour, along with me, are as follows:

Dave Krosting, Acting DM; Eddie Guerrero, FM; Bruce Van Haveren, NSTC;
Bill Wagner, RET.; Mike Courtney, RMS; Arnie Pike, RMS; John Ash, NRS;
Gretchen Heaser, Wildlife Temp.; Jay Baker, Range Temp.; Michelle
Hesselbacker, Range Temp.; and Jarbidge Area Ranchers, Rollie Patrick,
Vernon Lehmann and Chuck Jones.

TOUR STOP 1

Upper Pot Hole plowing and seeding

Three Tip plowing and seeding

We stopped at a site which was the original boundary line between the
Upper Pot Hole seeding and the Three Tip seeding.

Upper Pot Hole Plow and Seed:

Objectives:

To plow up of 3100 acres of sagebrush and follow up seeding to crested
wheatgrass to restore adequate vegetative cover to control the spread of
host plants for the beet leaf hopper and to conserve soil and moisture
resources and increase livestock and wildlife forage. A dense stand of
quality perennial grass needs to be established.

Goals:

> When in production this seeding will be used as a management tool for
> the Saylor Creek Unit by helping to relieve the loss of Federal Range
> to livestock use, due to the Desert Land Act land disposals.

Project Implementation:

The project started on September 8, 1967 and was finished on October 25,
1967. 3,560 acres of sagebrush rangeland was plowed and seeded to
crested wheatgrass. The plowing was done using a 20 foot Towner offset
disc, pulled by a D8 cat. The seeding was done using a standard grain
drill with big log chains used as a drag to cover the seed. The seeding
rate was four pounds per acre. The plowing cost was \$2.97 per acre and
the seeding cost was \$1.49 per acre. The total cost including
administrative charges was \$6.24 per acre. Total project cost was
\$22,214.

Monitoring:

No monitoring studies were established. An evaluation of the seeding
success was completed in 1968, which stated that it was a good seeding
and that it was recommended that the area did not need to be re-seeded.

Photo Points:

No photo points were established.

Management:

The initial use on this seeding was by sheep for early spring grazing.
There was no water in the area and the water had to be hauled by truck
to the sheep bands. There are now extensive water systems, fencing,
allotments and pastures in the area and the grazing use is by cattle.

Observations and Conclusions:

It is now not possible to tell where one seeding stopped and another
started. Many more acres in the area have been seeded. Some of this
original seeding is still free of big sagebrush. Probably the reason for
this is because of repeated wildfires which have burned off the sage
brush and destroyed the seed source.

Three Tip Plow and Seed

Objectives:

This project is justified as meeting the objectives in the Boise
District Summary, the Jarbidge URA and the Owyhee Project. The Saylor
Creek Unit has the greatest potential for increased forage production
through brush control projects and grass seeding, combined with
intensive livestock management systems than any other unit in the Owyhee
project.

Goals:

Upon completion of this project partial fulfillment of the following
goals can be realized.

1)  Livestock use will be shifted from the Tindall and Pole Creek units
    in the Bruneau Resource Area, which in turn will receive use shifted
    from the over obligated range in the Owyhee Resource Area.

2)  Livestock use will also be shifted from other parts of the Saylor
    Creek Unit and from the Southside and Hagerman Units which have been
    reduced in size as a result of Desert Land Entries, thus lessening
    or canceling the effect of public land disposals on the local
    livestock industry.

3)  With the increased forage production, water development, fencing and
    initiation of grazing management plans, conversions from sheep to
    cattle will also be possible.

4)  The development complex which includes seeding, water development
    and fencing will include provisions for improved wildlife habitat.

5)  This development work has to be done as soon as possible because the
    livestock shifts from other areas are needed immediately or those
    areas will suffer even more than they have in the past. If livestock
    from areas of past and future Desert Land Entries cannot be shifted,
    then those operators face the very real thought of reduction or even
    cancellation of Federal Range grazing privileges.

6)  Three projects are included in this project complex. They are the
    Three Tip plow and seed (9100 acres), Bruneau Canyon plow and seed
    (1700 acres), and No water plow and seed (7900 acres).

Project Implementation:

The project was started in April of 1969 and completed in July of 1969.
6,320 acres of sagebrush rangeland was plowed and seeded to crested
wheatgrass. The plowing cost was \$2.69 per acre. The seeding contract
was separate and was completed in November of 1969. Grain drills were
used but they had depth regulators installed on the discs. The drilling
cost was \$3.20 per acre. Total cost of this project was \$37,100.

Monitoring:

No monitoring studies were established. A project feasibility was
completed in 1968 which stated that the rangeland carrying capacity was
22 acres per AUM before seeding. After seeding the estimated carrying
capacity would be 1 acre per AUM for spring grazing with sheep.

Photo Points:

None were established before the seeding was completed.

Management:

The entire area of crested wheatgrass seeding is now managed very
intensively. There are extensive water systems, fenced allotments and
pastures and livestock handling facilities. The livestock use is now
cattle.

Observations and Conclusions:

Most of the Three Tip seeding is now heavily infested with big
sagebrush. The under story of grass is dominated by crested wheatgrass,
sandberg bluegrass and cheat grass. In our discussion at this site it
was brought up that at least some of the original goals of this project
were accomplished. One of those was the move of livestock use from the
Hagerman and Southside Units onto these intensively managed seeded
areas. These grazing units lost thousands of acres of rangeland to
private development of potato farms under authority of the Desert Land
Act. Another objective that was obviously met was the conversion of
sheep AUM's to cattle AUM's. Before around 1970 all of the use in the
interior portion of the Saylor Creek Unit was by sheep in the early
spring. All of the livestock water had to be trucked into the area from
a very few water wells. After around June 15 there was no livestock use
in the area until the next spring turnout date. Due to the lack of
summer water there were no Antelope or Sage Grouse in the area. It is
interesting that one of the original goals for the justification for
these seeding complexes was never achieved. That is that no livestock
were moved from the Tindall and Pole Creek Units of the Bruneau Resource
Area onto these seeding allotments. The Jarbidge Field Office is now
faced with and has been for the past 30 years as to how to properly
allocate all of the additional AUM's of livestock use due to the
thousands of acres of crested wheatgrass seeding production. This
additional rangeland productivity has for a long time been licensed as
"temporary-nonrenewable" and very few permanent allocations have been
made. Due to the extremely variable climatic conditions of the Saylor
Creek Unit which causes great fluctuations in the range productivity
this is a very complicated and difficult allocation process to go
through. Another productivity problem is that some of the original
seedings have been invaded by big sagebrush which has reduced the grass
forage production.

TOUR STOP 2

Buffer sagebrush plowing and seeding of crested wheatgrass

Buffer Extension sagebrush plowing and seeding of crested wheatgrass

Buffer Extension re-drilling of crested wheatgrass

We stopped at an observation point which is located inside of the Buffer
Extension and Buffer Extension re-drill projects. The extent of the
Buffer plowing and seeding project could be clearly seen in the short
distance.

Buffer Plow and Seed

Objectives:

> To provide a buffer zone between the sagebrush range and agriculture
> lands to help in the control of the beet leaf hopper. It will improve
> the soil moisture, increase livestock feed and aid in the control of
> soil erosion.

Goals:

> Field Mustard and Russian Thistle must be reduced or eradicated in
> order to combat the beet leaf hopper.

Project Implementation:

The project was started on June 15, 1964 and completed on December 18,
1964. The project consisted of plowing big sagebrush and seeding crested
wheatgrass. The plowing was done by using Towner disk plows and brush
land plows. The seeding was done using rangeland drills and standard
grain drills followed by harrowing. 10,500 acres were plowed and the
seeding rate was 6.7 pounds per acre. The cost per acre was \$6.70.
Total project cost was \$70,350.

Monitoring:

No monitoring was included in the project. A project feasibility report
was completed in 1964 before the project was started.

Photo Points:

No permanent photo points were established.

Management:

There were no management plans implemented after two growing seasons of
rest prior to grazing use. The grazing use at that time was for spring
grazing by sheep as water had to be hauled to the area by truck. There
are now water systems and fenced allotments and pastures in the area and
the area is used by cattle.

Observations and Conclusions:

The original Buffer Plow& Seed which is located north west of the Crows
Nest/Saylor Creek well road is still dominated by almost a pure stand of
crested wheatgrass with very little invasion of big sagebrush. I do not
know whether this has burned off in the last 30 years or maybe the
grazing use now is different from that of a seeding where the big sage
brush has re-invaded so heavily.

Buffer Extension Plowing and Seeding

Objectives:

This project provides an extension of the buffer zone between the
sagebrush rangeland and the agriculture lands. This helps in the control
of the beet leaf hopper. It will improve soil moisture conditions,
increase livestock feed and aid in the control of soil erosion.

Goals:

Field Mustard and Russian Thistle must be reduced or eradicated in order
to combat the beet leaf hopper.

Project Implementation:

The plowing portion of the contract was started on July 9, 1965 and
completed on August 26, 1965. The seeding was completed on October 22,
1965. 6,927 acres of sagebrush rangeland were plowed and seeded to
Nordan Crested Wheatgrass. The plowing was done by using 40 feet of
Towner offset disc plows and 32 feet of Brush land plows. The seeding
was done using standard grain drills followed by harrows to cover the
seed. The seeding rate was 6 pounds per acre. The plowing cost was
\$3.07 per acre and the seeding cost was \$3.22 per acre for a total
cost of \$6.29 per acre. Total project cost was \$43,571.

Monitoring:

No monitoring was included with this project. A project feasibility was
completed in 1964 before the project was started.

Photo Points:

No photo points were established.

Management:

There were no management plans implemented after two growing seasons of
rest prior to grazing use. The grazing use at that time was for spring
grazing by sheep as the water had to be hauled by truck into the area
from the Saylor Creek well. There are now extensive water systems in the
area and numerous fenced allotments and pastures for grazing use by
cattle.

Observations and Conclusions:

The Buffer Extension Plow & Seed which is located to the south east
across the road from the original Buffer seeding is also dominated by
crested wheatgrass. In places there is some light invasion of big sage
brush. Again without knowing the fire occurrence or grazing regime it is
hard to conclude why sagebrush has not invaded into this seeding like it
has in others close by.

Buffer Extension Re-drill of Crested Wheatgrass

Objectives:

To re-seed an area in the Buffer Extension plowed area that did not
germinate and come up the previous year. This will provide grass for
livestock forage and watershed protection on the area previously plowed
in 1965.

Goals:

To establish a good grass stand of crested wheatgrass in the area that
was a failure the previous year.

Project Implementation:

The seeding project was started on September 8, 1966 and completed on
October 17, 1966. 1940 acres of the previously plowed sagebrush on the
south end of the Buffer Extension plow and seed was seeded to Nordan
Crested Wheatgrass at the rate of 4 pounds per acre. The cost was \$2.28
per acre. Total project cost was \$4,423.

Monitoring:

No monitoring was included with this project. A project feasibility was
completed in 1966 before the project was started.

Photo Points:

No photo points were established.

Management:

There were no management plans implemented after two growing seasons of
rest prior to grazing use. The grazing use at that time was for spring
grazing by sheep as the water had to be hauled by truck into the area
from the Saylor Creek well. There are now extensive water systems in the
area and numerous fenced allotments and pastures for grazing use by
cattle.

Observations and Conclusions:

The Buffer Extension Re-drill project which is located to the southwest
of Saylor Creek and north of the Crows Nest/Balanced Rock road has been
heavily invaded by big sagebrush. I did notice that there is very little
grass understory of crested wheatgrass in this area. Most of the grasses
there now are the same ones that were there before the plowing and
re-seeding project was done. I am wondering if the original re-seeding
project was a failure back in 1966 and the sagebrush came back rapidly
in the late 1960's.

TOUR STOP 3

Balanced Rock sagebrush plowing and seeding of crested wheatgrass

Objectives:

> The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate a portion of the
> Federal Range in poor condition by establishing an early turnout area
> in the Devil Creek Unit.

Goals:

Livestock would be shifted onto this seeded area, for early spring use,
from grazing areas farter to the south at higher elevations. This in
turn would defer the turnout date to the middle of June in the
allotments to the south, aiding in improving the overall range
condition.

Project Implementation:

This project started in August of 1963 and was completed in December of
1963. It consisted of plowing 4000 acres of sagebrush rangeland and
seeding it to Crested Wheatgrass. Plowing was done with two Towner plows
and two Rangeland plows. Seeding was done with six BLM range land
drills. The seeding rate was six pounds per acre. The cost of the
plowing and seeding was \$6.07 per acre for a total cost of \$24,280.

Monitoring:

No monitoring was ever set up for this project. The project feasibility
was completed in 1962 before the project was started. A study was
completed after two years of rest and before livestock use was
authorized that revealed that there was a live sagebrush plant on the
average of every 300 to 400 square feet.

Photo Points:

No photo points were established on this seeding.

Management:

> The initial management for this seeding was for an early turnout
> pasture for cattle. The seeding was fenced and a water line was
> installed from the Buck Flat well to a storage tank and water trough
> in the middle of the seeding pasture. This management action moved
> cattle from the Coonskin Butte area to this seeding which deferred the
> use there to the middle of June. This strategy definitely helped to
> improve the range condition at the higher elevations to the south.

Observations and Conclusions:

> This plowing of sagebrush and seeding of crested wheatgrass has been
> completely taken over by big sage brush. The dominant understory grass
> however is now crested wheatgrass. I did notice that to the west of
> this original seeding is now a newer seeding. I was told that this was
> a seeding as a result of a wild fire. I do not know the age of it, but
> it is also being invaded by big sagebrush, but not yet at the
> sagebrush density of the original Balanced Rock seeding.

TOUR STOP 4

Coonskin Brush Spraying

Objectives:

The control of big sagebrush by means of an herbicide will allow the
understory of native grass, Agropyron Spicatum (bluebunch wheatgrass),
to become dominant, thus increasing both the forage and watershed
potential.

Goals:

Sagebrush rangeland will be aerial sprayed with 2, 4-D chemical. This
will reduce the brush, thus releasing the existing perennial grasses
which will provide an increase in livestock and wildlife forage, which
will improve soil moisture conditions and will reduce erosion. Any area
which shows signs of sage grouse will be blocked out and strip sprayed
to preserve the sage grouse habitat.

Project Implementation:

This project was started on April 24, 1965 and completed on May 9, 1965.
12,000 acres of big sagebrush was to be treated. It was accomplished
aerially with an Ag Cat aircraft and N3 aircraft each covering a 50 foot
swath per pass. Two pounds of 2, 4-D acid equivalent to 5-2/3 gallons of
water for a total mixture of 6 gallons per acre was used. In the
southern portion of the project area different formulas of 1.25
lbs./ac., 1.5 lbs./ac., and 1.75 lbs./ac. were used to facilitate sage
grouse habitat. Total cost per acre of this project was \$2.43 for a
grand total of \$29,160. A range user of the allotment contributed
\$1045 towards the cost of the project.

Monitoring:

No monitoring was included in the project proposal. The land treatment
report and project feasibility was completed in 1964. This revealed that
the area had a plant density of 80%, with a sagebrush cover of 35% and
herbaceous understory of 65%. Dominant understory species were bluebunch
wheatgrass, western wheatgrass, sandberg bluegrass, and bottlebrush
squirreltail. The Idaho Fish and Game indicated that the proposed
project areas were important nesting and migration routes for sage
grouse. It was agreed that on the 4000 acres in the southern portion of
the project area that the rate of 2, 4-D application be reduced to one
pound acid equivalent per acre. Idaho Fish and Game indicated that this
rate would provide for a 70% kill of sagebrush and leave a sufficient
amount of live brush to meet sage grouse requirements.

Photo Points:

No permanent photo plots were established before this project was
implemented.

Management:

> The brush control area was not used for two growing seasons. The brush
> control area was fenced into a separate pasture from the rest of the
> allotment. The allotment was fenced into three pastures and was used
> in a grazing management system along with the early spring use in the
> Balanced Rock seeding pasture. The water system from the Buck Flat
> well went through all three pastures of the allotment and water
> troughs were installed in each pasture. I was told that at the present
> time the allotment is still grazed in a rotational grazing scheme and
> the same ranch family from 30 years ago still has use in the
> allotment.

Observations and Conclusions:

> The entire area of the Coonskin Brush control project is now heavily
> dominated by an overstory of big sage brush. In several areas that I
> checked I did find remnants of the large bluebunch wheatgrass plants
> that I remember as being in dominance after the two year rest
> treatment before grazing. This occurrence of big sagebrush invasion
> after chemical treatment is of no surprise to me. Over a period of
> roughly 30 years I have observed numerous brush control projects in
> Idaho, Colorado and Wyoming where the big sage brush has invaded back
> to pre-treatment levels. The only ones I have observed where big sage
> brush had not invaded were here in Worland where the sage brush had
> been burned either by wildfire or prescribed fire within the time
> frame of around 15 years from the date of the original project.
>
> TOUR STOP 5

Grassy Hills Seeding

Objectives:

To seed an area of Federal range that burned over in a wildfire of 1960.
The burn is described as an undulating area of rangeland previously
having a dense cover of big sagebrush with a thick understory of
bluebunch wheatgrass, bluegrass and cheatgrass. The soil is a sandy loam
which varies from rock free bottoms and valley depressions to very rocky
ridge tops and higher slopes.

Goals:

It is the goal of this seeding project to insure the re-establishment of
a good perennial grass cover over the area burned.

Project Implementation:

The project was started in October of 1960 and completed in May of 1961.
This project consisted of drilling seed into the burn which was 5881
acres of Federal rangeland. About 3036 acres was seeded in the fall of
1960 while the balance or 2845 acres was finished in the spring between
April 10 and May 3, 1961. Because of the very rocky conditions over most
of the project area proper planting techniques was not accomplished. The
seed drills in many areas barely left a discernable furrow. All drilling
was done with standard grain drills. The species drilled were
Intermediate wheatgrass and Crested wheatgrass. The total cost of the
seeding was \$25,800.

Monitoring:

No monitoring studies were established. A project inspection report that
was completed in April of 1962 stated that the seeding success was fair.

Photo Points:

No photo points were established.

Management:

There was no intensive management implemented at the time.

Observations and Conclusions:

This Grassy Hills area did surprise me as I thought that it would be
heavily dominated by big sage brush. It looked much the same as I
remember it looking, sagebrush free back 30 years ago. In our discussion
about this area it was brought up that this area was burned off in a
recent wildfire. So if sage brush had been present it had once again
been taken out by fire. It was interesting that the original species,
Intermediate wheatgrass and Crested wheatgrass that were seeded in 1960
and 1961, were still present today in the grass vegetative complex. One
conclusion that we talked about at the end of this stop was that it
seems that the only areas that were sage brush free today were areas
that had been burned. This supports many of my other observations over
my career and supports the BLM present program of prescribed fire for
the control of invasive woody species. In Worland we have had a very
aggressive prescribed fire program since the early 1980's. Most all of
these treated areas remain Sage Brush and Juniper free today. We did
implement allotment management plans and grazing systems in these
allotments before and after prescribed burning treatments.

Uncompahgre Plateau

August 2002

## David Wickstrom, Forester/Natural Resource Specialist

## Montrose Resource Area, Montrose District, 1968-1973

I. Project Description

# A. Name of Project

> Uncompahgre Chainings
>
> Log Hill
>
> Sims Mesa
>
> Paxton
>
> Highway 90
>
> B. Location - Montrose Field Office
>
> C. Project objectives
>
> 1\. Improve watershed, i.e. slow/stop erosion
>
> Reservoir construction, repair, and water retention, i.e. bentonite in
> bottoms.
>
> 2\. Improve wildlife habitat (deer winter range)
>
> 3\. Improve livestock grazing management
>
> 4\. Public access
>
> a\. Road construction and repair
>
> b\. Public land signs installed.
>
> 5\. Harvesting wood (pinion pine) for fire wood (Denver Market)
> juniper posts (local market).
>
> D. Management Goals
>
> 1\. Vegetation conversion from Pinion/Juniper to grass, shrubs and
> forbs
>
> 2\. Conversion of old stands of PJ to younger stands
>
> 3\. Reduce erosion
>
> 4\. Improve wildlife habitat
>
> 5\. lmprove range conditions to be more suitable for livestock grazing
> (sheep). Area historical use was sheep winter range.
>
> 6\. Improve public recreation, i.e. outback jeeping, sightseeing,
> hunting
>
> E. Pre-Project baseline data and or monitoring
>
> 1\. Transects or plots - None that I recall
>
> 2\. Photo points - None that I recall
>
> 3\. Type and location of documentation
>
> Annual work plans, project files, notations of cooperation with
> Colorado Fish and Game

II\. Implementation

> A. Implementation dates 1966 - 1973

B.  Describe Treatments

> Chaining, and wood product cutting (firewood and posts). A small area
> was set aside for green firewood cutting
>
> C. Post-Project land management
>
> 1\. Herded sheep grazing was in place
>
> 2\. Broadcast burning was attempted with limited success.
>
> 3\. Salvage of wood products
>
> 4\. Public access - road rehab and signing.
>
> D. Post project monitoring
>
> 1\. Permanent wildlife transects established. Grazing use monitored
>
> 2\. Photo points established.
>
> 3\. Documents retained in District files
>
> 4\. Information on the projects incorporated into planning documents.
>
> III\. Results
>
> A. Observations and Conclusions
>
> On the ground review of these areas found vegetation returning to
> pinion-juniper. If left unmanaged the areas would return to
> pinion-­juniper. Litter on the ground from the chaining is providing
> greater soil stability and limiting sheet erosion. Livestock grazing
> use is reduced. The type of use and season still needs to be addressed
> if the vegetation conversion projects are to be successful. The
> question is how livestock grazing can be used as a tool to manage
> vegetation in our goal to protect watersheds. Elk use of the areas is
> increasing, adding a new dimension. How can the areas be managed for
> elk, deer and livestock? The State of Colorado Game and Fish is now
> emphasizing trophy elk. The challenge for BLM is to address these
> objectives without destroying the vegetation and degrading the
> watershed.
>
> What about the needs of wildlife? How do pinion nuts from mature pines
> figure into the diversity of wildlife?
>
> Urban intrusion (urban interface) into the areas is a new factor that
> must be addressed. The present interest in fire management to reduce
> the potential for large wild fires must be considered in managing the
> vegetation manipulated areas and the areas adjacent to them. Public
> education needs to be increased on the management of the land and its
> resources.
>
> B. Were objectives met in terms of project objectives?
>
> The objectives of reducing erosion, improving wildlife habitat, range
> conditions, and public access were met. Changing old stands of
> pinion-juniper to healthy vegetation with greater value to wildlife
> was achieved. The change brought improved watershed conditions. There
> was increased forage for livestock. Public access developed into the
> area was increased by the cat traits around and through the chainings.
> Many of these trails are now being used by the public. Time has
> brought change to these areas. The most noticeable was the intrusion
> of young pinion pine and juniper. This provides for a greater
> diversity of plant life in the large chained areas. The challenge now
> is work with these resources to continue the improved watershed
> conditions. Further development of the chaining areas for wildlife and
> livestock use is being undertaken with the roller chopper and the
> hydro ax.

C.  Were expectations met in terms of longer term goals and
    expectations?

> The expectations for improved vegetation composition by chaining were
> met. To what degree over 30 years time is difficult to determine. What
> changes in livestock grazing were implemented? How have wildlife, i.e.
> deer, made use of the areas. How did these uses impact the area?
> Pinion pine and juniper have returned on the sites. Chaining alone is
> not the complete answer. Management actions must be undertaken to
> retain the values expected through the initial chaining. New equipment
> available today which was not available in the 1960s will enable
> resource specialists to design better treatment areas for maximizing
> diversified vegetation. The areas must be monitored and records kept.
> Past monitoring program records are missing.

D.  Other conclusions (vegetation composition, cover, wildlife habitat,
    overall land health)

> Chaining alone does not provide the final answer to management of
> pinion pine/juniper vegetation. It is a valuable tool, however, to
> begin the change of vegetation in an area. Once this action is
> completed management of the areas through changes of use, i.e.
> livestock grazing (used as a tool and not an end in itself). The same
> goes for wildlife. New ways of working with the plant communities
> through mechanical means needs to be a part of the program. Close
> coordination with the Colorado State Fish and Game must be maintained
> to assure the vegetation resources which BLM manages can support the
> wildlife desires of the State. Urban interface is a new challenge. The
> improved diversity of vegetation and how to maintain it must be
> explained to the public. This is a never ending process. With people
> now living in and adjacent to the public lands managed by the BLM more
> time and effort will be required to explain the benefits of land
> management practices being undertaken. Fire will be a major issue to
> address. The Montrose Field Office needs to expend more time in public
> relations. Adding a public relations position to the office mix is
> recommended.

E.  What would you do differently today?

> Planning vegetation renewal projects today requires greater review and
> analysis before undertaking such a program. The public wants to know.
> The tools for accomplishing the desired outcome have improved, i.e.
> geographic positioning systems (GPS), chaining, roller crusher, and
> the Hydro Ax, changing livestock use and changing wildlife use,
> reducing wild fire hazards.(urban interface).

F.  What are the lessons learned that could be applied in this area in
    the future?

> Chaining of old growth pinion pine is just the beginning in developing
> diverse plant communities. Management of wildlife and livestock must
> be adjusted to ensure watershed improvement. Continued maintenance of
> the treated areas must be funded. Public education must be undertaken
> to reduce the anti-treatment forces that try to stop all such work on
> the land. New challenges, i.e. "urban interface," must be addressed. A
> greater fire danger results when building is allowed to be done on
> small or large parcels intermingled with the public lands. Wherever
> and whenever there are chainings, wood products should be made
> available to the public. Land treatments result in greater public
> access to the public lands. Utilize the latest technology to design
> and layout treatment areas, e.g. GPS, roller choppers, and the Hydro
> Ax.

IV\. Recommendations:

> 1\. Follow-up treatments?
>
> Use the latest technology to accomplish maintenance of the treated
> areas: GPS, roller choppers and hydro ax to create more diversified
> and irregular areas. Treat more often to retain the resource values
> desired Where possible use fire to assist in managing the resources.
>
> 2\. New treatments needed?
>
> Treat areas infested with noxious and obnoxious plants. Contract with
> local companies to do the spraying.
>
> 3\. Management?

Determine what the management of wildlife and livestock can do to assure
the continued development of improved watersheds. No area should be a
sacrifice area. Coordinate closely with the Colorado Fish and Game on
wildlife management. If the vegetation is not available for changes
being requested through the political aspects associated with game
management, BLM must take a stand. Management at all levels must be
willing to get on board to address game management impacts that are
detrimental to a healthy watershed. Work closely with livestock users to
assure grazing does not adversely impact the proper management of the
vegetative resources and the watershed. The idea that we have always
grazed this way is not a valid reason for allowing continued use that is
detrimental to the watersheds and the vegetation needed to keep them
healthy. Hire a public affairs officer to lead in educating the public
on responsible land management. The building issues relating to "urban
interface" must be addressed. Land signing must be a primary program. If
a sign goes down, is damaged or disappears, a new one must replace it in
short order.

> 4\. Monitoring (use supervision and long term monitoring)
>
> Use supervision: All permitted uses must be supervised. BLM must be
> very active on the ground. I sense that today's employees spend the
> majority of their time in the office whereas 30 years ago the opposite
> was true.
>
> Long-term monitoring: When the chainings were completed, wildlife and
> grazing monitoring systems were installed. Those included permanent
> plots and photo stations. Our review found that there no longer was
> record of all the work that was done in this regard. Attempts are
> being made to recapture information to establish a base to build
> continued long term monitoring programs. Why did these programs
> disappear? It does not reflect well on BLM as a responsible land
> manager when information is not recorded and passed on to succeeding
> employees. To continually start from scratch every time a vegetation
> treatment program is proposed does not make sense. We must learn from
> the past if we are to have a future.

LEGACY PROGRAM REPORT

Uncompahgre Plateau

(August 2002)

I. Project Description - Pinon-Juniper Chainings

> A.&B. Project Names - All Located in the Uncompahgre Field Office,
> Montrose, CO (Uncompahgre Plateau).
>
> 1\. Simms Mesa Chaining
>
> 2\. Paxton Chaining
>
> 3\. Hwy 90 Chaining
>
> 4\. Log Hill Mesa Chaining

C. Project Objectives:

> 1\. To Remove pinion juniper canopy and release vegetative
> under-story.
>
> 2\. To create irregular open areas within the dense P-J cover.

3\. To leave cover strips in P-J for wildlife cover belts.

> 4\. To increase ground litter and reduce runoff and local erosion.

D. Management Goals

> [Resource Values]{.underline}
>
> a\. To improve watershed and reduce erosion.

b\. To increase grass forage production; Parts of Log Hill Chaining were
burned to reduce the over-story (trees and shrubs) and increase grass
production.

> c\. To increase browse and forb production.
>
> d\. To open areas for public use (hunting).
>
> [Vegetative Changes]{.underline}
>
> a\. To remove P-J canopy and release vegetative under-story
> particularly the grasses, forbs and shrubs.
>
> b\. To create irregular open areas within the dense P-J cover.

c\. To leave cover strips and islands in P-J for wildlife cover belts.

> E. Pre-Project baseline data and/or monitoring completed on two year
> old and older chainings in 1971 (Simms Mesa, Sawmill Mesa, Log Hill
> Mesa, Paxton, and Hwy 90 and others). Studies completed on each
> chaining include:
>
> a\. One to two transects \[100 point paced transects\].
>
> b\. Pellet groups were counted within a 11.9\' radius of every tenth
> plot along a each paced transect (ten each transect).
>
> c\. Photos were taken along the line of the transect; no photo plots
> were established.
>
> d\. Documentation included a Report and Evaluation of all Two Year Old
> and Older Chainings within the Montrose District in 1971-1972. This
> evaluation was to provide a baseline of data including plant species
> composition, frequency, ground cover, browse condition, age class, and
> utilization, and big game distribution and use. Information was to be
> analyzed with other data including grazing and watershed studies along
> with winter range data (plant utilization, animal distribution, and
> browse condition, age class and trend) for deer and elk collected on a
> game unit basis.
>
> Additional studies (production, frequency, species diversity, etc.)
> have been taken since 1986**.** Wildlife biologist has the records.

II\. Implementation

A. Project names

Simms Mesa Chaining - 1967-68 (est.) Seeding unkown.

Paxton Chaining - 1969-70 - seeded by dribbler on cat (?).

Hwy 90 Chaining - unknown

Log Hill Mesa Chaining - 1967-68 - hand seeded, seed dribbler mounted on
cat (?).

> Sawmill Mesa Chaining - 1971-72 - aerial seeded and hand seeded in
> open root holes and under chained trees, etc.
>
> B. Treatment included two D-10 Cats pulling an anchor chain between
> them which knocked down the trees. The area was seeded by dribbler
> mounted on each cat track as well as hand seeded (browse and grass) in
> selected sites.
>
> C. Post-Project land management - some areas were roller chopped or
> hydro axed (Simms Mesa, Log Hill, Paxton), some were hydro axed (Simms
> Mesa), and others were burned (Paxton, Log Hill, and Simms). The Hwy
> 90 chaining was completed on a marginal site (rocky and shallow soils)
> and as a result, no retreatment has occurred since the chaining. Any
> other treatments- unknown.
>
> D. Post-Project Monitoring - studies (production, frequency, species
> diversity, etc.) have been taken since 1986**.** Wildlife biologist
> has the records.
>
> 1\. Field Office Study may include clip and weigh plots within the
> treated areas.
>
> 2\. Photo points established with clip and weigh plots.
>
> 3\. Folder containing all study data with photos kept in wildlife
> specialist office.
>
> 4\. No cross-walk to prior existing studies conducted in 1971-72.

III\. Results

A. Observations and conclusions.

> 1\. Generally, the debris created by old chainings had been decreased
> substantially by wood cutters, normal decay, burning, and roller
> chopping and hydro axing treatments. Where old chainings were not
> retreated (roller chopped or burned) the P-J was actively invading the
> site with old debris very noticeable and more prevalent on site. Where
> old chainings were roller chopped, P-J was reduced and browse plants
> were prevalent, well distributed, and showed good growth. Actual vigor
> of browse plants is unknown, but moderate to heavy utilization may be
> occurring on most treated sites. Roller chopping over newer pinon
> trees caused trees the trunks to split or crack except for the smaller
> trees (less than 1\" dia.), but juniper trees were not affected. On
> retreated areas some of the browse productivity and vigor seemed to
> out weigh the heavy utilization in some areas. On the hydro axed sites
> (Simms mesa) trees and piles of wood debris were reduced to scattered
> wood pieces and chips.
>
> Evaluations on two year old and older chainings completed in 1971-72
> indicated that kills on pinon trees were very high compared to juniper
> which were resprouting from any part of the tree root still in the
> ground. Even in these early chainings reinvasion was recognized as a
> problem and maintenance of these sites was discussed . In the 1970\'s,
> browse plants were limited or scarce on P-J sites depending upon the
> over story, and if browse was available desirable plants were severely
> clubbed. Chaining of P-J over sites with browse plants provided debris
> which sheltered the browse plants from grazing and use by wildlife.
> The evaluation (1971-72) indicated that where these browse plants were
> protected, branches exhibited greater annual growth and were more
> vigorous.
>
> B. Project objectives appeared to be met on those sites with
> retreatment or maintenance of these chained sites. Without
> retreatment, sites return to the P-J over story with evidence of the
> old chaining debris and little vegetation beneath (Simms Mesa site).
>
> C. Expectations were met in terms of longer term goals as long as
> re-treatments were applied, especially the roller chopping and
> hydro-axing. Fire treatments were successful where there was a
> quantity of debris on the ground. Fire also reduced the variety and
> quantity of plants (mainly browse) used for wildlife during winter
> months. The overall effect of burning large areas greatly reduce
> browse plants and increased the grass and forb production. Although,
> forb production seemed to be low on most sites.
>
> D. Other conclusions - The treatments were done to increase vegetative
> (browse, grass, forb) production, but reinvasion of P-J into old
> chainings clearly shows that retreatment of old chainings is necessary
> to maintain these sites as open diverse vegetative communities that
> offer good wildlife habitat, grazing forage, and watershed protection.
> One observation made was that 35+ years ago deer winter range was
> lower down on these mesas in the mostly sage brush communities. Most
> of the spring utilization studies were completed on these lower winter
> ranges. Some of the higher portions of these ranges did have mountain
> mahogany, service berry and oak scattered throughout the sagebrush
> parks. However, except for early spring use by deer and elk as they
> followed the melting snow line, the higher elevations that had the
> better stands of browse were not heavily used except in very open
> winters. It would appear that there has been a climatic change on the
> Uncompahgre Plateau that has allowed winter use by wildlife to occur
> at higher elevations on the plateau. This was evident in the chainings
> (retreatments) on Paxton and Log Hill and some heavily browsed sites
> on Hwy 90.
>
> E. What would I do differently today? - I would discontinue prescribed
> burning on large treated areas and continue the practice of burning or
> hydro axing individual trees or brush piles to create the open canopy
> and park-like appearance of these treated areas. Some debris piles
> should be left for wildlife cover. During drought seasons/years
> livestock grazing should be delayed/postponed on treated areas until
> seed ripe.
>
> F. One major lesson learned is that the filing system for permanent
> files in place during 1970-73 was good, but the system did not provide
> adequate protection for permanent records filed in 6500 and 6600
> series. All inventories and studies/evaluations completed from 1970 to
> 1973 were all filed in accordance with the records system. However,
> these records have been lost or destroyed since then.

G. Recommendations

> 1\. Retreatment of these old chainings is needed to improve/maintain
> the under story browse, grass, and forb species.
>
> 2\. Continue retreatment/maintenance of the old chainings to
> reduce/slow down P-J reinvasion of these sites. In areas where P-J has
> reestablished a good stand of young trees 8-20 feet tall, treatments
> with the hydro-chopper should be considered to reduce the tree canopy
> and regain an open and diverse tree-browse-grass site that supplies
> adequate cover and food for wildlife.
>
> 3\. Discontinue prescribed burning on large treated areas. Limit
> burning to individual trees or brush piles to create/maintain the open
> canopy and park-like appearance of these treated areas. A scattered
> tree and shrub appearance that prevents line of sight through/across
> the treated area is the best cover for wildlife (Paxton and parts of
> Log Hill chaining).
>
> 4\. Sites like Hwy 90 that offered little results from the original
> chaining, may offer some improvement in areas where the browse plants
> (oak, mountain mahogany, serviceberry, and some bitter brush) occur
> more frequently. The hydro axing of small areas (trees) through out
> the chaining may increase vigor of browse plants and increase wildlife
> use.
>
> 5\. Maintain a 2-3 year moratorium on grazing of treated areas and/or
> until the treated area has reached a reproductive capacity that can
> sustain the intended grazing pressure. During drought seasons/years do
> not permit livestock grazing on treated areas for two years or more
> depending upon site and plant conditions.
>
> 6\. Increase awareness of all employees about the importance of the
> retention of permanent files such as studies, inventories,
> evaluations, photo plots, etc. that program specialists worked
> diligently to establish/collect and complete. Establish the policy
> that each study, evaluation, inventory completed for a
> program/initiative is vital to management and must be preserved within
> the BLM records system.
>
> 7\. Use volunteers (BLMers who are retired) or rehire annuitants to
> help field and/or office professionals with work that should be done,
> but cannot be accomplished without additional help such as: monitoring
> and evaluation studies, project supervision, records management, etc.
> Many retirees may be looking for just the right opportunity to get
> involved with field work again. Utilizing retirees as resource
> advisors for their experience, knowledge, perspective/view points,
> and/or just their expertise and skills to get the job done may be a
> large untapped resource for BLM.

George Hollis

Langston University

Hwy 33 SBDC Bldg.

Langston, OK 73050

9405\) 466-6022

E-Mail: <George_Hollis@blm.gov>

Blue Mesa

August 2002

## David Wickstrom, Forester/Natural Resource Specialist

Montrose Resource Area, Montrose District, 1966-1973

> I. Project Description
>
> A. Name of Project
>
> Blue Mesa Timber Sales and Reforestation
>
> B. Location - Gunnison Field Office
>
> C. Project objectives
>
> 1\. Maintain allowable cut
>
> 2\. Clear areas previously clear cut - pile and burn
>
> 3\. Replant by seeding, machine and hand planting
>
> 4\. Develop road system that would be available for future forest
> resource management.
>
> D. Management Goals
>
> 1\. Maintain allowable cut
>
> 2\. Species conversion plant lodgepole pine (as a cover crop).
>
> 3\. Protect water sources (Springs) from livestock use
>
> 5\. Improve public access, i.e. outback jeeping, sightseeing, hunting
>
> 6\. Close reforested areas to grazing
>
> 7\. Monitor spruce seed cycles
>
> 8\. Resolve timber trespass
>
> E. Pre-Project baseline data and/or monitoring
>
> 1\. Predetermined allowable cut and time to regenerate a stand of
> timber.
>
> 2\. On the ground review of cut and uncut areas
>
> 3\. Type and location of documentation
>
> Annual work plans and timber sale contracts.
>
> 4\. Locating and marking section corners and determining property
> lines
>
> II\. Implementation
>
> A. Implementation dates 1966 - 1973
>
> B. Describe Treatments
>
> Timber sale preparation, i.e. cruising, road layout and acquiring
> access
>
> Past timber sale salvage and reforestation, i.e. piling and burning,
> planting
>
> C. Post-Project land management
>
> 1\. Yearly monitoring of planted areas to determine survival success
> of seedings

2.  Broadcast burning successfully removed heavy concentrations of wood
    debris

3.  Salvage of wood products - mine timbers for the coal mines near
    Paonia and long poles for teed lot bunkers in Nebraska

> 4\. Daily monitoring of grazing to keep sheep out of forest
> restoration areas
>
> D. Post project monitoring
>
> 1\. Yearly sampling over planted and seeded areas to determine
> mortality
>
> Ill. Results
>
> A. Observations and Conclusions
>
> A one-day trip was taken by Bob Carruthers (District Forester during
> this time) and myself. We drove to several sites to revisit how
> forested areas had reestablished in the past 30+ years. Sites visited:
>
> Cox's Park Middle Blue
>
> Darryl Duncan Memorial Forest
>
> Big Blue Ridge timber sale and road construction project..
>
> The first observation was the improved road up the Little Blue. Access
> to the public lands is now readily available to automobiles. Overall
> the general view was most pleasing. The signs of timber harvesting of
> the 1960s were now mostly covered or surrounded with new trees. Areas
> cleared, burned and planted had more aspen than what we expected. The
> development of the private land adjacent to BLM lands will impact
> future timer harvesting and forest management activities. The issues
> associated with "urban interface" are with BLM on the Blue.
>
> B. Were objectives met in terms of project objectives?
>
> Meeting the allowable cut was a challenge in light of the large areas
> that had been clearcut or had all large diameter trees removed
> resulting in wind throw. Past timber sale areas were a jungle with a
> large amount of wood debris on the sites. No two sites were exactly
> alike. The forestry program was based on immediate reestablished
> stands through planting.
>
> The Forest Service was not having much success in planting spruce on
> their timber harvest sites. The high elevation, light intensity,
> livestock grazing and wildlife (elk) use made forest regeneration very
> difficult. Sample plantings on the BLM sites were not successful. A
> decision was made to plant lodgepole pine as a cover crop to
> reestablish the sites for spruce management. Evidence found lodgepole
> pine trees had once been on the sites. The Cox's Park and Middle Blue
> areas were piled and burned. Cox's Park was then machine-planted with
> Lodgepole Pine and Douglas Fir (on the far end where Douglas Fir had
> been). We found only two Douglas fir trees. Both were not doing well.
> Contours constructed were no longer evident. Was the area returned to
> grazing? Did elk graze the fir? Was the site to extreme?
>
> The Middle Blue area was piled and burned. A rodent survey was
> undertaken which showed a high population of mice and chipmunks in the
> cleared area. The area was treated to reduce the number of these
> creatures. The area was seeded with Lodge pole Pine seed late in the
> Fall prior to a snow storm. The seeding was a success and a good cover
> of pine trees sprouted and survived the summer. Each year the numbers
> declined, primarily due to frost heave. Spot planting was undertaken.
>
> New timber sales were planned and marked to maintain a forest stand on
> the sites. Regeneration would be by natural means.

C.  Were expectations met in terms of longer term goals and
    expectations?

> The assumptions made in determining the allowable cut and regeneration
> were shown to be flawed. The amount of timber readily available could
> not sustain a high allowable cut. Clearing timber sale areas by piling
> and burning requires much longer to regenerate than predicted. Instead
> of a stand being established on the site in 1-3 years, a time period
> of 10-30 years was more likely. Regeneration by planting is costly.
>
> The Big Blue Ridge timber sale came closest to meeting forest
> management objectives to maintain a healthy forest environment. The
> drive is a very pleasant one. Young spruce and alpine fir were found
> along the road. A requirement of this sale was clearing all wood
> debris from the road construction area and piling it en selected
> disposal areas. I was most pleased to drive this road and see what I
> had planned was successful. Large piles of slash to be burned resulted
> from this approach. The burn areas need to be reviewed much closer.
> Some time will pass before these areas are again covered with trees.
> When were they burned? We did not have time to walk through the
> cutting areas or the burn piles. Overall the forest cover as seen from
> the road was good. Few places showed the marks of timber harvesting.
> There's a high volume of wood debris in the forest. This debris was a
> concern when the sale was prepared.
>
> The Darryl Duncan tree planting area was viewed. The forest is an open
> stand of lodgepole pine and alpine fir. To the general public, the
> area would look natural. This area was posted off-limits to grazing?
> How long did this posting last and was it honored by grazing
> permittees.
>
> D. Other conclusions (vegetation composition, cover, wildlife habitat,
> overafl land health)
>
> The areas planted and seeded have an open forest appearance. There is
> more aspen regeneration than what was expected. Lodgepole pine is
> reseeding on the sites. Alpine fir is the next most prominent species.
> Spruce is scattered and found mostly along the edge of the cleared
> area. Timber sate roads are stable and passable. Signing of the public
> lands needs to be reviewed and updated. Found the sign at the Middle
> Blue timber sale area on the ground.
>
> E. What would you do differently today?
>
> 1\. Know the area to be harvested, i.e., age classes, debris, aspect,
> soil etc.
>
> 2\. Design cutting to retain the site and stand le removing primarily
> suppressed, codominate trees and limited dominate trees.
>
> 3\. Keep harvesting areas small.
>
> 4\. Plan cutting to facilitate natural reseeding. Where is the stand
> in regard to seed development (7 year cycle)
>
> 5\. Maintain adequate cover for site stability and seed source.
>
> 6\. Plant trees as a last resort, i.e. fire, blown down etc. where
> large areas are impacted.
>
> 7\. Refrain from large annual cut commitments.
>
> 8\. Remove excessive wood debris in stands. More development of the
> private lands for homes may provide a need for firewood.
>
> 9\. Urban interface issues will need to be addressed.
>
> F. What are the lessons learned that could be applied in this area in
> the future?
>
> 1\. Know all that you can about the forest area before embarking on
> timber cutting.
>
> 2\. Reforestation is a difficult and costly process which may take
> many years to accomplish.
>
> 3\. Forest type conversion is a means to the end and not the end in
> itself. The lodge pole pine is serving as a nurse crop for the
> eventual return of the spruce forest.
>
> 4\. Aspen returns to cleared areas more than what was expected. This
> is good.
>
> 5\. The mixed stands of pine, alpine fir and aspen provide for better
> wildlife habitat Blue Mesa continues to be used heavily by elk. High
> lined alpine fir trees reflect this.

IV\. Recommendations:

1.  Follow-up treatments?

    a.  Refine management practices to maintain healthy forests

    b.  Dense stands may need precommercial thinning.

    c.  Manage stands for their longevity and not to meet a paper
        commitment

    d.  Salvage dead and down material to reduce the heavy wood debris

    e.  Forest management will need to consider other uses more than in
        the past, i.e. public recreation, sightseeing, wildlife values
        etc. Undertake public education on forest management. The public
        wants to know.

> 2\. New, treatments needed?
>
> Precommercial thinning
>
> Wildland fire fuels reduction (urban interface)
>
> 3\. Management?
>
> Know the area and its potential
>
> Sign the areas to show the public where public lands are
>
> Interpret the old cutting areas
>
> Make BLM presence known on the ground
>
> 4\. Monitoring (use supervision and long term monitoring) Use
> supervision:
>
> Monitor all permitted forest cutting
>
> Watch for trespass cutting
>
> Long-term monitoring:
>
> Understand what has taken place in the past
>
> Be aware of changes taking place, even though it may be slow
>
> Write a short end of the year report *to* the permanent files of what
> transpired in the area during the year. I would keep it to one page
> with photos.
>
> Make sure the person following you knows of this record and continues
> the effort.
>
> Every five years review the information and prepare a paper on changes
> that have occurred.

Legacy Project, Lander Site Visit August 26,2002

James (Smokey) O'Connor (RET)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project visited was the Granite Mountain Sagebrush Spraying of the
Lander Field Office. The site is located approximately 12 miles NNE of
the Sweetwater Crossing Junction of Highways 287 and 135. The aspect is
sagebrush. The cover is low Big Sagebrush, Black Sage and Western
Wheatgrass.

The project objectives were to remove brush to increase soil moisture
and increase desirable grasses.

Management goals were grazing oriented to increase forage for domestic
livestock.

The initial project was to be a 5 year effort whereby 12,000 acres of
sagebrush were to be 85% removed, one-fifth of the acreage each year.

A vegetation transect had been established, this was not located during
the site visit and the number of follow-up studies is unknown.

IMPLEMENTATION

The plan of the spraying was to be done in 100 foot wide strips leaving
400 feet between strips at the beginning of the 5 year period, and
successively fill in between the strips 100 feet at a time until the
entire space was treated. As this was an important sage grouse area the
Wyoming Game and Fish Department were consulted. They felt the strip
spraying as planned would not have too adverse effects on wildlife
habitat.

In May 1961 the initial spraying was done in strips according to the
plan. The 100 foot strips were up to 3 miles long. The Game and Fish
were initiating a study to determine the effects of the spraying on sage
grouse. In 1962 the strip spraying was abandoned and the strip area was
block sprayed to complete the treatment. Adjacent area to the north was
block sprayed in 1963 and another adjacent area further north in 1964.
At the completion of the spraying in 1964 approximately 13,000 acres had
been treated.

No changes in grazing use or seasons was done initially, and probably
not during the duration of the project. The original area is adjacent to
the stockwater well serving the area then and now.

Wyoming Game and Fish initiated studies and BLM set out transects marked
by project markers.

From 1961 on the Sagebrush Spraying projects had to consider soil
moisture at 2 foot depth as well as the sage growth stage to insure
optimum kill. Inspection reports in 1962 of the 1961 work report a 95%
sagebrush kill and an increase of grass production of 40% compared to
the range survey of 1957-58.

The sage cover in the area is a uniformly low growth aspect with most of
the shrubs being less than 18 inches tall. Some higher growth is evident
along the shallow watercourses but overall it would be a low sage type.

RESULTS

It was extremely difficult to see the original strips. In fact it was
almost a nuance in shading that made them visible. An inspection report
made in 1982 recommended abandoning the project because it was hard to
find the spray areas and the sage had grown back in. We did not notice
hardly any dead plant material whether from the spraying or natural
mortality. A general photo in the files taken during the spray operation
(not a monitoring photo) would seem to show that there is now more sage
and grass than before.

The objectives of removing the brush to increase soil moisture and
desirable grasses were probably met in the short term as evidenced by
the 1962 report. But in 20 years or less the project had outlived its
useful life. In the more northern block spray areas I did not notice the
forbs that I remembered being in the grassy places in 1958-61. I can't
say whether this is a result of the spraying or not.

The files contain an undated photocopy of a magazine article by Warren
Higby who was the Game and Fish Bird Biologist involved with this
project. I would assume the date is 1965 or thereabouts. He documents
reduced winter counts and birds on strutting grounds declining from an
average of around 50 in 1961 to 7 or 8 by the 1964 season.

During the planning phase of the project the Game and Fish opposed
spraying within 1 mile of West Long Creek as it is the only permanent
stream in the area and valuable nesting area. The grassy area mentioned
above is one of the tributaries of West Long Creek.

We did see one small flock of sage grouse northeast of Findley Lake
well.

I think the change in the way the following sprays were done is contrary
to the agreed on methods. That the Game and Fish was concerned is
evidenced by a memo in the files dated October 18, 1961 where the
Biologist indicated they understood that the area was to be sprayed in
strips until the entire area had been treated.

If I were to plan a sage spraying project today it would be to treat
smaller areas, say 160-200 acres completely, defer grazing, avoid places
with lots of valuable forbs, and certainly consider other needs such as
wildlife habitat. The continued grazing use probably contributed to the
density of the regrowth of the sage, but the temporary release of the
grass species was beneficial.

The amount of regrowth in 20 years was surprising to note in the files.
We certainly didn't understand the physiology of sagebrush to reseed
itself given the percentage of kill reported.

The idea to change the composition on a single block of 12,000 acres was
acceptable then given the limited objective of increasing soil moisture
for the benefit of desirable grass (and livestock). At that time we
expected very successful kills of sage from spraying and didn't consider
other values.

Large blocks of any kind of mono-culture wouldn't be performed today. I
sure wouldn't lay out a project in such a large scale manner today.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I don't think that we should repeat the treatment since it didn't appear
to have a very long useful life and was probably harmful to sage grouse
over the long term. Soil depth does not appear to be the principal
limiting factor so management over the long term may increase the
understory vegetation to limit the sage increase.

If removing sage is desired I would recommend a brush hog for the
treatment. This would be done in small patches to create a mosaic
effect, however the cost versus expected life versus benefits may not be
worth the effort.

James "Smokey" O'Connor

901 Culbertson

Worland, WY 82401

307-347-6367

<2joc@tritel.net>

Chief, Soil and Moisture, Lander District, 1958-61

Legacy Project, Worland Site Visit, August 27,2002

James (Smokey) O'Connor (RET)

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The projects visited were the Burnt Wagon Contour Furrowing and the
Drainage 6 waterspreader dikes and contour furrows and are located in
the 15 Mile area of the Worland Field Office. The sites are
approximately 15-18 miles from Worland.

The soils in the project areas are derived from Wasatch formations and
are typical erosive badland soils.

The project objectives for contour furrowing were to improve forage
cover and to reduce runoff. The waterspreaders objectives included
reducing erosion. Management goals were to increase carrying capacity.

I don't recall any pre-treatment baseline studies or continuing
monitoring.

IMPLEMENTATION

The waterspreaders were constructed between 1953-56 as part of an
extensive construction program in the 15 Mile Creek drainage area. Most
of the side drainages had some type of structures, primarily detention
dams which would regulate flows into the spreader systems. Larger
drainages may also have had detention dams below the spreader areas to
regulate the flow into the main channel.

The waterspreader dikes were constructed by dozer or scraper and ranged
in height from 7 feet at the upper part of the system to 4 feet at the
end. Most dikes were 200 to 500 feet in length and from 100 to 200 feet
apart depending on slope. The water flow would follow a zigzag path
through the system. The borrow to construct the dikes came from both
sides of the dike. Where the dike crossed the stream channel the base
had a core trench excavated 2 feet below natural grade and then
backfilled. The borrows were seeded to various grass species, primarily
Crested WheatGrass, and some were seeded with Kochia.

The contour furrowing was done in 1956-57 using a Model B Contour Furrow
machine, made by the San Dimas Equipment Development Center. This
machine consisted of 2 pairs of discs to plow 8 to 12 inch deep furrows
on 5 foot centers. A device to form a dam about 10 feet apart in each
furrow was operated by the travel wheels. A seed box was mounted top
rear and Crested Wheatgrass was used in this project. The machine was
pulled by a D-6 crawler tractor. Contour lines were staked at 200-400
foot horizontal intervals to guide the tractor operator. The furrowing
continued on approximately 5 foot centers to fill in between the guide
furrows.

The Drainage 6 waterspreader area was fenced to control livestock use. I
don't know the grazing history of the site. The Burnt Wagon and Drainage
6 furrow areas are in the Burlington Group cattle allotment but in
different pastures. They are now in a rest-rotation grazing system but
prior to its inception there was annual grazing.

Monitoring studies were initiated in the Burnt Wagon area but this
information was not available during the site visit. The project file
contains photos taken in 1957-58 which show the furrows and the crested
wheatgrass plants.

RESULTS

The contour furrow sites have been eroded to almost uniformly smooth
surface, with the furrows themselves indicated primarily by the rows of
the native salt sage vegetation. The crested wheatgrass in the sandier
soils show more growth, while in the heavier soils very little growth
was evident. The plant growth is certainly reflective of the 3 years of
drought. Overall though the furrows would not contain or retard any
overland water flow.

In terms of the objectives of increasing forage and reducing erosion the
furrows were probably effective in the short term, and I would guess the
short term to be less than ten years. If a high intensity storm were
directly over the area I would imagine the useful life to end at that
time given the erosive nature of the soils. In their current condition
there would be very little difference, if any, from the pre-treatment
conditions. The 1956 work cost from \$14 -\$16 per acre. I don't think
the cost can be justified due to the temporary benefits to be obtained
when performed on these soil sites.

We visited the upper portion of the Drainage 6 waterspreaders.

The waterspreaders are eroded in height and broken through where the
original channel was. Before they failed completely they did manage to
hold some silt in the spreader area of the upper dikes. Some vegetation
could be attributed to the dikes. We didn't visit the major structure at
the lower end of this system as it was outside the scope of the project
but understand it has failed also by piping along the outlet structure,
even though it was installed using the best procedures for earthen dams,
including maximum density compacted fill.

The dikes failed before much channel aggradation had occurred, or had
the opportunity to deposit much silt. In another system in which I am
familiar, the dikes were the "syrup pan" type in which both ends were
turned upstream to form shallow ponding. In this system there was
considerable cutting around the ends of the dikes the first season and
wooden drop structures were installed. In this case maintenance was
required after one year. I haven't inspected the majority of
waterspreader systems in 15 Mile but over the past 8 years have visited
the area several times. None of the systems I have seen is still intact
but realize my recent visits have been around 50 years after
construction.

During the site visit we wondered if the dikes could be repaired and new
drop structures installed to correct the channel cutting. I don't think
this would be practical. We used the best engineering to install all
outlet pipes or drop structure but didn't adequately consider the nature
of the soils we had to work with.

We didn't find any project inspection reports in the files for this
specific project so don't know if the project functioned for any period
of time or failed soon after completion.

When viewed as a land treatment project to improve vegetation and reduce
erosion the waterspreaders could be considered as heavy construction
such as highway construction. A considerable volume of earth was moved
to construct the dikes. In the long term they did not fulfill the
objectives.

RECOMMENDATIONS

I would not recommend any further physical action in the contour furrow
areas. Because of the soils I would think they would lose effectiveness
in a very short time and seedling establishment as shown in the 1958
photos has not endured. As they are essentially eroded to the original
land plane they shouldn't be disturbed further.

The waterspreader dikes are a different problem. Should they be removed
and the land restored to close to the original contour? Or should they
be left in place and allowed to erode with the ongoing headcutting in
the original channel? I would opt for the latter, especially if
monitoring showed that there wasn't any lateral widening of the headcut
channels. Some of the cutting we saw was in the deposition that occurred
before the dikes started to fail.

James "Smokey" O'Connor

901 Culbertson Ave.

Worland, WY 82401

307-347-6367

<2joc@tritel.net>

Range Con. Soil and Moisture, Worland District, 1956-58