Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Phase II
Project ID: 4532
Status: Completed
Fiscal Year: 2019
Submitted By: 1167
Project Manager: Brooke Shakespeare
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Dixie National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
The purpose of the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project (Phase II) is to improve public health and safety and natural resource conditions impacted by the Brian Head Fire while continuing to promote multiple-use management as supported by the Dixie National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986).
Location:
The Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation Project (Phase II) is located within Garfield and Iron County, Utah. The project area encompasses the final perimeter of the Brian Head Fire that occurred in the summer of 2017 and includes downstream drainages affected by the fire. The project extends from the western boundary of the Cedar City Ranger District near the town of Brian Head to the eastern boundary of the district and extends from just south of Highway 143 North to Upper Bear Valley.
Project Need
Need For Project:
1. There is a need to rehabilitate sage-grouse and ungulate habitat that was impacted by the Brian Head fire. 2. There is a need to restore watershed function and protect water quality threatened by increased erosion due to the fire. 3. There is a need to remove encroaching vegetation within the vicinity of the Panguitch Municipal Watershed for recruitment of native forbs, shrubs and grasses to benefit wildlife and stabilize soils, and restore function to the system. Prior to the Brianhead fire WRI had funded NEPA for this portion of the project area under project 3957 but was unable to be completed before the fire. 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 6,514 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 have impacted many important wildlife habitats. Of note the fire burned 4,514 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.
Objectives:
Continue the rehabilitation work that was started in 2017 to stabilize resources affected by the Brian Head Fire. 1. On approximately 2,080 acres north of Panguitch lake apply a low elevation grass/forb mix (attached) using fixed-wing aircraft followed by chaining. This seeding treatment would benefit deer, elk and Greater sage-grouse. 2. Decommission and re-route approximately 5.55 miles of trail and 3.36 miles of road that are currently being washed out and eroded due to decreased effective canopy cover and increased runnoff. Rerouting these trails and roads would move these pathways to more hydrologically sustainable locations and in many instances out of wet areas. 3. Within the Delong Creek and Indian Hollow sub-watersheds, remove encroaching white fir, Douglas fir, mountain-mahogany, pinyon pine and juniper through mastication, cutting, piling and burning on approximately 262 acres. These treatments will improve habitat for deer and elk in the area through release of native grasses, forbs and shrubs. This would also improve ground cover and soil retention in the vicinity the Panguitch municipal watershed.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
1. Wildlife - There is a risk of losing important Greater sage-grouse Habitat in the area, with special emphasis on nesting and brood rearing habitat that were present in the Panguitch Area prior to the fire. Without effective ground cover from grasses and forbs, ungulates including elk, deer and livestock will not be able to use this area for foraging until the ecosystem regenerates naturally. However, it is likely that the area will experience an increase of non-desirable invasive species such as cheatgrass. To protect against this an area-specific seed mix was jointly developed between the Dixie National Forest and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. 2. Water Quality - Decreased effective canopy and ground cover has caused a significant increase in overland runoff and erosion. This has accelerated damage to trails and roads within the burned area which funnel runoff and sedimentation through exposed and incised pathways. If these runoff channels persist, there is an increased threat to water quality within the vicinity of Red Creek, Bunker Creek and headwaters of Ipsom Creek and Castle Creek. 3. Habitat for elk, deer and other wildlife was modified in the fire. Within the Panguitch municipal watershed, wildlife are currently concentrating their use on un-burned springs and other wet areas . Removal of encroaching vegetation within this area would allow for the release of forbs and grasses and wildlife would be able to spread out their use on additional areas. There is currently a risk to water quality for domestic and agricultural uses.
Relation To Management Plan:
Utah's Wildlife Action Plan (WAP): The WAP identifies the following key habitats that may be addressed through project planning in the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation 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 of the treatments would be to ease pressure on key emergent and riverine habitats where livestock use is causing damage. Upland treatments within the Panguitch Municipal Watershed, should further release grass and forbs and provide additional forage throughout this area, and spread out the use of wild and domestic ungulates. 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 Sage Grouse Record of Decision, Utah Plan amendment - GRSG-GRSGH-O-026-Objective - Every 10 years for the next 50 years, improve greater sage-grouse habitat by removing invading conifers and other undesirable species based on the number of acres shown in table 2. (DNF- mechanical 13,000, prescribed fire 1,000 and grass restoration 7,000 acres.)
Fire / Fuels:
The Panguitch Municipal watershed has been aggressively managed for wildfire exclusion for the last 100 years or so. Prior to the Brian head wildfire the watershed could be classified as Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 2 (moderate departure from the natural regime of vegetation characteristics) or 3 (high departure from the natural regime of vegetation characteristics). The Brian head wildfire burned most of the watershed and reset the FRCC back to 1 (within the natural range of variability of vegetation characteristics). The unburned areas of the water shed are still in FRCC of 2 or 3 and need to be treated. These areas are dominated by P-J encroachment and are primed for high intensity wildfire under the right fuel and weather conditions. Treating these areas would bring them back to an FRCC of 1 and reduce the risk of the negative effects of a high intensity wildfire burning and damaging the rest of the watershed. Nearly 262 acres would receive treatment and the site would be less vulnerable to wildfire. The method of treatment would be dictated by the slope (steeper or rocky slopes would be hand lop and pile and less steep slopes would be masticated - see map for where the different treatment methods will be) .
Water Quality/Quantity:
Erosion and sedimentation is currently occurring in several areas impacted by the fire. Funding is requested for the decommissioning of portions of the Sidney Peaks Trail, the Dark Hollow Trail, the Left Fork Bunker Creek Trail and the Right Fork Bunker Creek Trail. These trails are currently capturing and rerouting runoff, getting washed out, and either increasing sediment contribution into streams or eroding the trail to where maintenance and upkeep is not sustainable. Additionally, segments of FS Roads 079, 076, 275 and 2057 are capturing increased runoff and channeling sediment into streams. This increases the sedimentation and turbidity of these streams and decreases their utility for fish and amphibians. Additionally, most of these streams being impacted by the trails and roads drain into Panguitch Lake and Red Creek Reservoir which are both listed by the State of Utah and EPA as water quality impaired due in part to elevated nutrients such as phosphorus. Elevated nutrient levels ultimately is leading to lower oxygen levels and stress on the aquatic organisms in the lakes. Any reduction in sediment from the fire scar (which typically has nutrients with it) to the streams will help decrease nutrient loading to these lakes which are both important fisheries to surrounding communities and the counties in which they reside. This will help with the intent of WRI project 4364 which is also aimed at improving the water quality of Panguitch Lake but by reducing anoxic and nutrient rich water already in the lake rather than decreasing loading coming in. The Panguitch Municipal Watershed is a drinking water source for the town of Panguitch. If habitat could be expanded in this area, wildlife use may be spread out across the landscape and water quality could be further safeguarded from bacterial contamination. Additionally, the fuels work being proposed in this project will lead to improved riparian vegetation conditions (where the removal of conifers from the riparian area occurs) and a lower risk of high severity fire and associated flooding in some of those unburned portions of the watershed that can damage the drinking water conveyance system. Both improving the riparian vegetation to species that better stabilize the stream channel and reduction in the risk of high severity fire and large flooding will improve BCT habitat in this watershed.
Compliance:
NEPA compliance for this project is pending. The project was added to the Schedule of Proposed Actions in December 2017. A scoping notice and notice of opportunity to comment was delivered to a mailing list of interested parties. The scoping period for the project closes on 1/18/18. Some of the actions are allowable under categorical exclusion authorities and it is anticipated that a decision will be signed for seeding, trail decommissioning and wildlife rehabilitation in March. Road decommissioning is part of an Environmental Assessment analysis that would be completed in May of 2018.
Methods:
1. Seeding will be accomplished by aerial application followed by chaining using the attached seed mix. Chaining will occur where beneficial for sage-grouse on up to 2,080 acres north of Panguitch Lake (in Pine Hollow and Williams Hollow). 2. Trail decommissioning will be accomplished using a ACE field crew or similar youth conservation corps. The trail would be decommissioned using shovels saws and hand-held equipment and/or a mini-excavator. Brush and fill would be placed in the trail at strategic locations to collect soil and debris and naturally bring the trail up to grade over time.Road decommissioning would be done by FS engineers using an excavator to rip the road prism and recountour/reseed and re-establish native conditions. 3.Wildlife habitat improvement in the Panguitch municipal watershed would be accomplished using Forest Service fire crew and contractors to cut encroaching trees, pile them and burn on slopes greater than 30 percent. On slopes below 30 percent masticators will be used to chip up the standing trees and leave a mulch in place.
Monitoring:
-FS will be monitoring the area for noxious weeds, in conjunction with it's established program. Additionally, the FS has a Bonneville cutthroat trout station just upstream of and riparian vegetation trend and partial multiple indicator monitoring sites just upstream and downstream of the treatments proposed along Indian Hollow. These sites will all be revisited in the future to help determine health and trend. -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. -Water quality will continue to be monitored as part of the municipal watershed requirements. -Decommissioned segments of roads and trails would be monitored for effectiveness in reducing channelization and in restoring ground cover.
Partners:
Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Division of Environmental Quality, Fire Fuels and State Lands, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Iron County, Garfield County, City of Panguitch, Private Landowners. For the first phase of the Brian Head Fire Rehabilitation, many meetings were held and coordination occurred with all of these partners. In particular, UDWR, UDFFSL, and the FS were able to coordinate thousands of acres of emergency seeding and mulching and additional wildlife and livestock benefit seeding on NFS and private lands. Continued efforts with partners will occur in the future for needed rehabilitation work.
Future Management:
Stream channel morphology and functioning has been negatively impacted due to the fire and exacerbated post fire runoff and erosion. Doing some of the needed channel work for in-stream habitat and channel stability improvement would be less effective while the watershed response is elevated and therefore, additional funds may be requested for riparian and stream channel treatments in future years after there has been some recovery to watershed response. Also, as monitoring of natural vegetation recovery determines areas where vegetation recovery is less than desired, future actions of planting trees, additional seeding, or fencing may occur. As well, there may be the need for more road/trail rerouting if elevated watershed response leads to road/trail failure for those roads/trails located in areas that were of marginal risk pre-fire. NEPA compliance is currently being worked on for most of these possible future actions, and additional NEPA will be initiated for other needs if they arise. Additionally, a Large Scale Event Recovery (LaSER) proposal was submitted by the Dixie National Forest to the Washington Office asking for more funding to help with additional work needed to correct or improve conditions of resources damaged by the fire and post fire threats. Much of this proposal has to do with fencing and other range improvements that were damaged by or now needed because of the fire (see attached document).
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Due to the fire, some areas within this project will experience a conversion from a late successional aspen mixed conifer community to an early successional community where aspen and the associated understory is dominant. This may yield tremendous increases in forage availability if the appropriate species regenerate the area. However, due to the density of some of the timber stands and the intensity of the fire in those areas it is difficult to predict the time frame and the amount of forage that will be available in the future. Once the burn area has gone through a full growing season, the Forest service will be able to evaluate and better determine time frames and predicted quantities. Nonetheless, it would be reasonable to expect that the pinyon/juniper and other conifer thinning work being proposed by this project in the Panguitch Municipal watershed will help benefit livestock by providing more forage in an allotment that has had at times difficulty meeting utilization standards.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$258,930.26 $83,000.00 $341,930.26 $139,000.00 $480,930.26
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services ACE crew for 2 weeks of trail decommissioning and rehabilitation $12,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Fuels Reduction work done by mastication equipment on slopes less than 30 percent. $62,800.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Fuels Reduction Work done by saw crews on slopes greater than 30 percent. $94,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Contractor to decommission road using mini excavator $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
NEPA Forest Service Personnel to complete NEPA for project and to be contract inspectors during implementation. $0.00 $0.00 $49,000.00 2019
Archaeological Clearance Archaeological survey, clearance and consultation to be performed by FS $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) FS or Contract Personnel and Equipment to construct 3.71 miles of Road Re-routes. $0.00 $0.00 $62,000.00 2019
Seed (GBRC) Seed and hand application on decommissioned roads and trails. $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2019
Personal Services (permanent employee) Forest Service Personnel to prepare burn plan and burn piles on approximately 125 acres. $0.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 2019
Contractual Services Contract crews to construct re-routes of Sidney Peak and Bunker Creek Trails. $0.00 $33,000.00 $0.00 2019
Contractual Services Contract crews to improve drainage on other trails affected by the fire. $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 2019
Archaeological Clearance State-approved archeological contractors to perform surveys and produce cultural report for proposed action areas (seeding/chaining). This contractor would supplement the cultural clearance work being performed by the FS Archeologist. $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Archaeological Clearance Additional arch clearance requested by the USFS for 1,951 acres for Timber Salvage/Reforestation and Temporary Salvage Access Roads (USFS sending additional funds). $34,630.26 $0.00 $0.00 2019
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$246,426.00 $83,000.00 $329,426.00 $139,000.00 $468,426.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Service In-Kind Services (NEPA, Archeology, Contract Inspection, Seed for decommissioned roads and trails and new road construction). $0.00 $0.00 $139,000.00 2019
Iron County Secured funding for work on Sidney Peak and Bunker Creek Trails. $0.00 $33,000.00 $0.00 2019
USFS-WRI N6795 $1,811.44 $0.00 $0.00 2019
USFS-WRI A056 $48,188.56 $0.00 $0.00 2020
United States Forest Service (USFS) Funds for trail work. $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 2019
DNR Fire Rehab N6775 $161,795.74 $0.00 $0.00 2018
United States Forest Service (USFS) N6781 $34,630.26 $0.00 $0.00 2018
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Unintentional Spread of Non-native Species Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native High
Habitats
Habitat
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Gambel Oak
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Very High
Lowland Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Invasive Plant Species – Non-native Medium
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Open Water
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Open Water
Threat Impact
Stormwater Runoff Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/31/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Clint Wirick
I see you have a bat species listed as benefiting. It might be helpful, and for my own knowledge, how will they benefit. Maybe think about including it in the management plans.
Comment 01/31/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hi Clint! I have gone in and edited the list of species benefiting to better reflect the objectives, benefits and monitoring of the project. Thanks for pointing the bats out!
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Good project with some important timing. A couple of thoughts - It appears that this project has quite a bit of cut and paste from the Phase 1 project and the Panguitch Municipal NEPA project (and appropriately so!). Just make sure that you catch all the references and have them apply to this phase specifically (for ex. Management Plans section starts with statement about plans relating to the Panguitch Municipal Watershed project). I think you could also beef up the section on fire condition. Tells us how the Brianhead fire impacted FRCC, and how this work will continue to improve FRCC. I also think that you could elaborate more on veg monitoring that will occur, or conversely if there are no plans for it we could certainly propose this area for a WRI range trend site or have Curtis help put in 1 or 2 of our quick and dirty veg monitoring sites. Finally, under future management it would be helpful if you could go into some detail about future livestock management, and any additional future actions you foresee in addition to the riparian stuff.
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Brooke Shakespeare
Great suggestions. Will do.
Comment 02/16/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Jennifer Green
Thanks for your comments. We made several updates within the Project Details in response.
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Brooke, Clearly some needed work in a high priority focus area for the Southern Region. A few comments/questions: 1) Gary had great comments that should be addressed. 2) In the water quality and quantity section perhaps a little more discussion on the potential water bodies affected, their water quality issues and how this might help them (e.g. Panguitch Lake nutrient loading, TMDLs for potentially affected areas, future benefits to Municipal water supply?) Does this project tie into 4364. 3) Future BCT habitat benefits from Panguitch Municipal water supply portion of project. 4) While Gary mentioned taking cut and paste references out it is probably worthy to note that prior to the fire WRI had funded NEPA in that portion of the project area under 3957. 5) Can you discuss how all of the excellent partners involved with this project were engaged and involved? Perhaps reference Phase I? 6) Perhaps discuss and attach the laser plan to show some of the future management in terms of continuing fire rehab that is being planned? 6) Any sense for increase and forage and have there been grazing management issues on the allotments in question (or will there be because of the fire) that will benefit from these forage improvements?
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Brooke Shakespeare
Mr. Golden, 1)We are working on addressing Gary's comments (just updated the future management section this morning and the other comments we are working on getting information from specialists germane to the particular comment- hopefully they can hear the crack of your whip too). 2) I will add in more discussion to the water quality section- great suggestion. 3) I will talk to our forest fish biologist about BCT habitat benefits and if he is not too cantankerous he could help address this one4) Good idea to note the previously funded Panguitch Municipal Supply Watershed project (by the way Gary likes the cut and paste references -agreed that it is appropriate) 5) Good idea to mention the great partners involved in initial assessment and Phase I and likely beyond 6) Attaching the LASER document for further reading by interested folks can definitely be done 6^2) I will get some more discussion added by our range folks about grazing and what is expected from the forage improvements.
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
I wouldn't expect anything from your Fish Biologist and whatever he provided wouldn't be worth a lick anyway.
Comment 02/09/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
I just have a couple of questions about this. I know, in talking to Gary, that there was a lot of grass that came back last year, but it was pretty monocultural. I too have spent quite a bit of time in this area and/or looked at seasonal use of sage grouse. My professional opinion is that grouse are using a lot of this are as late brood/early summer habitat - hence the need for some more forbs, more importantly than a lot of grasses. I spent some time looking at this after the fire, and felt like the fire was super beneficial for this area, especially in and around 143. I would love to see additional, scattered trees removed, via chaining, some more forbs and sage brush islands not burned, left intact. I would expect some of this would happen naturally. I am a huge advocate of chaining, but in this area, where there is already some veg on site, do the benefits (more grasses/forbs) outweigh the risk (decreased sagebrush and potential for invasive species invasion in disturbed areas? Just a thought. Would love to get Jake or Devin in on this convo. Thanks!
Comment 02/12/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Brooke Shakespeare
Great comments Vicki. Being a water guy I will have to get responses to this from one of our wildlife folks like you suggested.
Comment 02/13/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Brooke Shakespeare
Hi again Vicki - I pulled in our wildlife shop they provided the following response: Gary Bezzant, Curtis Roundy and Ron Rodriguez looked at the area together and all agree that in some areas grass has responded very well to the fire, and some areas not very well. These outcomes are typical in all fires on the Dixie Forest where we have fair precipitation. Site specific HAF data collection occurred in this area and it indicates that the area is "suitable" habitat (S-4 form) that it is used by sage-grouse for nesting, brood rearing, summer, fall and in winter in some years. This has been confirmed by visual observations where Curtis and Ron went into the area in late January and flushed over 40 birds, with a mix of males and females. Birds were distributed across the area but one group of 40 birds flushed as they approached. More birds were observed on the group but they left the area so further to decrease the disturbance. Based on this observation and many other observations during the spring and summer and fall we know the area has birds somewhere in it almost year round depending on the severity of the winter. Based on our knowledge of the area we recognize the need to have a mix of desirable grasses, forbs and healthy stands of sagebrush. In the area we have for identified for treatment not a lot of P/J trees are present for removal some due to the lack of remaining trees on the site and also in part due to the steep terrain which is unsuitable for chaining. Curtis and Ron evaluated the area and identified opportunity areas that can be treated and those that cannot. The existing sagebrush areas are not targeted to be chained unless they are currently outside of desired conditions as identified in our Forest Plan, an example would be if they are dead and dying. The intent is to keep existing sagebrush area that is providing important habitat for sagebrush obligates such as sage-grouse. It is not our intent impact the remaining sagebrush areas that are the only habitat for existing populations of sage-grouse. The intent is to run a chain over these areas to remove skeletons from the fire and disturb the existing bunch grasses and allow more forbs to grow. Chaining will help clean up the site and provide scarification so successful germination of desired species can occur. Invasion of non-desirable species is always a concern, however, the area is expected to do very well with this type of treatment, similar to how the area responded to the fire.
Comment 02/15/2018 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
Thanks for looking in to this, and providing a great response!
Comment 02/01/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Tyler Thompson
If we can come up with some funds that would be available around the third week of March. How much of this work could be done before the end of June, 2018?
Comment 02/07/2018 Type: 2 Commenter: Brooke Shakespeare
I adjusted the costs for the lop and pile portion of the project (which were mistakenly priced out as lop and scatter rather than pile) as per our conversation.
Comment 08/14/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Thank you for submitting your completion form early. It looks great!
Completion
Start Date:
07/17/2018
End Date:
07/22/2019
FY Implemented:
2020
Final Methods:
A contract with a hand crew was utilized for the cutting and piling work in the Panguitch Municipal Watershed on May 12, 2018. The Forest Service provided personnel and supplies for burning the piles after they were dried out sufficiently. An ACE crew was hired with the money for the trail decommissioning in Bunker Creek and a hand crew with a trail cat was utilized for the decommissioning. This work occurred throughout the summer of 2018. A contract with a heavy equipment crew was utilized for decommissioning the sections of road that were proposed for such. A track hoe was used for this work which started in October 2018 and due to snow was not completed until July 2019. The Forest Service provided personnel and seed for seeding the decommissioned portions of the road bed.
Project Narrative:
The sage grouse habitat work that was originally part of this project proposal ended up being dropped because both UDWR and FS biologists visited the site proposed for work and determined that harrow and seeding would not be likely to yield better results than what vegetation had already came back in this moderate to low burn severity area. The funding and budget for this work has been removed from the finance section. The vegetation work completed in the Panguitch Municipal watershed was successfully implemented soon after awarding the contract. Inspections showed that work was generally satisfactory. One item that was found deficient was piling to close to the stream channel. Due to the large size of the material and doing the work by hand, it was very time consuming and difficult to drag material up steeper slopes away from the stream channel. Recommendations for similar work in the future would be to allow for lop an scatter along streams that are entrenched. As mentioned in the final methods section, the trail decommissioning in Bunker Creek with the hand crew and a trail cat occurred throughout the summer of 2018. This decommissioning was successful and due to the aspen regeneration response it is likely that within a few years the old trail will not be distinguishable from the adjacent landscape. As mentioned in the final methods section, the road decommissioning work was started in the late fall of 2018 and then paused until July of 2019. The portion of FS Rd 076 that was decommissioned was finished in the fall of 2018 and was seeded. The road reroute near Mud Springs was started that fall as well but due to precipitation was halted. It was unable to be resumed due to continued storms, of which most came as snow. The snowpack was exceptionally heavy during the winter of 2018-2019 and sufficient drying of the road to be decommissioned didn't occur until July. Once dry enough the reroute was finished and the decommissioning occurred within a little more than 1 weeks time.
Future Management:
Additional signage explaining that it is just a reroute and access was not cut off is recommended for the decommissioned sections of road. It is anticipated that this will help with travel management compliance as users will know that access is still available on a more sustainable road.
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
6756 Terrestrial Treatment Area Road decommissioning Road decomissioning
8240 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
8241 Terrestrial Treatment Area Road decommissioning Road decomissioning
Project Map
Project Map