The Brianhead fire began on June 17, 2017. Over the course of approximately the next month it burned approximately 71,672 acres (63,648 USFS, 749 BLM, 761 State, and 6514 Private). Burn severity of the fire included 28,215 acres of low/unburned, 31,819 acres of moderate, and 11,639 of high severity. In addition there are 54,275 acres rated with a high hazard for soil erosion and 27,549 acres with soil characterized as hydrophobic. Hydrophobic soil conditions are common within moderate and high burn severity areas and contribute greatly to increased run-off and erosion. The area burned by the BrianHead Fire is wide-ranging and can be broadly characterized by spruce-fir (Engelmann spruce and sub-alpine fir) , mixed conifer (Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine), mixed conifer/aspen, aspen, pockets of ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, mountain mahogany, oakbrush, mountain big sagebrush, silver sagebrush, black sagebrush, grass and forb-dominated montane meadows, and riparian communities. Additionally large acreages of this fire has impacted many important wildlife habitats. Of note the fire burned 4514 acres mapped as crucial deer habitat, 54,953 acres mapped as substantial deer habitat, 21,870 acres mapped as crucial elk habitat, 37,302 acres mapped as substantial elk habitat, 7076 acres mapped as sage grouse habitat, and 42,323 acres mapped as turkey habitat.

Protect, mitigate and reduce the potential for identified post-fire threats, including increased soil erosion/sediment yield and water run-off on steep slopes, for: - Human life, safety, and property within and downstream of the burned area; - Infrastructure and investments such as roads and trails; - Critical natural and cultural resources; and - Native and naturalized plant communities from new noxious weed infestations.

-Human life and safety: Threats and risks for the general public to be impacted by rolling rocks, flash flooding, flooding, debris flows, falling hazard trees, and loss of ingress/egress access. -Property: Risks to roads and trails, Yankee Meadows Campground water supply and distribution system, Panguitch municipal water supply spring boxes, dams on Yankee Meadows Reservoir, Panguitch Lake, and Red Creek Reservoir, infrastructure at the Five Mile day-use site, fish barrier structures on Castle Creek and Mammoth Creek, the Parowan secondary water system source, and the secondary water system pipeline in Upper Center Creek and Bowery Creek drainages from the threat of increased water, sediment and debris flows, erosion, source contamination, loss of capacity, and overtopping and breaching during flood events. -Natural Resources: Risks to water quality for domestic and agriculture uses, ecosystem stability and native plant vegetation recovery from invasion of noxious weeds, soil productivity and hydrologic function from accelerated erosion, impacts to multiple wildlife species as noted above.

Utah's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP): The WAP identifies the following key habitats that may be addressed through project planning in the Panguitch Municipal Watershed NEPA project: Riverine, Mountain sagebrush and Aspen-Conifer. The WAP lists Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity a high level threat for BCT and Aspen-Conifer Ecosystems with the following as potential conservation actions. 2.3.14 Conduct upland vegetation treatments to restore characteristic upland vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 2.3.15 Conduct riparian vegetation treatments to restore characteristic riparian vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings. 2.3.17 Apply or allow more fire in habitats/locations where fire was historically more frequent or intense. This project will design riparian and upland treatments to restore characteristic vegetation, and reduce uncharacteristic fuel types and loadings with the end goal to be able to allow natural ignitions to be managed for resource benefits in the future. The WAP lists Problematic Plant Species -- Native Upland as a Very High level threat to Mountain sagebrush communities with the following as potential conservation actions. Promoting and funding restoration that reduces the Uncharacteristic and surpluses of older age class, including: Dixie/chain harrow, brush mowing or other treatments that reduce the older age class and stimulate the younger/mid age classes; herbicide or mechanical treatment of non-native invasive species such smooth brome; single tree mulching/cutting of invading conifer. Post fire all of these types of treatments are being considered in our restoration efforts and we are trying to apply the best restoration practices to the landscape. A post fire evaluation of the conifer succession into mountain sagebrush communities allows us to design treatments to restore earlier seral stages within these plant communities. The WAP identifies that Improper grazing is a High Threat for Riverine habitats and BCT and recommends: 2.1.2 Adjust grazing practices -- per the grazing principles of timing, duration, and intensity -- to improve conditions of habitat, water and wildlife. An objective for this planning process would be to evaluate potential improvements to reduce pressure on key emergent and riverine habitats where livestock use is causing damage. Dixie National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (as amended)- Goal 14 -- Improve the quantity and quality of aquatic habitats through direct habitat improvement and increased coordination with other land use programs (page IV-5). Goal 15 -- Maintain or enhance the terrestrial habitat for all wildlife species presently on the Forest (page IV-5). Goal 17 -- Managed Classified Species habitat to maintain or enhance their status through direct habitat improvement and agency cooperation (Page IV-6). This project has the potential to benefit conservation populations of BCT. BCT are an Intermountain Region Sensitive species and is managed under Conservation Agreement and Strategy that both DWR and the Forest Service are signatories or involved partners. Goal 32 -- Design and implement practices on the ground that will reestablish acceptable soil, hydrologic and vegetative conditions that are sufficient to secure and maintain favorable water flow (Page IV-9). 10B IV-156 Municipal Watershed: Forest Plan Management emphasis is to protect or improve the quality and quantity of municipal water supplies 9A IV-135 Riparian Area Management: Forest Plan Goals of management are to provide healthy, self-perpetuating plant communities, meet water quality standards, provide habitats for viable populations of wildlife and fish, and provide stable stream channels. 6A Livestock Grazing: The area is managed for livestock grazing. Intensive grazing management systems are favored over extensive systems. Range condition is maintained through use of forage improvement practices. Investment in structural and nonstructural range improvements to increase forage utilization is moderate to high. If conflicts occur between livestock and wildlife in areas of critical wildlife habitat they will be resolved in favor of wildlife. 1 General Direction: Maintain Structural diversity of vegetation on management areas that are dominated by forested ecosystems. Manage aspen for retention wherever it occurs. UTAH MULE DEER STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN This project is designed to help meet Habitat Objective 2 to improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer habitat (p. 19). Specifically the strategies to Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats improve aspen communities that provide crucial summer/winter habitat by increasing regeneration and reducing conifer encroachment, improve aspen communities that provide crucial summer habitat for mule deer and manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages using various methods including timber harvest. Specifically this project addresses the winter range for mule deer and has specific reseeding efforts that help to restore these critical areas. UTAH ELK STATEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN This project is designed to help meet to meet Habitat Objective 1 - Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. Specifically the proposed treatment will contribute toward increasing forage production by treating elk habitat, and will be conducted on summer ranges (aspen communities) to improve calving habitat and will manage portions of forests in early succession stages through logging. Range-wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Bonneville cutthroat trout (Lentsch et al. 2000): As outlined in the Project Need, Water Quality and Quantity and Threats and Risks sections the planning for treatments proposed here will support the following objectives and actions from the BCT CAS: Maintain or restore water quality to a degree that provides for stable and productive riparian and aquatic ecosystems; Maintain or restore stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and character of sediment input and transport) under which the riparian and aquatic ecosystems developed; Panguitch Lake Mule Deer WMU plan -This plan mentions lack of winter range as a limiting factor in reaching mgmt goals for mule deer. Panguitch Lake Elk WMU plan -This plan calls for increasing in forage through habitat projects. Utah Greater Sage Grouse Management Plan -This project specifically addresses the following from the State plan : Primary Issues: -Loss of sage-grouse habitat (quality and quantity) within Utah Management Issues M3) Rehabilitate or restore large contiguous intact sagebrush communities within the state. b) Restore degraded sagebrush habitats through appropriate treatment methods which will retain sagebrush while incorporating native and non-native perennial grasses and forbs. c) When conducting any habitat improvement/enhancement project, make sure to monitor, evaluate, and document the sage-grouse response as well as the other species response to habitat treatment projects. This project helps support ecosystem restoration demonstrations and principles identified in the Upper Sevier Watershed Plan.

The Brianhead fire has resulted in significant shifts in the Fire/Fuels community. It is expected that much of the burned area has benefitted as a result of the promotion of aspen regeneration, reductions in hazardous fuels, and a reduction in fuel continuity across the landscape. Unfortunately these benefits are at the cost of the risk and damage associated with catastrophic wildfire.

In the short term there will be significant impacts to water quality as erosion, ash flows, and debris flows enter so many systems. Over 60 stream miles were within the burn perimeter and the impacts will reach far beyond just those stream miles directly within that footprint. There are also anticipated increases in spring flows for at least the short term. Long term there are risks associated with water storage as 3 major reservoirs (Panguitch Lake, Yankee Meadow Reservoir, and Red Creek Reservoir) are directly impacted by the runoff, debris flows, and sediment transport associated with the erosion. Losses of storage capacity at these reservoirs is very possible. Depending on how the landscape responds some of the short term impacts listed above could also extend into long term impacts. Proposed treatments to occur this year and in future years will work to mitigate and minimize these impacts.

USFS has completed, submitted, and been funded on the BAER report. If cultural inventories are deemed necessary they will be coordinated with the appropriate channels.

This project is designed to provide emergency stabilization of previously burned areas, by aerially seeding and spreading agricultural wheat or barley straw. Mulch applications have been found to be effective at reducing erosion and runoff from burned areas, promoting increased soil stability and accelerated recovery of desired vegetative plant communities. The success of emergency response, rehabilitation and restoration of watersheds relies on the ability to mobilize and implement expeditiously. The intent of this project is to meet objectives of protecting, rehabilitating, or restoring watersheds and other land resources before storm damaging events occur. Following the emergency stabilization efforts listed above we will also be prescribing additional seeding efforts to re-establish healthy perennial grass/forb plant communities in areas of concern within the fire. Namely these areas are high severity burn locations where emergency stabilization efforts are taking place, private lands areas below 9,000 ft in elevation, critical mule deer winter range, and greater sage grouse critical habitats. Most of this work will be carried out with contracts that will implement the desired treatments. Contractors will aerially spread straw mulch and triticale seed onto prescribed areas. Following this application a dormant aerial seeding of the perennial grasses and forbs will take place allowing the establishment of a persistent diverse and desirable plant community to exist. The USFS will also carry out and implement work associated with its BAER funding including work similar to that listed above, as well as road and trail work, signage, and rapid weed response efforts in conjunction with this project also.

USFS will be monitoring vegetation response as established in their BAER plan. NRCS applicants will have monitoring established as part of the EQIP requirements. UDWR will be monitoring wildlife responses as part of annual classification surveys as well as continuing to monitor both elk and deer already fitted with GPS collars in the area.

USFS, DWR, FFSL, BLM, NRCS, Iron County, Garfield County, Private Landowners.

Many of the riparian and stream corridors are likely to see damage in the next several years. It is important that subsequent proposals be entered and funded to address this damage in future years as it occurs. USFS and UDWR Biologists will be monitoring these systems to ensure this is done. Vegetatation monitoring will also guide and direct other future actions as a result of weeds, lack of establishment, and re-forestation needs. Livestock have been allowed back on during this year to allow them to utilize the unburned meadows. After re-seeding efforts have occurred there will be a need to evaluate and establish proper rest for areas receiving treatments.

Conversion from a late successional aspen mixed conifer community to an early successional community where aspen and the associated understory is dominant will yield tremendous increases in forage availability. Reseeding in areas that experienced moderate and high severity burns will also ensure that a viable seedbank will be available to re-vegetate those areas and again provide an increase in forage availability in the long run.

09/13/2017

10/07/2017

2018

In this project we aerially seeded re-green a sterile white wheat @15lbs/acre. Following the seeding of the re-green we then aerially mulched with straw the same polygons that were seeded. This combination was in an effort to stabilize the most severely burned locations with sloped that would hold the mulch and seed and grow and provide stabilization for these areas. Following the mulch/seed efforts we then went into the burnt areas and seeded with three separate mixes the perennial grasses and forbs that we designed for the different elevations. The mixes were for High Elevation Locations, Low Elevation Locations, and Private Lands.

This project started early September and finished in early October. We spent a lot of time and energy and effort during this project to assure that we were getting seed flown on at the appropriate rate and getting good coverage. We were checking on the ground as the plane was applying the re-green seed that we were covering the entire area and not skipping spots. Then we were checking unit by unit as they were applying the straw mulch to assure that we were getting mulch in the appropriate thickness and even coverage. This part was harder that you would have thought. The wind currents and the updrafts and lots of different factors were involved in trying to get even and consistent coverage. We did the best we could to assure that the specs of the contract were met. There were some locations that just didn't lend themselves to having straw coverage on them, and we had to accept that fact as I was out with the crew as they tried several (4-5) drops to fill in an area and the wind would take each drop to totally different areas and still miss the area that we were trying to fill in. These were the exceptions to the rule though. For most 90%+ of the area it was consistent in coverage and thickness and we felt like we were going to have some good stabilizing work that would come from the effort. Then during the seed flight for the perennials we were pretty busy with the inspections for the mulching and we weren't as diligent at being out on the ground inspecting every site for total coverage but we were able to ground truth several passes of the plane and then use the flight lines to confirm that we did get total coverage and should see these species growing in these areas in the years to come. We did have a very unfortunate accident on the very last day of straw mulching where our mulching contractor Bryan Burr was hit with a drop and killed. This was a terrible day and one that we hopefully will avoid ever having happen again. They were so diligent and did such a great job with the mulching efforts and for it to be so close to complete and have this unfortunate accident was just no good at all. During the mulching inspections we did notice a lot of young aspen starting to re-grow and fill in some of the area. We also noticed a very big increase in the germination and growth of the re-green in the areas of mulching. This to us was justification enough to say that we were doing the right thing by spending the money to seed and mulch instead of just seeding.

The future management of the areas that were treated in this project are totally dependent upon the land ownership. The USFS lands that were treated are being rested for two growing seasons to allow seeds to grow and establish, and then they will be grazed as pastures for livestock after that with grazing management from USFS Range Specialists. The private lands will be rested from grazing for 2 years to allow plants to grow and establish themselves and then some of the private acres will be returned to a grazing rotation, while some of the private landowners will not graze the areas, instead will have a wildlife refuge full of new growth. It really depends on the objectives of the landowner how the future management will be handled.