DERMA Management

Desert Experimental Range Management Area

Resource Management Plan

Authors: Jesse Morris, Stan Gurley, and Wesley (Skip) Skidmore

Desert Experimental Range Area Management Plan

2

Table of Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………3

Watershed……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..6

o Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7

o Photographs……………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Recreation and Possible Conflicts………………………………………………………………………..………10

o Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..11

Energy and Mineral Extraction…………………………………………………….………………………………13

Forestry Interest…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15

Special Uses and Needs………………………………………………………………………………………………..17

Wildlife Management…………………………………………………………………………………………………..19

o Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25

Livestock Use……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42

o Charts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………46

o Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..47

Private Land Ownership……………………………………………………………………………………………….53

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….55


3

Introduction

The Desert Experimental Range (DER) is a research reserve located in northwest Pine Valley,

Millard County, Utah (USA) and 64 km west of the railroad town of Milford. It was established

in 1933 as an agricultural range experiment station by President Herbert Hoover. It is

approximately 225 square kilometers of Cold Desert salt-desert shrub and shrub-grass

ecosystems. Today, nearly 100 years later, it remains a viable and important center for dry

basin studies in the Great Basin Ecoregion of western North America. With an emphasis on

“dry”, this hydrology management plan includes the entire Pine Valley with its surrounding

mountains and includes 10 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grazing allotments. The Desert

Experimental Range Management area is made up of BLM allotments that are connected to the

DER boundaries.

Watershed

Water resources are one of or the most limiting factor in desert ecosystems. Land managers

are aware that even if forage production is high enough stocking rates and animal units months

may have to be adjusted for the lack of water in an area, and the cost of providing water.

Watersheds are also extremely important for the overall health of an ecosystem. The DERMA is

no exception to the water woes of the west, and careful management and development of

water resources will be weighed and recommended in this management plan.

Recreation Potential and Conflicts

OHV registrations in Utah have increased more than 3-fold from 1998 to 2006 (from 51,686 to

172,231) and that trend continues to increase (Smith 2008). This has led to more people

looking for places that they have rode in before and to avoid crowds. With the increase of

OHV, trails must be established, facilities need to provided and safety must be reinforced.

Energy and Mineral Exploration

Utah has a rich history of energy and mineral exploration. Mining has taken place historically

on DERMA, though the DERMA has relatively untouched. Energy exploration will continue to

expand and most be properly mitigated for proper use and protection of all resources.

Forestry Interest

Though lacking desired forest resources, the potential for logging for profit an issue that will be

managed, and carefully mitigated to protect the overall health of the system. Junipers are

harvested on a minimal level for fence post. The higher elevation on the Wah Wah Mountains


4

do have a population of Bristle Cone Pines, that will have to protected from over use and

carefully managed to promote a sustainable population.

Wildlife

Wildlife is in rich abundance with the DERMA. Offering premier elk and pronghorn hunts, the

DERMA which lies with the boundaries of the Southwest Desert Wildlife Management Unit has

produce top quality elk and pronghorn for years. Game species are not the only wildlife that is

of special concern on the DERMA, many protected or threaten species call it home or make

stop during migration within the DERMA boundaries. Greater Sage Grouse are also found on

the south end of the DERMA with two active leks. The greater sage grouse has been petition

for listing as endanger species, and currently is under review.

Livestock and Invasive Weeds

Livestock grazing on the DERMA dates back to settlement of the west. Many of the

improvements to the range have come with the support of livestock owners and associations.

With careful management and continued range improvements, the DERMA allotments will

continue to provide a model of grazing practices in the Great Basin region.

Land Ownership

Land ownership in the DERMA is made up of BLM, State Lands (UDWR, Trust Lands), private lands and

the DER. Land owners need to be considered in all management pratices to ensure that strong

relationsheip are built and maintaned, that a multi-purpose plan can be established and successful.


5

This page was left blank intentionally


6

Watershed Protection and Hydrology

The climate is characterized as having hot, dry, summers and cold, wet, winters. Mean

January temperatures are -3.5 degrees C and July temperatures average 23.3 degrees C.

Average annual precipitation is less than 165 mm which comes sporadically throughout the

year. The mountains reach 2,565 m elevation where precipitation can be 50% higher than the

valley floor. Water is a limiting factor for wildlife, vegetation, and livestock (Grinnell 1927).

Using data programs found in the State Geographic Information Database (SGID) contained

within the Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center (ARGC) website and displayed using

the ArcMap program developed by Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), I found

water sources to be limited in the northern end of Pine Valley.

Whereas, there are no perennial streams coming from the mountains within the study

area, it is necessary to capture and utilize water provided randomly from snow melt, ground

water, springs, or by manually transporting it from another source. Available free water does

exist as springs, which are relatively plentiful on the mountain slopes at the southern end of the

study site (DERMA HYDROLOGY map) but, all other water must be saved by using various water

catchment devices. Guzzlers are one device which consists of collection structures which direct

precipitation into underground storage tanks. A float valve dispenses the water as it is used

(Photo 1). These guzzlers and stock (livestock) watering tanks (Photo 2) were developed by

wildlife enthusiasts and local ranchers whose interest was distributing wildlife and livestock

throughout the range and, of course, for increasing their populations (Glading 1947). These

water enhancement projects were coordinated with the cooperation of local Bureau of Land

Management and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources agencies.

This management plan proposes to increase available water sources, especially within the Mormon Gap, Pine Valley, and northern portions of the Desert Experimental Range allotments. Water catchments, commonly known as guzzlers, appear to be the most feasible way to increase water availability, and they should favor designs which lessen evaporation. The least desirable water options are troughs and tanks which will require manual stocking of water hauled in by trucks. Transporting water is more expensive and labor intensive but, it is noteworthy that a study in 1946 found that trucking in water provided higher lamb crops and better grazing management by more efficient use of range forage in areas where no free water is present (Hutchings 1946). This was mainly because the sheep could feed on portions of the range previously closed for lack of water.

Annual surveys of plant production and range conditions based upon the received precipitation should occur in early summer so that grazing permit animal unit per month numbers can be determined well ahead of the winter grazing season. This will allow for grazing adjustments according to current precipitation and range conditions thereby preventing overgrazing by livestock and wildlife.


7

Map 1- Map of Water Sources with the DERMA


8

Photo 1: Wildlife Guzzler: Low evaporation guzzler operated by a float valve.

Photo 2: Water Tank: Livestock water tank. Note the wire ramp inside tank’s right edge to help prevent small wildlife drownings.


9

This page was left blank intenetionally


10

Recreational Considerations

The human population continues to grow in Utah and interest in outdoor recreation grows with it. Pine Valley, which includes the Desert Experimental Range (DER), west of Cedar City, Utah, offers clean air, solitude and wildlife viewing opportunities, especially enhanced by the resident wild horses (Equus ferus) which range there. Established for the primary purpose of rangeland research and rangeland education, there needs to be continuing guidelines to protect the DER and surrounding land.

The primary outdoor activities in Pine Valley are recreational day use, camping and hunting. Camping brings all-terrain-vehicles (ATV), motor bike, and horseback riders. In September and October, hunters can pursue Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and Wapiti (Cervus canadensis). We have found no rock-hounding sites within the Pine Valley management area, although topaz, geodes, trilobites, and garnets are found within 160 km to the north and northwest. Some campers enjoy gathering pinyon nuts in the fall. The lack of free water, water which is readily available, contributes to this being a “pass-through” area for migrating birds. There are, however, resident birds, mammals and reptiles which enliven the camping experience and provide many youngsters with lizard catching opportunities.

Our management plan proposes recreational activities continue with travel restricted to established roads. Upon further evaluation, some trails and ATV or jeep roads may need to be closed to protect the land from occasional erosion which may occur from intense runoff during thunderstorms. Campfires would be allowed in areas with no vegetation (combustible materials) within 5 m except when environmental factors dictate otherwise. These factors are mainly unusual dryness or wind. We researched the fire history for the management area and there were 99 fires, all human caused, from 1980 through 2009, in Pine Valley. 83 of those fires were less than 1 acre and 16 larger fires ranged from 2 to 280 acres. 95 of the 99 fires were in the southern half of the Pine Valley Management area. (See Pine Valley Management Area Fire map).

We also suggest creating a recreational map providing best access routes to the Desert Experimental Range station and Pine Valley from Interstate 15 and State road 6, with included distances. This map should show available services, if any, such as restroom facilities, gas stations, restaurants and hotels. The map should suggest camping areas and road conditions suitable for cars, trucks and ATV’s. Also of interest to visitors are places for best wild horse, pronghorn, deer, elk, sage grouse and wildlife viewing.


11

Map 2- Human Caused Fires with the DERMA.


12



13

Energy and Mineral Exploration

The State of Utah has very rich coal, natural gas, oil, tar sands and uranium deposits. The largest open pit copper mine in North America is found on the west side of Salt Lake Valley in the Oquirrh Mountains. The Great Salt Lake provides salt and other minerals, but, despite this mineral and energy richness, Pine Valley lacks these. A search of the AGRC – SGID data bases showed that the entire valley is considered a solar zone and there is a conceptual right-away for a future power line. It is also noted that this area is considered a “no wind” zone so it will not be considered for wind turbines. This information favors the DER because it can continue, as it was intended, to be an agricultural research facility without these pending threats. If, and we hope it is a big “if”, there should arise a need to open up this area for energy or mineral exploration, consideration should be given to minimize wildlife disturbance caused by increased vehicle and machinery activity especially in winter (Bradshaw 1997).


14



15

Forestry Interests

The predominant trees in the Desert Experimental Range Management Area are the Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma) and single-needle pinyon (Pinus monophylla). Also known as “PJ” forests, these trees provided “cedar” posts for building fences, pinyon seeds (pine nuts) for food, and firewood for early pioneers. Local indigenous people also utilized pine nuts for sustenance through the winter months. Today, fences are made using metal posts, although the juniper posts continue to be used in small fencing projects and food comes from other means.

Higher above the PJ trees are patches of Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Ponderosa pine, Bristle cone pine (Pinus longaeva) and Big-tooth maples (Acer grandidentatum). These trees add important vegetative diversity and provide important cover for wildlife. There are no timbered areas with enough lumber to provide an economic benefit so forestry interests on the DERMA are minimal and of no consequence.


16



17

Special Uses and Needs

The Desert Experimental Range continues its existing long-term studies today which fulfills its

original purpose, to study cold desert rangelands. Its relative isolation from urban sprawl and

popular recreation activities such as boating and snow skiing, insures its continuing forward

into the foreseeable future. There is great historical value, which remains to be discovered by

future range scientists, recording the evolution of our world’s biomes and documenting how

they change or what may stay the same. We need a foundation of knowledge to benefit from

in order to take us into proper managing the tomorrows. Climate changes coming from

warming temperature trends, are monitored today with instruments and satellites more

sophisticated and intricate that yesteryears. This is undeniable. Whether from carbon fuel

emissions or the earths own evolutionary course through time, the DERMA needs to continue

gathering data from studies. It needs to continue doing was it was established to do.


18



19

Wildlife

The DERMA is rich with wildlife; from rocky mountain elk and mule deer to bald eagles and

borrowing owl. The habitat found in the DERMA contains: montane forest system, the species

diverse sage system, and the salt brush system. Current wildlife management belongs to the

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) and most game species belong to Southwest Desert Management Unit (SDMU) and

the Greater Sage Grouse are included in the Hamlin Valley Sage Grouse Management Area

(HVSGMA).

Game Species

Big Game

Elk (Cervus canadensis)

History

Elk populations in Utah at the turn of the century were nearly gone because of over use and

unregulated hunting. In 1912-1915, elk from Yellowstone, transplanted in the state to help

establish herds again (Utah 2010). Through not originally taken to the (SWDMU), an elk herd

has been established here.

Current Status

Elk herds in Utah are managed by two factors, which include: population objective and age class

objective of harvested bull elk. The current population objective is 975 elk with an age class

objective of 6.75. Currently the population is 1,300 elk and the average age of bulls killed is 7.5.

Both population and average age of bulls killed are increasing (Shannon 2015).

Management Recommendations

Habitat is the limiting factor on the SWDMU, because of intense drought and the threat of

degrading the range; population objectives have been cut to maintain long term sustainability

for wildlife and livestock allotment owners. The UDWR has been working with the BLM and

private landowners to chain and mow areas to create better habitat for all wildlife, while

providing more forage for livestock. These projects take time pay off, and will begin to shortly.

We recommend keeping the SWDMU population and age class object the as they are currently

for two years, with an increase to the age class objective to 7.25 years of age. As of right now

the area is already producing some of the highest quality mature bulls in the state and this

would allow for another excellent trophy class unit.


20

Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

History

Mule Deer populations on DERMA also fall into management unit #20 or the SWDMU. Mule

deer populations throughout the west have struggled and are currently in decline in the

western United States. Multiple factors have led to this decline, but drought on the SWDMU

has taken its toll. In 2011 the Utah Wildlife Board accepted the proposal for the UDWR to start

hunting deer on 30 smaller units rather than 5 larger regional units. This was to help them

better manage how many hunters would be hunting act management unit deer. The SWDMU

is a general season unit, meaning that the mule deer are managed to provide opportunity for

sportsmen.

Current Status

Mule Deer are also managed to a population objective like elk, but rather than age of bucks

killed the UDWR used a buck: 100 doe ratio, to determine the numbers of tags that can be

given on this unit. This unit population objective is currently 3,200 mule deer which has been

lower from 4,000 mule deer and the buck: 100 doe ratio of 18-20 bucks: 100 does. The current

estimated population is 3,000 mule deer with a buck: 100 doe ratio of24.5 bucks: 100 does

(Shannon 2015).


The population of mule is continuing to grow in Utah, thanks to thousands of acres being

treated to provide better habitat and water sources being established in these desert

environments. We recommend that the population objective be raised to 3,800 mule deer and

that the buck: 100 doe ratio be raised to 20-25 bucks: 100 does to provide a higher quality unit.

We also recommend that age data from harvested bucks become part of the objectives

considered for management with an objective of 30% or more bucks being 4 years of age.

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana)

History

The SWDU has is the second largest herd of pronghorn and has been one of the most

stable herds in Utah. During the reestablishment of pronghorn throughout Utah the SWDU was

one of the first areas to receive pronghorn that were transplanted from Dagget County, Utah in

1948 (UDWR 2009).

Current Status


21

Currently the UDWR manages pronghorn populations on a buck: 100 does ratio of 25-40 bucks:

100 does and that hunter success be maintained at no less than 80% (UDWR 2009). Population

data is lacking if any, and invites problematic issues concerning the true health and herd.


We recommend that the DERMA be managed and encourage the UDWR to likewise make

changes in the pronghorn management plan, including: population objectives set for each unit,

and manage to a much smaller window of buck: 100 doe ratio, while keeping the 80% harvest.

A population of objective of 5,000 pronghorn on this unit, and a buck: doe ratio of 35-40 bucks:

100 does. This unit holds the ability to be one of the best pronghorn management units in the

western United States.

Upland Game

Chukar Partrigde (Alectoris chukar)

History

Chukars are native to Asia, the Middle East, and southern Europe (Utah 2003). Chuckars were

first introduced in Utah in 1935 (Utah 2003). Population and popularity from sportsman have

increased drastically of the past decade.

Current Status

Chukars are found in the northeastern area of the DERMA and the population is stable in this

area. Each year UDWR biologist fly randomly picked areas and birds per square mile are

counted. Current bag limits are 5 birds per day, and a liberal season (September to February.


We recommend that flights be continued, but we also recommend that ground survey be

conducted and that chuckar populations throughout the DERMA to 50 birds square miles.

Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

History

Greater Sage Grouse are a native ground dwelling bird that is closely linked to sage brush

habitats. In the past decade a decrease of this bird’s habitat has correlated into a decrease in

population to the point that in 2010 the (USFWS) was asked to consider the Greater Sage

Grouse for listing. After considering each states management efforts the USFWS return with


22

the decision of warranted but precluded. This decision was challenged by a law suit, and the

USFWS was told to reconsider and over the course of 5 years decide what the status would be.

Current Status

The HVSGMU does take in the south end of the DERMA. Though not hunted in on this unit,

sage grouse are still considered a game species in Utah. With two leks present and winter and

brood habitat found in the DERMA, careful consideration must be taken all activities on the

DERMA. The HVSGMU has a 10 year average of 89 active leks, two of which are found in the

DERMA.


We recommend that not only we do all feasible to keep the leks and habitat intact. We

recommend continue chaining, burning and other pinion and juniper area that have

encroached into sage brush areas. We recommend that we have a total of 5 leks and

population of 250 birds in this part of the HVSGMU. We will as recommend transplanting

grouse from the Parker Mountain Management Area, to help keep genetic variation and

promote population expansion.

Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo intermedia)

History

Wild turkeys have been found throughout the state of Utah. Caches found of native

peoples have found turkey remnant’s that had been made into tools or ornaments. Turkeys

were removed from the Utah, because of overuse. Turkeys have been reestablished

throughout the state and the population is growing at a record pace.

Current Status

Currently wild turkeys are found on the south end of the DERMA, main around water sources,

particularly around Cottonwood Creek, Rose Canyon and Sawmill Canyon, but can be found in

montane habitat type. A current population objective is not established, and every little data

population data is available for turkeys.


As managers we recommend a winter population of 550 turkeys on DERMA. Counts should

happen each winter and a spring and falling hunting season should be established that closely

resembles that of UDWRs.

Predators


23

Coyote (Canis latrans)

History

Coyote have are found throughout the US. For a time seen as a terror to livestock and

hunted with extreme persistence; today though still seen as a threat to livestock and wildlife

production, coyotes may have more of a following.

Current Status

Currently the state of Utah has a $50 bounty program for coyotes, and with a harvest of 524

reported coyotes from the SWDU. Coyotes are not protected wildlife so, and the bounty

system came to be through the Mule Deer Protection Act.


Because coyotes are one of the biggest predators of greater sage grouse, we recommend to still

supporting the control with the use of United State Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services

and the supporting the UDWR coyote bounty plan.

Cougar (Puma concolor)

History

Cougars, like other predators found in the western United States, they were hunted

persistently, but once becoming protected wildlife, they’re populations have been managed to

levels to allow harvest and keep a natural system intact.

Current Status

The UDWR manages the SWDU on a limited entry basis, with an average of 6 tags. Tag

numbers is set according the number of females and age of cougar killed. The ratio of males

killed: females killed lets managers see if too many females or young are being harvested.


We recommend that current manage strategy is used.

Non-game Species

Wild Horses (Equus ferus)

History


24

Wild horses or feral horses were horses that the Spanish lost. Now there is no use and they are

over protected, which forces miss management have caused horses to become overpopulated.

Current Status

Horses are managed by the BLM and round ups happen usually once a year. Horses became a

hot topic in 2014 in Iron, Beaver, and Millard Counties. These counties suing the federal

government because of the overpopulation horses and that the BLM wasn’t meeting the

management objectives that were set.


Though protected, we as managers recommending removal of all but 20 horses for the

protection of wildlife habitat. We also recommend a sterilization program begin and that only

20% of foals left intact. This will promote stronger and more robust wildlife populations, while

allow ranges to recover and treatment plots to establish. Also we recommend that all water

structures be fenced minimum of 100 square feet around springs and guzzlers. On most

commonly use water sources we recommend piping excess water to a trough just outside the

fence.

Species of Concern

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Big-Tailed Bat (Nyctinomops macrotis)

Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)

Dark Kangaroo Mouse (Microdipodops megacephalus)

Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis)

Greater Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Kit Fox (Vulpes macrotis)

Northern Gosh Hawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)

Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus)

Utah Prairie Dog (Cynomys parvidens)


25

Each of these species are of concern or have been listed as threaten or endangered. We

as managers will work with the USFWS to ensure that all habitat improvements and grazing

operations will improve habitat for these species. All of these species do play an important role

in the ecosystem and management of the habitat will be key to ensure that their populations’

health is not threaten or neglected.


26

Map 3- Big Game Habitat found within the DERMA.


27

Map 4- Elk Habitat found within the DERMA


28

Map 5- Mule Deer Habitat found within the DERMA. Displayed by winter and summer Range.


29

Map 6- Pronghorn Habitat found within the DERMA.


30

Map 7- Upland Game Habitat found within the DERMA.


31

Map 8- Greater Sage Grouse Habitat found within the DERMA. Displayed by winter habitat, Brooding and Occupied Areas and Current Leks.


32

Map 9- Wild Turkey Habitat found within the DERMA.


33

Map 10- Chukar Partridge Habitat found within the DERMA.


34

Map 11- Coyote habitat map by primary prey sources.


35

Map 12- Cougar Habitat by Primary Prey Species (Mule Deer, Wild Turkey, and Elk).


36

Map 13- Eagle and Falcons of Concern found within DERMA.


37

Map 14- Owls of Concern found within DERMA


38

Map 15- Small Mammals of Concern found within DERMA.


39

Map 16- Kit fox habitat found within DERMA.


40

Map 17- Wild Horse Herd Management Areas found in the DERMA.


41



42

Livestock Grazing

Livestock grazing has been an important historical use of the Desert Experimental Range (DER).

When the DER was established in 1934 studies were implemented in grazing and management

effects on plant community compositions, biomass production, and soils. The area is considered

to be salt-desert shrubland. Studies on the effects of grazing and management continue today

in the DER. There are currently 9 grazing allotments in the Desert Experimental Range

Management Area (DERMA). Two of these allotments, South Pine Valley and North Pine Valley

are split into two separate sections, separated by the Buckhorn and Water Hollow allotments.

Forage Values

There are 12 dominant vegetation types in the DERMA (see Table 1 and Map 4). Alkali soils,

precipitation, temperature, elevation, and aspect are major factors in determining both the

dominant vegetation types and biomass production in the area. High forage value plant

communities in the DERMA include indian ricegrass, winterfat, and wheatgrass species. Fair to

good forage value communities include sagebrush, greasewood, shadscale, and seeded areas.

Poor to fair forage value plant communities include maple, Douglas fir, Utah juniper, and single

leaf pinyon. The area with high alkali soils has poor forage value (see Map 1). Areas with higher

percentages of good forage values will be better for livestock grazing. When considering

stocking rates for the various allotments, the forage values should be taken into consideration.

A higher stocking rate can be used for the more central allotments such as the DER, North Pine

Valley, and Buckhorn because they have fair to good and high forage values widely distributed.

Mormon Gap, South Pine Valley, Fairview, Pine Valley, and Water Hollow also have significant

amount of good forage value areas and can have a fairly high stocking rate as well. The

peripheral areas in the mountains are more woodland dominated areas and won’t have as high

of forage values, thus reducing the stocking rates in the associated allotments. The alkali soil

area will also reduce the stocking rate for the DER and Pine Valley.

Stocking Rates

In order to determine livestock stocking rates there are a number of factors to take into

consideration. These factors include forage production, proper use amounts, and wildlife forage

use. Proper use is generally considered 50 percent. Depending on the area and management

goals, proper use can be dropped as low as 30 percent. For the DERMA we will use 50 percent

as the proper use of forage. The three big game species which will contribute significantly to

forage production are deer, elk, and pronghorn. The big game species in this area are part of

the Southwest Desert Hunt Boundary and are managed with those populations. The DERMA is

about 13.6 percent of the total Southwest Desert area (see Map 2). In order to determine how

much forage should be allocated to these species, we calculated the number of animals on the


43

DERMA year round as 13.6 percent of the population management goals of the Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) for the Southwest Desert area. These goals were 3000 for deer, 1300

for elk, and 269 for Pronghorn (Bernales et al. 2013) and (Shannon 2015).

13.6 percent of these numbers came out to approximately 408 deer, 176.8 elk, and 36.584

pronghorn. Using these numbers, proper use adjustments, and animal unit equivalents (AUE),

we determined the number of AUMs which the wildlife equaled, and then multiplied it by 750

pounds per AUM to find the total forage demand of the big game species on the DERMA. This

number came out to 3889382.4 pounds of air dried forage (see Table 2 for calculations and

numbers). Using 451904 acres as the approximate total area of the DERMA, we found that in

order to support these wildlife numbers you would need to have a production of 8.61 pounds

per acre of forage. This is a very low production, even for areas with extremely low

precipitation, so there should be plenty of forage left after wildlife use for both wild horses,

which are on the range year round, and livestock grazing, which occurs during 4 months in the

winter with the current grazing permits.

Livestock Management Considerations

In order to properly manage livestock it is important to consider livestock distribution,

the health of the range, and water use and locations in addition to the stocking rate. Livestock

tend to spend most of their time near water and shade sources, and rarely travel farther than 2

miles away from water sources (Oberlie and Bishop 2009). This creates two problems. The first

problem is that the areas near water and shade tend to get utilized much more heavily, and can

be degraded very easily. The other problem is that areas which produce good forage may be

under-utilized due to the distance from water. One way to ameliorate these effects is by

distributing salt away from water sources in order to more evenly spread livestock distribution.

Another method to prevent degradation of riparian areas would be fencing off especially

sensitive areas. A third method is to develop guzzlers where both wildlife and livestock can

access water. This not only increases the area where livestock are willing to occupy, but also

alleviates the stress on natural riparian areas (see Map 3). In order to better utilize the DERMA,

we will maintain guzzlers and develop new guzzlers as needed to improve both distribution and

utilization by livestock (for more information on guzzlers, see Hydrology section of

Management Plan).

It is important with good grazing management to have flexible stocking rates. On poor

years it can be detrimental to the range to continue with the stocking rates used during good

years. In order to maintain proper stocking rates we will need to assess the range health and

trend for the DERMA on a yearly basis as well as during the grazing season. Not overstocking

the rangeland can also be good for the health of the livestock. With proper use there will be

plenty of good forage for livestock and gains per animal will be maximized. Areas to pay close


44

attention to, in order to maintain animal health, are the areas with greasewood (Sarcobatus

vermiculatus) as the dominant vegetation (see Map 4). Livestock do not normally graze

greasewood very heavily, but if the palatable grasses are eaten out of the area the livestock

may start to eat the greasewood. Greasewood when eaten in large amounts can be toxic to

livestock. We must monitor the greasewood areas very closely during the grazing period and

reduce stocking rates if the grasses are being completely utilized; however, a proper stocking

rate should minimize this risk (USDA 2006).

Invasive and Noxious Weed Control

Control of invasive and noxious weeds is an important aspect of forage production

potential, and rangeland and animal health. Noxious and invasive weeds can create

monocultures, decrease desirable plant production, alter disturbance regimes, and cause

livestock losses through death, illness, or loss of gains. Important invasive plants which require

planning and management in the DERMA are halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), Russian thistle

(Salsola iberica), red brome (Bromus rubens), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Utah juniper

(Juniperus osteosperma), and pinyon pine (Pinus edulis).

Halogeton is toxic to sheep and readily invades disturbed areas of the salt desert.

Russian thistle has a very poor forage value and also readily invades the salt desert. Red brome

and cheatgrass are invasive annual grasses. They can be fair livestock forage, but also create

monocultures, causing frequent fires and outcompeting more palatable forage species. Utah

juniper and pinyon pine can be good thermal cover for wildlife as well as important sources of

forage for rodents, lagomorphs (rabbits and hares), and birds due to the high nutritional value

of the juniper berries and pine nuts. In higher elevations, pinyon and juniper stands can be

functioning healthy range cover, as they are native to the Great Basin area. These trees do

invade lower elevation areas and create woodlands and take up water and nutrients, reducing

the available understory and crowding out the palatable grasses, forbs, and shrubs. An active

integrated pest management program is the best way to control all of these invasive species.

We will treat areas with these weeds quickly with both chemical and mechanical means to try

and prevent their spread.

Sensitive Wildlife Species and Grazing

A sensitive species which occurs in the DERMA is the greater sage grouse (Centrocercus

urophasianus). Grazing management can greatly affect sage grouse habitat. In the DERMA, sage

grouse habitat occurs in the southern sections of South and North Pine Valley allotments, the

Out allotment, the Buckhorn allotment, and the Water Hollow allotment (see Map 5). Grazing

management for sage grouse could include two different options. The first option is to not


45

stock the specified grazing allotments during lekking, and the second option is to completely

remove grazing from the allotments where sage grouse habitat occurs.

There has been significant debate as to the effects of livestock grazing on sage grouse

leks and habitat. There will be significant repercussions with either management action chosen.

We will reduce proper use to 30 percent on the allotments with sage grouse habitat. We will

also restrict grazing permits to only allow grazing when it is not within a month of lekking or

nesting and brooding season. This should minimize the impacts of grazing to sage grouse while

not completely restricting livestock production on these areas.


46

Table 1- Dominant vegetation types in alphabetical order.

Table 2 -. Calculations and actual numbers for wildlife populations, AUMs, and forage requirements.

Deer AUMs Deer Numbers Months AUE Total AUMs Grass Forb Shrub Total Deer AUMs

SSF 408 8 0.23 750.72 0.15 0.35 0.5 Grass 131.376

Forb 281.52

Shrub 713.184

W 408 4 0.23 375.36 0.05 0.05 0.9 Total 1126.08

Total Elk AUMs

Elk AUMs Elk Numbers 0.7 0.1 0.2 Grass 827.424

SSF 176.8 8 0.65 919.36 0.7 0.1 0.2 Forb 101.13

Shrub 450.486

0.4 0.02 0.58 Total 1379.04

W 176.8 4 0.65 459.68 0.4 0.02 0.58

Pronghorn AUMs Pronghorn Numbers Months AUE Total AUMs Total Pronghorn AUMs

36.584 12 0.2 87.8016 Total 87.8016

Wildlife Total AUMs 2592.9216 x 750 lbs/AUM =

Forage Needed to Support Wildlife 1944691.2 lbs air dry forage

Forage Needed to Support Wildlife Accounting For Proper Use 3889382.4 lbs air dry forage

Dominant Vegetation Types

1 Alkali Soil

2 Douglas Fir

3 Indian Ricegrass

4 Greasewood

5 Maple

6 Sagebrush

7 Seeded

8 Shadscale

9 Single Leaf Pinyon

10 Utah Juniper

11 Winterfat

12 Wheatgrass spp.


47

Map 11- Relative Forage Value within the DERMA


48

Map 12- Southwest Desert wildlife Management Unit of UDWR, which wildlife found in the DERMA are managed.


49

Map 13- Water sources with a 2 mile buffer for highest use areas.


50

Map 14. Dominant vegetation types in the DERMA.


51

Map 15. Greater sage grouse habitat within the DERMA.


52



53

Private Land Ownership

This is a summary of how each of us would manage the DERMA if we were to manage it.

Jesse: If I privately owned the DERMA, I would maintain livestock grazing on the top half of the

DERMA. The bottom half, beginning at the Buckhorn allotment, I would fence off and remove

all grazing. I would focus on improving the sage grouse habitat and potential habitats in this

area and maintain it as a wildlife area. I would also sell permits or tickets to harvest your own

pine nuts from the areas with pinyon pine.

Skip: Private land ownership infers freedom to do what the landowner wants to do with one’s

own land. Yes, there are taxes to be paid and laws to obey, but, if I privately owned the Pine

Valley area’s 10 allotments, I would a devise a management plan, different from the one

written here. I would make a nature preserve.

After an initial study of the area’s topography, geology, biodiversity, physical structures, and

past records of the climate and history, I would develop a management plan. In other words,

what is the Pine Valley, what is here today, and what resources (money) do I have? I imagine I

would follow a similar model as The Lytle Ranch Nature Preserve, which sought support from

the Nature Conservancy ($$$). My plan would be to restore and maintain the land in as natural

of a state as possible.

To define the boundary and restrict livestock access, I would maintain a perimeter fence,

probably barbed wire, with strands spaced to allow large game animal free movement. I would

reduce the number of roads and restore the old beds. I would construct manmade wildlife

guzzlers in the north and northeast parts of the valley, thereby negating a 100% natural

environment because I like pronghorns, deer, and elk. I’d put out a mineral lick or two to help

keep the big game on my property. There would be no livestock or wild horses, although I

would have a few of those for my own use. I realize my hunting seasons would be patrolling

the range for human trespassers. I believe another challenge would be keeping the invasive

plant species at bay.

Stan: If I were to manage to the DERMA under private management, the first and main thing I

would do it habitat work. I would have a goal to treat at least 1,000 acres a year. I would also

do everything in my power to remove the wild horses. If unsuccessful I would start to fence off

water sources, but still allow water to be available to them. I would do intensive wildlife

population counts and become a part of the UDWR Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit

(CWMU) to allow for hunting opportunities for the public and higher quality harvest. I would

also run a cattle grazing operation and work with partners to become the example of multi-use

area with a highest standard for sage protection, and population growth.


54



55

Bibliography

Bernales, H., K. Hersey and J. Shannon. 2013. Utah big game annual report. Annual Performance Report for Federal Aid Project W-65-M. Publication 14-22. Segments 61-62. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/13_bg_report.pdf

Bradshaw, A. 1997. Restoration of mined lands using natural processes. Ecological Engineering:255-269.

Glading, B. 1947. Game watering devices for the arid southwest. Trans North American Wildlife

Conference:286-292. Hutchings, S. S. 1946. Drive the Woolgrower 36:10-11, 48.water to sheep. National Grinnell, J. 1927. A critical factor in the existence of southwestern game birds. Science:528-529. Lee, R, Mitchell, D. Perkins, E. and Staley, J. 2003. Strategic Management Plan for Chukar

Partridge. Online Resource. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/pdf/03_chukar_plan.pdf

Oberlie, D. and J. Bishop. 2009. Determining rangeland suitability for cattle grazing based on

distance-to-water, terrain, and barriers-to-movement attributes. Available at: https://gis.e-education.psu.edu/sites/default/files/capstone/Oberlie_paper_20090412.pdf

Shannon, J. 2015. Overview of 2015 big game permit recommendations. Department of

Natural Resources RAC Agenda. Available at: http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-04_rac_packet.pdf

Smith, J. W. 2008. Utah off-highway vehicle owners’ specialization and its relationship to

environmental attitudes and motivations. Thesis, Utah State University, Logan, Utah USA.

USDA. 2006. Greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus). Online Resource. Available at:

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=9898 Utah. 2009. Utah Pronghorn Statewide Management Plan. Online Resource. Available at:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/Statewide_prong_mgmt_2009.pdf

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/annual_reports/13_bg_report.pdf

http://wildlife.utah.gov/uplandgame/pdf/03_chukar_plan.pdf

https://gis.e-education.psu.edu/sites/default/files/capstone/Oberlie_paper_20090412.pdf

https://gis.e-education.psu.edu/sites/default/files/capstone/Oberlie_paper_20090412.pdf

http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2015-04_rac_packet.pdf

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=9898

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/Statewide_prong_mgmt_2009.pdf

DERMA Management

Documents

Transcript of DERMA Management