Sheep Creek RX Phase 2
Project ID: 5245
Status: Cancelled
Fiscal Year: 2023
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Guy Wilson
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Central
Description:
Phase 2 of the Sheep Creek RX Project includes broadcast burning approximately 4,500 remaining acres within a 5,800 acre burn unit. This is part of a larger restoration effort within the Upper Soldier Creek Watershed that aims to improve wildlife habitat, watershed health and recreational opportunities, and reduce the risk of a large high intensity wildfire. The Forest has already completed trail restoration, a shaded fuel break 20 miles in length, 1,300 acres of broadcast burning and pile burn
Location:
Formally known as Sheep Creek RX ID# 3906. 2 miles north of Soldier Creek Summit of Highway 6 and borders the south end of the Heber-Kamas Ranger District boundary.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The need for this project comes from the Soldier Creek Watershed Assessment (UWC 2012), which found an overabundance of late seral and declining vegetation communities and wildlife habitat, and water quality issues. This entire project falls in a WRI Focus area. In addition, fires are common in this area and often have impacts to water quality and the Highway 6 corridor due to the highly erosive soils. Recently there have been several large high severity fires in the area: Dollar Ridge, Coal Hollow, Pole Creek and Bald Mountain. Another unplanned ignition in the area could lead to a high severity fire negatively impacting the lower watershed and values in the Highway 6 corridor with increased debris and sediment flows. The lower country has been treated by mastication to reduce the juniper densities and open up growing space for shrubs and grasses. The steeper slopes can only be treated effectively with prescribed fire in specific areas to reduce unhealthy stand and canopy densities and regenerate aspen and shrub communities. This treatment would tie the lower treatments to the upper ridgeline and the starting points of the Soldier Creek Watershed. The intended outcome of the project is to improve wildlife habitat by stimulating shrub and aspen regeneration and reduce fuel loading to lessen the risk of a high severity wildfire that impacts water quality and values along the Highway 6 corridor.
Objectives:
Improve watershed condition by reducing fuel loading, canopy cover in juniper, aspen and conifer. Improve wildlife habitat by increasing grasses and shrubs and stimulating aspen regeneration. Mitigate the potential for undesirable fire severity in the event of an unplanned ignition by reducing live and dead fuel loading. Improving recreational opportunities by improving declining conditions.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
As the overstory densities increase unchecked, the herbaceous understory will decrease, and soil erosion will increase thereby degrading watershed condition and water quality. The risk increases yearly for an unplanned ignition to cause detrimental fire effects by hydrophobic soils being striped away from even low precipitation events, the degradation of soil and water quality, weed expansion and loss of wildlife habitat. The nearby and adjacent wildfires have proved these results that we want to avoid by burning this through a prescribed fire, we are reducing the chances of a catastrophic fire that could cause detrimental effects to the watershed. Columbia Spotted Frog and the Leatherside Chub are species located within the watershed that could benefit from reduced channel downcutting, sediment retention within the drainage that a catastrophic fire could cause. Project 5560 will really benefit and help to achieve these desired results within that watershed. Critical winter range habitat will continue to decline as the ecosystem continues to become less diverse.
Relation To Management Plan:
This project will directly or indirectly address some of the 20 goals, objectives and/or strategies of the following planning documents. Treatments lie within Central Region UWRI focus areas. This project will help move the project area toward the following goals, objectives and strategies of the mule deer and elk management plans: Statewide Deer Plan 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. Strategies Work with local, state and federal land management agencies via land management plans and with private landowners to identify and properly manage crucial mule deer habitats, especially fawning, wintering and migration areas. 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. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that have been taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats, ensuring that seed mixes contain sufficient forbs and browse species. Statewide Elk Plan Habitat Management Goal: Conserve and improve elk habitat throughout the state. Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. Watershed Restoration Initiative Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk habitat. Coordinate with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize elk habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration. Wildlife Management Unit 17 Plans Deer plan Habitat Improvement Reduce expansion of Pinyon-Juniper woodlands into sagebrush habitats and improve habitats dominated by Pinyon-Juniper woodlands by completing habitat restoration projects like lop & scatter, bullhog and chaining. Future habitat work should be concentrated on the following areas. North side of hwy 6 in the Sheep Creek drainage. Elk Plan Habitat Actions to Remove Habitat Barriers Cooperate with USFS, BLM, & Ute Tribe to increase vegetative under story and reduce Pinyon/Juniper invasion of the sagebrush step zone to increase winter forage to reduce depredation on private property. The proposed project will address the following goals and objectives of the Division of Wildlife Resources most recent strategic management plan: Resource Goal: expand wildlife populations and conserve sensitive species by protecting and improving wildlife habitat. Objective 1: protect existing wildlife habitat and improve 500,000 acres of critical habitats and watersheds throughout the state. Objective 3: conserve sensitive species to prevent them from becoming listed as threatened or endangered. The Soldier Creek Watershed Assessment states: 1)Remove juniper to increase sagebrush habitat and forb and grass cover. 2) Remove juniper to decrease soil erosion potential and increase soil quality. 3) Reduce juniper to increase wildlife habitat and hunting opportunities. The Upper Spanish Fork Management Area as defined by the 2003 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Uinta NF has the following sub-goals of the Forest Plan: -Sub-goal 2-8: "Ecosystem resilience is maintained by providing for a full range of seral stages and age classes (by cover type) that achieve a mosaic of habitat conditions. -Sub-goal-2-23 Areas identified as being of special concern for habitat such as big game winter range and big game natal areas. -Sub-goal-2-25(G-2-25)Maintain stable and upward conditions in big game winter range and improve downward trend sites -Utah Wildlife Action Plan, 2015-2025 Publication draft p.386 appendix threats 7.1.1 inappropriate fire frequency and intensity. Wasatch Front Fuels Assessment Report 2002. Strive for joint cooperation between federal agencies, municipalities and private landowners to reduce fuels contributing to unwanted wildland fire impacting landscapes along the Wasatch Front.
Fire / Fuels:
Achieve at least 60% mortality by scorching the canopy cover to stimulate grasses and shrub regeneration over 10% to 60% of the prescribed fire area. The remaining 40% reduces fuel loading to a low risk from future fires. Create a dispersed mosaic of high and low intensity burn patches within 30-90% of conifer and aspen communities. This will reduce the stand density of the large late seral conifer patches and create growing space for a more diverse stand. Treatments would move the project area from a High fire risk to Low. Values at risk: A undeveloped private parcel is within the burn unit. Treating this parcel of private with fire is an option. There are also a several developed and undeveloped private parcels within a mile of the project area. Soldier Summit improvements and the corresponding estates are within 2 miles of the project. Utah Power and Light occupies the corridor along the southern project boarder with the HWY 6 and corresponding rail lines within a mile of the project area. Several dispersed recreation camp sites and motorized and non motorized roads and trails pass through or are within the project area. This area is a high use hunting area that hasn't seen good herd levels in a few decades. this project could make this area a much more desirable area for wildlife once diversity is restored.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The project has the potential to improve water quality by increasing ground cover, helping to stabilize and filter sediment flows in the future. It has the potential to increase water quantity by restoring and expanding aspen stands that are being encroached by conifers. In addition, the project will help prevent negative impacts water quality in the event of a wildfire. This action could also improve the upper water shed by restoring more historical structures that lead to an improved and more diverse habitat.
Compliance:
2 PM Archaeology, Archaeology clearances completed, Dec 10 2014 / 6 NEPA, NEPA completed, Dec 10 2014. Sheep Creek Amendment Decision Memo was signed September 2019 to adjust the project boundary and move a section of a control line outside the previous boundary to provide for increased safety and holding capacity.
Methods:
Planned ignitions utilizing hand firing and Aireal ignition techniques during times of the year that contribute to the desired outcome of the objectives. Optional Items in Finance section: If only partial funding is available we would like to fund these first to secure the lines for either future fires or our eventual RX.
Monitoring:
Pre and Post monitoring will continue to be done utilizing photography points. Key areas of Low Moderate and High severity plots will be monitored for up to 5 years post treatment.
Partners:
DNR and WRI has partnered with us on all the 4 lower mastication projects in sheep creek. The burn will complete these previous project phases and improves conditions for wildlife. USFS, Utah & Wasatch counties, Utah Forestry Fire and State Lands, Department of Wildlife resources and Utah Valley University. Have helped in the design of the project. Implementation of the burn has come from USFS, BLM, NPS, Utah County, Wasatch County Unified Fire, Woodland hills, Salem and Lone Peak fire departments.
Future Management:
Being able to let fire play a more natural role in this project area to maintain the desired future conditions. Grazing management will occur through a rest-rotation grazing system.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Available forage is expected to increase post-treatment with the reduction in canopy density. The project is expected to restore forest health and resiliency to infection and disease. Reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire to aid in the maintenance and or improvement of the watershed. Recreation will benefit for the added safety and user access for hunting, hiking, mountain biking, OHV, Fishing, Camping, .
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$488,300.00 $0.00 $488,300.00 $5,000.00 $493,300.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Equipment Rental/Use 2 CWN Helicopter $6000 per day. 1200 per flight hour. estimate 8 hrs per day. $15,600 per day for 14 days. Non flight hrs will cover the added expenses of prepositioning, ferry time, mileage, travel. $246,700.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Materials and Supplies Material's, equipment breakdown's and or re supply needs. Fuel for burning by hand or Helitorch. In Kind fuel for saws and GOV's. $30,000.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2023
Other 14 days of Overtime, Lodging, Meals/Per Diem. Other personnel/resource needs. PIO, Dispatch in kind contribution. $41,600.00 $0.00 $2,500.00 2023
Contractual Services (Option item 1) Shortage of local resources availability to implement Prescribed fire. Contract Engines/Water Tenders @ 2500 a day. Need 4 for 14 days. Utah County and/or contractors may be used for this project. $140,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Contractual Services (Optional Item 2) Contract for Cut and Pile work for 20 acres along remaining control lines. This would secure the control features for future unplanned ignitions and or for the planned ignitions. This item can be funded separately of all other actions. $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$488,300.00 $0.00 $488,300.00 $5,000.00 $493,300.00
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
USFS-WRI Contributing funds $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 2023
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 $25,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) S025 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Safari Club International S026 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
DNR Watershed U004 $259,015.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Federal Aid (PR) P651 $119,285.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Habitat Council Account QHCR $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
American Beaver
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Black Bear
Threat Impact
No Threat NA
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Bonneville Cutthroat Trout N4 R1
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures High
Canada Lynx N4
Threat Impact
Data Gaps - Inadequate Understanding of Distribution or Range NA
Columbia Spotted Frog N2
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Columbia Spotted Frog N2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Low
Flammulated Owl N4
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Flammulated Owl N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Wild Turkey R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Low
Moose R3
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Northern Leopard Frog N5
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) Low
Olive-sided Flycatcher N4
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Medium
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Medium
Southern Leatherside Chub N2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) Low
Western Toad N4
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Problematic Insects – Native High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Project Comments
Comment 01/27/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
I think for mtn sagebrush you could add the threat "Problematic Plant Species -- Native Upland".
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Thanks Jimi, I have added that threat.
Comment 01/27/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Question - how do the fisheries folks feel about this? Southern leathersides just got pounded downstream. Do the fisheries folks feel this project is well-timed and an appropriate exhibition of wise risk management? I have no opinion, as I am totally uninformed on the particulars of this site, other than the opinion that frequent consultation among shops is a wise and prudent course of action. Thanks for your forbearance with my questions...
Comment 01/31/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Justin Robinson
Jimi and Sarah -- I have reached out to Chris for his input but will provide mine now. Fuels work through RxB is undertaken to reduce downstream effects to watersheds from fire. By removing fuel loads under the best/right conditions, to burn at low to moderate intensity, we reduce the likelihood of catastrophic events and subsequent impacts that we sometimes see from high intensity wildfire. This project should benefit SLC, in the long term, by reducing potential for high intensity fire effects. Further, the pace and scale of this project should remove fuels at a rate that will not promote large thunderstorm driven events from the project area. Last the position of this burn - high in the watershed, with a small low flow perennial downstream and a well-established beaver population in Soldier Creek; mitigate the risk of this project negatively effecting SLC. My thoughts anyway. Hopefully Chris will add to the conversation.
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Sarah Seegert
Like Jimi, above, I also recommend consulting with regional fisheries staff. I have some concerns about the timing and where the populations of southern Leatherside stand in the system right now. Chris Crockett and his staff should be able to address these concerns. I don't see any of them as collaborators, but you might consider adding someone from that shop. At the very least, make sure they don't have concerns about the Leatherside populations.
Comment 01/31/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Justin Robinson
Thanks for the comment Sarah. Hopefully I covered your concerns in my answer to Jimi.
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Terri Pope
Hi Guy, please consider removing Greater Sage-grouse and Bald Eagle from your species list. I think it is best to only include species that the threats are specifically addressed by this particular project. I would also remove Spotted Bat because I don't think we have enough information about where this bat is in Utah to be able to claim that this project will address the threats to this species. Thanks.
Comment 01/30/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Thanks Terri, I have removed your suggestions from my proposal.
Comment 01/21/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Terri Pope
I just want to reiterate my concerns from before about the Greater Sage-grouse and Bald Eagle being including on the species list. I only see that Spotted Bat was removed. Thanks.
Comment 01/21/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Hello Terri. I did remove those from the original proposal. I included them this go around as they are listed on our forest plan. I also used this sweet new T&E AGOL map i found for the state. Now im sure there is some accuracy issues but its what's available. https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/c05c29bf620d45368f2ab4769aa409b7?geometry=-111.553%2C39.914%2C-110.900%2C40.007
Comment 01/25/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Terri Pope
Guy, while that map is a good place to start for identifying species that may be in the area, it is still a good idea to consider how the project directly benefits these species. I am not sure how a forest prescribed fire benefits a sage-brush obligate species like Sage-grouse. If you want to include these species, please provide your reasoning for how this project actually benefits the species listed.
Comment 01/26/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Terri, There is not a intentional outcome or objective only a possible benefit. This project sits between the Carbon SGMA and the Strawberry SGMA. Now i have no proof but judging by the connectivity of the sage through the project area i would bet these were once connected. Past treatments in the area were in hopes of extending the SGMA range into those project areas. My project makes this connection minus about a hundred yard dash across HWY6 and through a mature stand of aspen up on the top of Indian creek. My project is trying to remove the conifer encroachment and open this stand back up to a more historic stand structure. Bu if this still gives you heartburn i will remove it.
Comment 01/27/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Sandi Imlay
We decided to remove sage grouse as a species listed.
Comment 01/31/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Chris Crockett
Justin, we should probably discuss this one with our Southern Leatherside Team. I share the goal of the project but we need to make sure we don't send more sediment downstream at a critical time. All it may take to have their full support is determining where we have remnant leathersides after the Bald Mountain Fire in the system (if any) and make sure we don't feel prescribed fire sediment inputs are going to hurt those populations. We are also looking at bringing in some SLC from remaining populations in this drainage to FES for a brood, again we may just need to collect those fish before any chance of additional impacts.
Comment 01/31/2020 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Thanks Chris and Terri, Spanish fork canyon has seen a lot of activity the last few years. Just wanted to confirm you all know this project area has already had RX fire over the last two years and is nearing completion. It is also 2 miles north of soldier summit gas station in the head waters east of Tie fork. The plan is for a fall burn again so if funded again we would have all summer for relocation efforts.
Comment 01/14/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
I'm glad this project is still on the books, and I still support it - vigorously - in concept. I guess I'd really like to hear that Crockett & Co are good with its timing for execution in Fall 2021 - that they / you all talked about this at the most recent (November 18, 2020) S Leatherside Team meeting. Is the downstream fish population & its habitat ready yet, for this to happen? An open question - I have no idea.
Comment 01/20/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Justin R. reached out to Crockett and Co. but we still haven't heard back from him on his answer.
Comment 01/25/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Janice Gardner
Consider adding detail in the proposal on the benefits to Columbia Spotted Frog and Leatherside Chub.
Comment 01/27/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Sandi Imlay
Both species are located within the watershed and comments have been included in the project details.
Comment 02/01/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Robert Edgel
In the objectives section, you state the following objective that I have questions about. Objective: 1. Improve watershed conditions by reducing fuel loading. You are proposing to burn this watershed. This watershed has soils that are extremely susceptible to erosion. How will you burn it in a way that doesn't expose large areas of open soil that will just flow downstream and degrade the current watershed conditions? What measures will you have in place to prevent increased erosion and sediment flows in the streams that can result in fish kills from this project?
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
The conifer is expanding into aspen and other areas outside of just a north aspect. It doesn't take a lot of fire to get this thickets of conifer to have a high intensity fire with them. From the included vegetation map you can see where it is currently limited too. Ideally we will break up these large linear blobs into puzzle piece sizes. When we burn these pure white fir areas they will burn hot and will have sediment flows associated with them. For now it will be isolated and limited to these areas. If we wait for the continued expansion it will be (that level of expansion) degrading to your lower projects and the associated watershed. In the included pictures, videos and documents you can see some of the beneficial effects from our north treatments.
Comment 02/01/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Robert Edgel
In the objectives it state that the project hopes to improve wildlife habitat by increasing grasses and shrubs and stimulating aspen regeneration. Large areas of the project have healthy stands of shrubs that if burned will reduce the quality of the habitat in this area. How will you ensure that healthy stands of shrubs are not burned? Do you think a better treatment could be hand cutting instead of burning in these areas?
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
outside of the driest times of the year these shrubs at this elevation are difficult to burn and don't carry fire. At best we can hope to prune off the dead ends.
Comment 02/01/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Robert Edgel
A large majority of the project area identified on the map is dominated by pinyon and juniper and mountain shrub species. Burning these areas will not stimulate aspen regeneration but will likely stimulate cheatgrass growth. Do you plan to just target conifer and aspen stands within the treatment area? I would recommend just burning the higher elevation areas where there is aspen and conifer and staying away from juniper areas. Juniper areas should probably be treated with other methods.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Unfortunately the steeper ground and remoteness of the site lends itself to be treated through more natural methods. Fall offers the ideal weather and fuels condition with leaf off or changing for these fuel models to be address to limit mortality and reduce decadent stands. You have seen it first hand its tuff to get it to carry but concentrations of fuel will consume at a reduced intensity than they would in the heart of fire season.
Comment 02/01/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Robert Edgel
It sounds like a lot of planning has gone into this project. Can you provide more details on the project map of where ignition sites will be, where fire lines will be established, and what areas you actually plan to burn? I think if you can upload more polygons with specific treatment sites or maps on the images and documents section of these plans it will be helpful in alleviating folks' concerns with the project.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Thanks Robert, I have added a veg map in the images and docs section. Hand Ignitions will be priority on the conifer with aspen adjacent from the east to south tying into the previously burned area. Helicopter will focus ignitions on the larger long stringers areas of decadent jackpot concentration of Junipers and oak thickets to break up the landscape in a more mosaic vegetation structure. This will break up the uphill unplanned fire runs from gaining a high intensity momentum.
Comment 03/05/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Alison Whittaker
Will you take a look at your budget and remove any lines of in-kind that are already being accounted for in the previous phase? We don't want to double count the funding. Thanks.
Comment 03/06/2020 Type: 2 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Updates completed. Sorry for any confusion.
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 3 Commenter: Daniel Eddington
In the budget there are two options, one for prescribed fire and then a cut and pile. If the prescribed fire portion is funded, is the cut pile funding not needed? Is the cut-pile option in case that the burn window isn't available then the cut and pile option still allows for some work to be done? Just trying to figure out if we only need to fund the prescribe fire portion amount ($458,300).
Comment 02/02/2022 Type: 3 Commenter: Guy Wilson
Daniel, Ideally we want both to be funded so cut and pile work could be burned in the spring and larger project in the fall. We have limited ourselves in the past to having to have a large amount of resources and helicopter to move forward with any burning. This will give us another option when resources are scarce. With funding limitations and other neighboring projects moving at a faster pace than this funding we also wanted another option to just do the bare minimum to secure it should we have to burn it in an unplanned fire event. Current containment lines are built for ideal weather conditions to backburn from the line but not for a wildfire event. This cut and pile work could then be solely funded outside of the larger project scale to give us a more reliable unplanned holding feature. to clarify we would like the entire $488,300.00 to enable multiple options. If money is tight and ranking is on the line $30,000 would give us this much needed holding feature at least.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
9152 Terrestrial Treatment Area Prescribed fire Prescribed fire
Project Map
Project Map