East Pockets Stewardship
Project ID: 5018
Status: Pending Completed
Fiscal Year: 2020
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Chuck Carpenter
PM Agency: National Wild Turkey Federation
PM Office: Utah Chapter
Lead: National Wild Turkey Federation
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
Improve summer habitat for deer, turkey, and elk by restoring aspen from an over-mature stand to a uneven aged regenerated healthy stand. Thin spruce/fir stands to improve forest growing conditions, species composition, and reduce fire incidence and hazards associated with insect and disease. This is an on-going project that is being implemented through a stewardship agreement between the NWTF and the US Forest Service. This proposal is a continuation of WRI Project #4648.
Location:
22 miles northwest of Escalante on the Griffin Top. Within the Antimony Creek, Coyote Hollow-Antimony Creek, Pacer Lake watersheds on the Escalante Ranger District. The project area is within a UWRI Focal Area.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Pockets Stewardship Agreement was designed to address vegetation management objectives outlined in the Pockets Resource Management Project EIS/SEIS/ROD that was approved by the Dixie National Forest in September 2009. This project was designed to address impacts to spruce-fir stands in the area from high levels of beetle infestations, and to maintain and restore aspen where it is being succeeded by conifers. An analysis of the existing condition in the project area a Forest Service interdisciplinary team shows an imbalance in aspen age classes with very little representation in the regeneration (seedlings/saplings) class. Most of the aspen clones are succeeding to spruce/fir; therefore, there is a need to regenerate aspen in mature and over-mature aspen stands that are succeeding to conifer and to reduce conifer competition within aspen stands to maintain aspen stands with a minimum of 70% aspen. Also, there is a need to perform conifer removal on the project area which will improve existing conifer stand species composition and reduce the risk of insects and disease throughout the project area. This proposal is a continuation of WRI #4648 - Pockets Aspen Stewardship Phase II. Since the original proposal, there have been project staff changes for both partners, and the project has been re evaluated, treatment units have been re-prioritized and treatment prescriptions have been changed based on multiple factors including cost per acre and the feasibility of completion. The original project design called for pre-commercial thinning (hand thinning) which has proven to be a very expensive treatment in some units based on the high density of standing dead trees and snags. In order to address the high cost and contractor safety issues associated with hand thinning, the project design has changed to utilized mastication in these units. For this phase of the project, a total of 184 acres of conifer removal will be completed in FY20. A total of 288 acres of mastication will be proposed for treatment in FY21. In addition, this project will result in a reduction in the current fuel loading in existing aspen and spruce/fir stands to reduce the risk of stand replacing fire while maintaining sufficient down woody debris to accomplish other wildlife objectives. There is a need to reduce current snag densities following spruce beetle induced mortality to levels needed to support wildlife objectives. If snag densities are left at current levels then future fuel loading will exceed Dixie National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) objectives. In addition, a study on the Dixie National Forest and Fishlake National Forest provided data that conifer encroachment into aspen stands can decrease understory biomass and subsequently decrease forage production which is important to wildlife and livestock (Stam et al. 2008).The restoration of aspen habitat will improve key habitat identified in the CWCS and summer range for deer, turkey, elk, and other wildlife species.
Objectives:
The purpose of the aspen treatments is to restore both the distribution and balance of age-classes. Also, treatments will prevent unacceptable browsing damage and allow for establishment of aspen regeneration as required by the Dixie National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). The proposed thinning of spruce/fir stands will improve forest growing conditions, species composition, and reduce incidence and hazards associated with insect and disease. In addition, it will address two condition issues for the aspen-conifer habitat type which includes 1) correcting the deficit of young and middle age classes of aspen and 2) removing surpluses of older and conifer-encroached classes.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Aspen clones will covert to conifer forests, and the loss of this important habitat type will result in the decreased use of the area by turkey, elk, and deer. If this project is delayed, it could create conditions wherein future habitat work would be more difficult and cost prohibitive. Currently, density levels are so high in some treatment areas that accessing them to conduct habitat treatments in a safe manner is difficult. If snag densities are left at current levels, then future fuel loading will exceed Dixie National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) objectives which poses a greater catastrophic fire risk. Based on current forest stand conditions and known fire suppression team response times to the area, a fire would likely result in a stand replacing high intensity wild fire across the entire project area and effect adjacent forest stands. This would greatly impact the headwaters of Antimony Creek which is the drinking water supply for the town of Antimony. In addition, cutthroat trout and other fish species in Antimony Creek would be negatively impacted by a fire in the headwaters that would result in a heavy sediment load being released into the stream. In the Utah Wildlife Action Plan, the aspen-conifer habitat type is identified as one of the eight terrestrial key habitat types in Utah and is described as "second to riparian areas in wildlife species diversity and abundance". Two listed threat to this habitat type is "Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity" and "Improper Forest Management". The treatments outlined in this project proposal are identified as a good strategy for improving forest condition and mitigating threats to this habitat type in the Utah WAP. This project will utilize strategies for improving the condition of aspen-conifer habitat as outlined in the Utah WAP by applying mechanical disturbance agents such as timber harvest to stimulate aspen regeneration and avoid or reduce resource losses to conifer beetles. These treatments will address two condition issues identified in the Utah WAP for aspen-conifer habitat: 1. Deficits of young and mid age classes A and B, such that replenishment of aspen-dominated stands is being inhibited 2. Surpluses of older and/or conifer-encroached classes C, D, and E, which if left unaddressed, can lead to widespread permanent loss of aspen clones.
Relation To Management Plan:
Dixie National Forest LRMP: This project was designed to address the concerns and objectives outlined in the forest plan: 1) vegetation treatments will provide for a full range of seral stages, 2) treatments will manage for aspen retention, 3) project has been designed in the aspen to accomplish wildlife management goals, 4) management actions designed to meet Regional Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) assessment, 5) project provides for wildlife habitat diversity, 6) treatments will improve habitat capability of wildlife, 7) maintain fuel fuel conditions that permit fire suppression forces to meet fire protection objectives for the area, 8) provide forage to sustain local dependent livestock industry. Utah Wildlife Action Plan: This project will restore aspen-conifer forest condition which is a Terrestrial Key Habitat under the Utah Wildlife Action Plan. Specifically, this project will address two condition issues for the aspen-conifer habitat type which includes 1) correcting the deficit of young and middle age classes of aspen and 2) removing surpluses of older and conifer-encroached classes. This project will utilize strategies for improving the condition of aspen-conifer habitat as outlined in the Utah WAP by applying mechanical disturbance agents such as timber harvest to stimulate aspen regeneration and avoid or reduce resource losses to conifer beetles. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan: This project will address conifer encroachment in aspen stands which is a listed habitat concern within this management plan. Treatments will increase carrying capacity by improving available habitat. The quality and quantity of forage within the project area will improve as a result of proposed vegetation treatments and re-seeding that will occur at the completion of the project. Unit 25 Deer Management Plan: This project will address three key issues identified in this management plan and include 1) project will manipulate vegetation to increase availability and abundance of forage species, 2) project will reduce threats of catastrophic wildfires by reducing fuel loads created by dead, beetle-kill trees, and 3) will support enhancement and restoration efforts in aspen forests by reducing spruce-fir encroachment. Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan: This project addresses the quality and quantity of forage within the project area which will improve as a result of the proposed vegetation treatments. Aspen stands are identified in this plan as high priority habitat for elk as it provides both forage and cover in the summer months and calving ares in the spring. Utah Wild Turkey Management Plan: This project will address objectives and concerns outlined in this plan by increasing wild turkey habitat, quality and quantity, by 40,000 acres statewide by 2020. Treatments will increase early successional habitat which will provide food via new understory plants and insects. Forest Service Region 4 PFC Assessment: 1) project will restore the distribution of aspen, 2) project will restore the balance of age-classes. Utah's Final 2016 Intergrated Report On Water Quality: report stated that the "East Fork Sevier River and tributaries from confluence with Sevier River upstream to Antimony Creek confluence, excluding Otter Creek and tributaries" is not supporting the listed beneficial uses of these stream segments and has recorded water quality issues including elevated stream temperature. If this project is not completed, there is a high likelihood of a stand replacing, catastrophic wildfire that would have negative water quality impacts including high sediment loads due to run-off and the destruction of important riparian habitat that would result in elevated stream temperatures. With these streams already not supporting their designated uses, the potential impacts that could result from this project not being completed would create additional negative impacts on an already stressed system.
Fire / Fuels:
Current surface fuel loading is in excess of 60 tons per acre with an average of 100 snags per acre. Fire Regime is Class IV and Fire Regime Condition Class is 2-3. Fuel Model 10. Given the remote location of the project area initial attack response time for fire exceeds 1.5 hours. Fire line construction will be difficult due to heavy amounts of large diameter down logs and dense conifer understory. Reducing the current fuel loading and distributing patch clearcuts throughout the project area will slow the rate of fire spread and reduce fire intensity. Under current conditions which are very similar to the conditions at Brian Head prior to the June 2017 fire, stand replacing high intensity wild fire will result across the entire project area and effect adjacent forest stands. This would greatly impact the headwaters of Antimony Creek which is the drinking water supply for the town of Antimony. In addition, cutthroat trout and other fish species in Antimony Creek would be negatively impacted by a fire in the headwaters that would result in a heavy sediment load being released into the stream.
Water Quality/Quantity:
Some studies have shown that water yield can decrease (by ~5%) as areas succeed from aspen communities to conifer communities (Jaynes 1978, Bartos 2007). Water loss through evapotranspiration is shown to be higher in conifer stands versus aspens stands. This project proposes to remove conifer succession from aspen communities which would have a net positive effect on increasing water yield/availability.
Compliance:
The project area has received Archeological and NEPA clearances. Archeological clearance was granted on January 11, 2011. NEPA clearance was granted under the Pockets Resource Management Project EIS on January 6, 2012.
Methods:
Per the East Pockets Stewardship Agreement this treatment is designed to promote aspen regeneration following commercial harvest and to rearrange surface fuels to reduce fire effects. After commercial harvest, all residual conifer will be masticated along with activity slash and any existing surface fuels greater than 3 inches in diameter. Residual aspen will NOT be cut or masticated. All commercial harvest for these proposed treatment units was completed in fall 2018. The overall objective of treatment is to enhance aspen regeneration success and to reduce catastrophic wildfire risk. The primary end result of this treatment is a regenerating aspen stand, with a partial aspen overstory. Snag densities will be reduced to three snags per acre which will still provide an adequate number of snags for cavity nesters in the area. Once all treatments are completed, all landings and staging areas will be re-seeded per US Forest Service specifications. The overall forested condition within the project area is to create an aspen dominated overstory with scattered spruce snags and to reduce the overall fuel loading to below 30 tons per acre. For this phase of the project, a total of 184 acres of conifer removal will be completed in FY20. A total of 288 acres of mastication will be proposed for treatment in FY21. The following mastication prescription is required for this treatment: 1) This activity will be completed no more than one year after final commercial harvest. 2) All non-merchantable conifers two feet in height and greater will be masticated. 3) In portions of the treatment unit were mastication is not possible, all conifers will be removed by using chainsaw. Felled non-merchantable trees will be dragged into an area were material can be masticated. 4) Masticated material (chips) should not exceed six (6) inches on average in depth. 5) Activity slash generated from the commercial harvest greater than 3 inches in diameter will be masticated as well as any natural fuel loading. 6) Stump heights will be no greater than six (6) inches measured, on the uphill side of the stump. 7) Stumps abutting an obstruction (large rocks, leave logs, etc.) will be cut to a height no greater than 4"above obstruction. 8) Care should be taken to avoid intermittent/seasonal streams and low areas/meadows. Crossings of intermittent streams will have designated locations. 9) No machinery (wheeled or tracked) within 100 feet of running streams or to the edge of the flagged boundary of riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. 10) No servicing, refueling or staging of equipment within 150 feet of all riparian areas. 11) Avoid operating soil disturbing equipment when soil moisture levels are greater than 75% field capacity or on slopes greater than 40 percent. Under the previous WRI Project #4648, a portion of the Pockets project area was treated using the original hand thinning specifications. This newly proposed treatment area is immediately adjacent to the area was hand thinned under #4648. Conveniently, there is a forest road that separates the two treatment areas. This project presents a unique opportunity to monitor and showcase the two different treatment protocols (hand thinning and mastication) within the same habitat type and immediately adjacent to one another.
Monitoring:
Monitoring of aspen regeneration will be completed by the Forest Service within the treatment areas. Monitoring protocols require a first, third and fifth year regeneration surveys. If surveys indicate greater than 30% of seedlings are being browsed within the first three years then game fencing will be installed. Based on the Dixie National Forest Plan, monitoring will be completed once there are a total of 5,000 stems per acre with a dominant height of 6 feet over 70% of the treatment area. Monitoring will also include stocking exams for thinned spruce stands. The Fire/Fuels section will conduct post-treatment fuels monitoring to document the fuels reduction objectives. If there are areas with post treatment fuel loads which exceed targets, then additional fuel reduction treatments will be scheduled. This additional fuels work is currently outside of the scope of this stewardship agreement. Post treatment wildlife surveys are not planned by the Forest Service at this time. Project Design Features were developed for this project during the EIS process which should minimize negative impacts to wildlife species on the project area. The operation timing restrictions (generally May 1 through June 15) will limit disturbance during the nesting season and the elk calving season. As mentioned in the Methods section, this project will provide a unique opportunity to monitor the outcome of two different conifer removal treatments (hand thinning and mastication) within the same habitat type and immediately adjacent to one another (both will be 52 acres treatment). Overtime, both treatment units will be monitored with photo points to evaluate aspen regeneration, stand composition and potential wildlife habitat benefits between the two treatment types. Additionally, this will be a great location to showcase the long-term impacts of these two treatments.
Partners:
This project will be managed under an existing Stewardship Agreement with the National Wild Turkey Federation and the US Forest Service (SPA #09-SA-11046000-23). NWTF staff will be responsible for project management and implementation with assistance from USFS staff. NWTF and USFS will work together as partners to ensure the project is completed to USFS standards.
Future Management:
Some areas may experience strong wildlife browsing pressure. If browsing pressure is recorded at 30% of seedlings are being browsed within the first three years, wildlife exclusion fencing will be installed to reduce pressure and promote aspen regeneration. Based on the Dixie National Forest Plan, monitoring will be completed once there are a total of 5,000 stems per acre with a dominant height of 6 feet over 70% of the treatment area. This proposal is for phase II of this long-term project and an additional 335 acres of pre-commercial thinning will be completed in the following fiscal year in other units across the project area. Currently, access to these areas is either limited or non-existent. Temporary road construction will be completed in summer 2018 with Forest Service funds which will allow for better access to complete treatments.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Currently, there is an active grazing permit on the project area which is located within the Coyote livestock grazing allotment. The current grazing period is from mid-July through mid-October. The proposed treatments would create domestic livestock benefits. The thinning treatments and future patch cuts will result in an increase in forage production which will improve the quality and quantity of forage available to wildlife and livestock. By reducing conifer encroachment through mechanical thinning, the amount of aspen habitat in the project area will increase. Aspen stands typically have higher understory species diversity compared to conifer stands which provide more grasses and forbs that can be used as forage. In addition, temporary road construction and the re-seeding of temporary roads and landings will provide forage production for domestic livestock within the project area. The project area is important big game habitat for mule deer and elk as well as wild turkey. The area is used by recreationist for hiking, hunting, biking and snowmobiling. The treatments proposed in this project will promote sustainable uses of natural resources by
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$90,400.00 $20,000.00 $110,400.00 $10,000.00 $120,400.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Conifer mastication (184 acres @ $600 per acre) $90,400.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 2020
Personal Services (permanent employee) Project administration and inspections by Forest Service staff $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2020
Personal Services (permanent employee) Contract administration and project management by NWTF staff $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2020
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$19,298.90 $20,000.00 $39,298.90 $10,000.00 $49,298.90
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) NWTF funds for conifer mastication $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 2020
United States Forest Service (USFS) Forest Service Funds for conifer mastication $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 2020
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) Contract administration and project management by NWTF staff $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2020
United States Forest Service (USFS) Project administration and inspections by Forest Service Staff $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2020
National Wild Turkey Federation (NWTF) S024 $19,298.90 $0.00 $0.00 2020
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Brook Trout R4
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Domestic Livestock
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Rainbow Trout R5
Threat Impact
Increasing stream temperatures High
Habitats
Habitat
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Project Comments
Comment 02/14/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Michael Golden
Hi Jamie! This is SO the vegetation type we need to be treating on the Forest. A few comments, suggestions and clarifications. First when you say this is a continuation of project it looks like these units were part of that proposal and I am guessing the project was considerably more expensive than we anticipated? Again one of the reasons why we haven't been super successful at dealing with all the problems in this vegetation type. Isn't an economic threshold loss of the benefit from the investment WRI has already made into this project? You could add brook trout and rainbow trout to your list of species benefitting as one of these units is upslope of Pacer Lake (brook trout) and on is in the headwaters of Antimony Creek (rainbow trout) downstream. Wildfire in these areas would almost assuredly eliminate fish populations in post-fire runoff. You may want to review the Quality, Benefit, Need scoring criteria for HIG and SGCN species on the FY2020 score sheet. Are you sure there is no SGCN benefitting? Pacer Lake already has dissolved oxygen issues that can and have affected the quality of the fishery there. This lake has the potential to produce quality to trophy sized brook trout (see UDWR's Boulder Mountain Sport Fish Management Plan). Wildfire on the slopes above it could decimate this fishery for many years. UDWR has already piped a spring out into the lake to help alleviate water quality issues there. Additionally, Antimony gets irrigation and municipal water supplies form the Antimony Creek watershed, which would be benefitted from fuels reduction and any water volume impacts from this project. Finally you may want to check out what UTAH'S FINAL 2016 INTEGRATED REPORT On WATER QUALITY has to say about water quality impairment to the "East Fork Sevier River and tributaries from confluence with Sevier River upstream to Antimony Creek confluence, excluding Otter Creek and tributaries" assessment segment in terms of impairment and contemplate how this project may help with that. What are the values at risk from a wildfire and post-fire impacts? Doesn't UDWR monitor big game herds in this area? I know UDWR monitors fish in Pacer Lake and that the FS has fish and riparian vegetation tend monitoring in Antimony Creek downstream from the project area. It might be helpful to have a discussion of how this proposal fits into the overall game plan of past and future treatments of this project and any adjacent and surrounding treatments in the watershed(s). Will completing the larger project allow for the FS to manage natural ignitions for forest plan objectives in the future? I am pretty sure that long-term range trend studies on this allotment show many sites not meeting Forest Plan objectives and having a downward trend. Completing projects like yours may help with livestock distribution and help with overutilization in other areas. It looks like maybe you didn't finish your "Other Sustainable Uses" discussion.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Hi Michael - As I mentioned in my email last week, I really appreciate your in-depth feedback on this project. I apologize for the delay in my response. I was travelling for our National Convention in Nashville and playing catch-up. Yes, I agree this is a vegetation type that we need to be completing treatments on NFs here in Utah and especially on the Dixie. I would say WRI has not reached "an economic threshold loss of the benefit" in regards to this project. Yes, you are correct that the treatments have been more expensive than originally thought. The cost per acre, lack of interest in subcontractors, and slow pace that we have been able to complete treatments on this project resulted in NWTF sitting down with Buddie Carroll on the Dixie NF to re-evaluate the next phase of this project. As you know, fuel loading is well above the forest management objective and there is a risk of stand-replacing catastrophic wildfire that would have major impacts on water quality. We are anticipating that changing some of the hand thinning units to mastication will allow us to reduce the cost per acre and speed up the pace of this project while still accomplishing the desired forest stand health and wildlife benefit objectives. During the 2018 operating season, we were able to get an operator to complete a majority of the commercial timber harvest and they built all of the temporary roads need to access the treatment units. We have multiple operators that are now interested in bidding on the mastication units. I would say our momentum on this project is the greatest it has ever been and we are poised to complete these much needed treatments on the NF. Also, there is some uncertainty in regards to which treatments provide the best aspen regeneration. With this project, we will have divide one treatment unit into two equal parts (conveniently divided in half by a temporary road) and we will complete hand thinning on one side of the road and mastication on the other side of the road. This will provide us an opportunity to use long-term monitoring to assess the success or failure of both treatment types. Also, it will provide a location for WRI project tours in the future to look at multiple aspen treatment types side-by-side. I ask that WRI not give up on us now. Thank you for your comments about adding brook trout and rainbow trout and I have made those changes to our proposal. Yes, completing this project allow for the FS to manage natural ignitions for forest plan objectives in the future and will bring the fuel loading closer to the management objective. Yes, long-term range trend studies on this allotment show many sites not meeting Forest Plan objectives and having a downward trend. This project could help alleviate trend by providing more forage for both livestock and wildlife throughout the allotment.
Comment 02/21/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Vicki Tyler
See Mike's comments. Also, I appreciate the hard triggers you have mentioned throughout the project (i.e. if browse exceeds _%, this is the action we will take.....). It really shows me that you will be doing the monitoring you say you will be doing. Thanks! Vicki
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Hi Vicki - Thank you for your comment on this project and I appreciate the feedback.
Comment 02/22/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Hi Jamie - exciting project. I am wondering if there is a chance to do some idea sharing with this project and the Monroe Mountain Project. They have done some mastication in Aspen already and were not happy with the result - there weren't definitive answers but 2 main speculations. 1 was that the masticated material somehow inhibited aspen suckering response the other was that the rubber tires on the mastication equipment wasn't rough enough on the ground to create the root disturbance to stimulate suckering. They have since moved to a prescription very similar to timber harvest with similar equipment but having the contractor pile the material for burning or utilizing the material to construct arbor fencing to protect the aspen. Might be worth the effort to spend a day or 2 in the truck on both mountains and comparing notes - I would be happy to come along on such a tour and get the Fish Lake Forest guys involved too. I think there are several bios on the Dixie that have expressed interest in a similar field trip so we should get it planned.
Comment 02/25/2019 Type: 1 Commenter: Jamie Nogle
Hi Gary - Thank you for your comments and I think that is an excellent idea! The treatment prescriptions on this project have evolved over time due to many factors. Many of these units were originally designated to be hand thinned or fell and scatter after commercial harvest. We have found over the past several years that the cost per acre is much higher than expected. High tree densities combined with a large number of standing dead trees have made treatment challenging for subcontractors. NWTF worked with the Dixie NF to incorporate mastication on some of these units to help decrease the cost per acre and to get the project completed at a faster pace. I would like for us to visit and share ideas in regards to some of the issues you have seen on the Monroe Mountain project. I am not sure if you read this piece in our project details, but one of our units is split by a temporary road. We are planning to complete the original hand thinning treatment on one side of the road and complete mastication on the other side of the road. This will provide us with an opportunity to monitor the aspen response from both treatments. Thank you again for your comments and let's plan on scheduling site visits later this spring.
Comment 09/03/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
This comment has been deleted by author or admin.
Comment 09/03/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
This comment has been deleted by author or admin.
Comment 10/25/2021 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
What is the status of this project. There is currently no funding with DWR for this project but it is still marked as current. If this project is completed please submit a completion report along with updated map features and expenses on the finance page. Thanks.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
8048 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
Project Map
Project Map