Project Details

By comparing the existing condition with the desired condition the Richfield Ranger District has determined there is a need to re-introduce fire to the area. Mixed conifer stands dominate the northern and northeastern slopes of the proposed treatment area. The average canopy closure for the area is 60%, which is the percent at which crowns begin to interlock. Close crown spacing provides potential for high severity and intense crown fires. Aspen stands are spread across the east, west, and south facing slopes at the higher elevations of the project area. Encroachment from spruce/fir species is occurring in the aspen stands. Mountain Mahogany and Gamble Oak mixed with other shrubs comprise the mid elevation ranges. Pinyon/Juniper, sagebrush, grasses and forbs are found at the lower elevations of the project area. Excessive fuel loads, historical fire suppression practices, the presence of ladder fuels, and downed woody debris makes the project area prone to uncharacteristic high intensity and high severity fires. Fuel loading within the project area is estimated to be 3 tons per acre in the sagebrush vegetation type, 15-36 tons per acre in the aspen type, and up to 90 tons per acre within the mixed conifer type. Flame lengths under this type of condition have the potential of reaching 100 feet. Rate of spread under current conditions ranges from 17 chains per hour to over 530 chains per hour. Current fire regime is listed at 4 with a condition class of 3. Condition class measures the departure from a functioning ecosystem. The three condition classes categorize and describe vegetative composition and structure conditions that currently exist inside the fire regime groups. The risk of loss of key ecosystem components from unwanted wildland fire increases from condition class 1 (lowest risk) to condition class 3 (highest risk)
Fire would reset much of the area into an early successional vegetative condition and improve habitat effectiveness for a large variety of avian and mammalian species.  If let go into a no-treatment type of management  a late successional over grown unhealthy forest would lead to a lack of habitat conditions to support healthy wildlife populations into the future.

Close communication with the Monroe Mountain Working Group (MMWG) for this project is occurring.  The MMWG consists of 21 stakeholders.

Provide evidence about the nature of the problem and the need to address it. Identify the significance of the problem using a variety of data sources. For example, if a habitat restoration project is being proposed to benefit greater sage-grouse, describe the existing plant community characteristics that limit habitat value for greater sage-grouse and identify the changes needed for habitat improvement.

Provide an overall goal for the project and then provide clear, specific and measurable objectives (outcomes) to be accomplished by the proposed actions. If possible, tie to one or more of the public benefits UWRI is providing.

The future of a no action management strategy in the project area will lead to a decrease of wildlife habitat effectiveness due to the loss of vegetative diversity. Monroe Mountain has shown a decrease of 70% of historical aspen habitat acres due to conifer encroachment. Close crown spacing within the mixed conifer will continue to provide potential for high severity and intense crown fires. Aspen stands are spread across the higher elevations of the project area. Encroachment from spruce/fir species will continue in the aspen stands. Excessive fuel loads, historical fire suppression practices, the presence of ladder fuels, and downed woody debris makes the project area prone to uncharacteristic high intensity and high severity fires.

The re-introduction of fire to the ecosystem would move the stands toward properly functioning condition in terms of composition (species diversity) and density (crown spacing and fuel loading). In addition the treatments would promote aspen regeneration and recruitment, and reduce the hazardous fuel loading; mitigating the risks and damage associated with a high intensity and severity wildfire. By enhancing structural and age class diversity, reducing the hazardous fuel load, and promoting aspen regeneration/recruitment the proposed project would improve conditions for wildlife, livestock, and timber species. In addition, the risk for uncharacteristic wildfire would be reduced adding a layer of protection from such events to adjacent landowners and Forest Service owned improvements.

Without project implementation, the area would likely remain suitable until an uncharacteristic event occurs. The area would remain susceptible to wildfire.  A wildfire would likely occur during the summer months when the area impacted could be larger, without a broken mosaic pattern.  In addition, the severity could be high and plant recovery and re-establishment may take longer. This type of wildfire could be stand replacing on a large scale that it would create areas of even age forest succession and be different than the type of forest that exist today.

LOCATION: Justify the proposed location of this project over other areas, include publicly scrutinized planning/recovery documents that list this area as a priority, remote sensing modeling that show this area is a good candidate for restoration, wildlife migration information and other data that help justify this project's location.

TIMING: Justify why this project should be implemented at this time. For example, Is the project area at risk of crossing an ecological or other threshold wherein future restoration would become more difficult, cost prohibitive, or even impossible.

The desired conditions for this project are consistent with Fishlake National Forest goals and objectives found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan, Fishlake Fire Amendment, and the Utah Fire Amendment. The proposed treatment units are within management areas 4B - Habitat for Management Indicator Species, 6B – Livestock Grazing, 9A-Riparian Area Management and 9F - Improved Watershed Condition. The relevant goals and objectives are listed below:
• Ecosystems are restored and maintained, consistent with land uses and historic fire regimes, through wildland fire use and prescribed fire (Utah Fire Amendment, pg. A-40). Manage forest cover types to provide variety in stand sizes shape, crown closure, edge contrast, age structure and interspersion (Fishlake LRMP p. IV-99). Use prescribed fire to reduce fuel buildup and meet resource objectives (Fishlake LRMP p. IV-5). Reduce hazardous fuels; the full range of reduction methods is authorized, consistent with forest and management area emphasis and direction (Utah Fire Amendment, pg. A-41). Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals. (Forest Plan IV-4). Improve or maintain the quality of habitat on big game winter ranges. (Forest Plan IV-4). Maintain structural diversity of vegetation on Management Areas dominated by forested ecosystems. (Forest Plan IV-11). Manage aspen for retention where needed for wildlife, watershed, or aesthetic purposes. (Forest Plan IV-11). Manage seral aspen stands for a diversity of age classes. (Forest Plan IV-11). Manage aspen to perpetuate the species and improve quality (Forest Plan IV-4).
The North American Mule Deer Restoration Plan  states; proactively manage shrub communities (using prescribed fire, mechanical treatment, or other approaches as appropriate at a site specific basis) to maintain mosaics of uneven aged stands to enhance habitat conditions for mule deer.
In addition: The UDWR Statewide Management Plan for Mule Deer (2014) has the following goal and objectives:  Habitat Goal:  Conserve, improve, and restore mule deer habitat throughout the state with emphasis on crucial ranges.  Habitat Objective 1: Maintain mule deer habitat throughout the state by protecting and enhancing existing crucial habitats and mitigating for losses due to natural and human impacts.  Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2019.
The Utah State Wide Elk Plan covers this area and is managed under the South-Manti unit.  RX fire would help maintain healthy big game populations.
Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) identifies the following objective; reduce the risks severe wildfires pose to people, communities, and the environment. This project will further decrease the risk of catastrophic wildfire. National Fire Plan (2000) The National Fire Plan provides national direction for hazardous fuels reduction. This project will reduce fuels and further decrease the risk of catastrophic wildfire and the correlated risk to communities.  The Monroe Mountain has communities listed on the Federal Register for Communities at risk and has developed and signed a Community Wildfire Protection Plan, to which this project assists.

Consistent with the Bonneville cutthroat trout Plan, Bald Eagle Recovery Plan, Sage Grouse Rec. Plan, Migratory Bird MOU and Turkey Plan.

List management plans where this project will address an objective or strategy in the plan. Describe how the project area overlaps the objective or strategy in the plan and the relevance of the project to the successful implementation of those plans. It is best to provide this information in a list format with the description immediately following the plan objective or strategy.

If applicable, detail how the proposed project will significantly reduce the risk of fuel loading and/or continuity of hazardous fuels including the use of fire-wise species in re-seeding operations. Describe the value of any features being protected by reducing the risk of fire. Values may include; communities at risk, permanent infrastructure, municipal watersheds, campgrounds, critical wildlife habitat, etc. Include the size of the area where fuels are being reduced and the distance from the feature(s) at risk.

Describe how the project has the potential to improve water quality and/or increase water quantity, both over the short and long term. Address run-off, erosion, soil infiltration, and flooding, if applicable.

Description of efforts, both completed and planned, to bring the proposed action into compliance with any and all cultural resource, NEPA, ESA, etc. requirements. If compliance is not required enter "not applicable" and explain why not it is not required.

Re-introduce fire to the ecosystem through prescribed burning to reduce hazardous fuels on 3,036 acres over the next 3 years.  It will also be used in variety of different vegetation types including aspen and mixed conifer.  Historically fire frequented the area every 20-40 years. The removal of fire from this ecosystem has created an older more even age class in all of the vegetative components in the area. The removal of fire has also caused a decline in the quality of the aspen habitat due to conifer invasion. Fire will naturally revitalize the area while creating a variety of age classes. Fire will be used to create a mosaic pattern. Mechanical thinning of 395 acres and associated prescribed fire of slash piles created by the thinning has been completed. This was done in preparation for safely and effectively being able to complete the 3,036 acres of broadcast prescribed fire units that still needs to be completed.  Some prep work such as utilizing chainsaws to create ignition and/or control lines may occur prior to ignition in some areas.

Describe the actions, activities, tasks to be implemented as part of the proposed project; how these activities will be carried out, equipment to be used, when, and by whom.

Describe plans to monitor for project success and achievement of stated objectives. Include details on type of monitoring (vegetation, wildlife, etc.), schedule, assignments and how the results of these monitoring efforts will be reported and/or uploaded to this project page. If needed, upload detailed plans in the "attachments" section.

List any and all partners (agencies, organizations, NGO's, private landowners) that support the proposal and/or have been contacted and included in the planning and design of the proposed project. Describe efforts to gather input and include these agencies, landowners, permitees, sportsman groups, researchers, etc. that may be interested/affected by the proposed project. Partners do not have to provide funding or in-kind services to a project to be listed.

Detail future methods or techniques (including administrative actions) that will be implemented to help in accomplishing the stated objectives and to insure the long term success/stability of the proposed project. This may include: post-treatment grazing rest and/or management plans/changes, wildlife herd/species management plan changes, ranch plans, conservation easements or other permanent protection plans, resource management plans, forest plans, etc.

Potential for the proposed action to improve quality or quantity of sustainable uses such as grazing, timber harvest, biomass utilization, recreation, etc. Grazing improvements may include actions to improve forage availability and/or distribution of livestock.