Vernal Municipal Watershed Restoration Project Phase 1
Project ID: 5891
Status: Current
Fiscal Year: 2023
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Ryan Mower
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Ashley National Forest
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Northeastern
Description:
The Vernal Municipal Watershed Restoration Project is designed to be a broad ranging project that will protect the water supply for Vernal, Utah and the adjacent communities. The project will also benefit many other resources including fuels, wildlife, fisheries, and range management. The project will include stream restoration, shaded fuel breaks, meadow restoration, and timber stand improvements.
Location:
The project will include areas throughout the Vernal Municipal Watershed. This area includes Dry Fork drainage on the west end to Little Brush Creek on the eastern end.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The project area is the sole municipal water supply for the Ashley Valley. Approximately 80% of the Ashley Valley's water supply comes from the Dry Fork/ Ashley Creek Watershed and 20% from the Brush Creek Watershed. The area has been identified by congress, the Forest Service and partners as an area of high risk to watershed and habitat degradation. The activities which fall in the project area have been identified as needs through collaborative efforts and updated information, and have been determined to be urgent needs. The Ashley National Forest is currently drafting a management plan for part of the area.
Objectives:
The main objective of the project to protect the sole water supply for the Ashley Valley and surrounding areas by completing numerous projects. The activities with also benefit other resource areas such as wildlife, grazing, timber, and recreation -Protect the Ashley Valley water supply from widespread uncharacteristic wildfire in both the near-term and long-term by completing widespread fuel breaks, opening up mountain meadows, and thinning thick lodgepole stands. If nothing is done the current fuel conditions could lead to a fire that could decimate the area's culinary water supply. -Enhance habitat and water quality of a native Cutthroat Trout stream in a stream that is degraded and continuing on a downward trend. This would reverse that trend. -Enhance meadows and their available forage by eliminating conifer encroachment by removing encroaching conifers from mountain meadows. -Eliminate lodgepole pine overcrowding to provide for future commercial harvest and increase water quantity. -Diversify water sources for wildlife and livestock to decrease pressures on existing sources and to enhance forage utilization. Guzzler locations were identified by using livestock use and confirmed as potentially beneficial for wildlife using the Wildlife Tracker. -Utilize and enhance meadows and road corridors to better utilize these barriers in the event of a wildfire be creating fuel breaks.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
The new fire risk modeling that was completed shows that the risk is as high as possible to experience a widespread uncharacteristic wildfire that could devastate the entire area. The fuel break portion of the project has identified specific roads that would be used as containment lines to prevent uncharacteristic event. The opening up of encroached meadows also provides areas for containment. If fuel reduction and wildfire fuel breaks are not urgently completed in this area then the impacts of wildfire could be much greater than if the projects are completed. The thinning of overgrown stands near roads rearranges fuels that will lead to a longer term reduction in fuels that will also prevent uncharacteristic wildfire. South Browne Creek is losing aquatic habitat and if not repaired and reversed in the near term the ability for the genetically pure Cutthroat Trout to sustain and propagate may be hindered. This would be resolved with the stream restoration. The open meadows are currently being lost at a rapid rate, to conifer encroachment according to long-term monitoring if no action is taken now the trend will continue and these areas will be lost or become much more expensive to rehabilitate.
Relation To Management Plan:
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Plan This project would meet the following objective and strategy through the stream restoration: Objective 4: Secure and enhance watershed conditions Strategy 4: Maintain sources of genetically pure Colorado River cutthroat trout Strive to improve watershed conditions for CRCT, including development of protocols for monitoring Uintah County Management Plan This project would meet two objectives of the Uintah County Management Plan 7.4.1 Use active and adaptive forest management to improve forest health and support multiple use and sustained yield with emphasis on employment, forest product production, open space, wildlife habitat, forage, recreation, and other social and economic benefits. 7.4.2 Encourage management of forest resources to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires, which cause unacceptable harm to resources and assets valued by society, including ecosystem and community health and resilience. Utah Statewide Elk Management Plan 1. The proposed plan addresses concerns discussed in Habitat Section III. 2. Population Objective 2: Identify future habitat restoration projects with stakeholders. 3. Watershed Restoration Initiative Goals a) Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk habitat. b) 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. i) Identify habitat projects on summer ranges (aspen communities) to improve calving habitat. ii) Encourage land managers to manage portions of forests in early succession stages through the use controlled burning and logging. Controlled burning should only be used in areas with minimal invasive weed and/or safety concerns. Utah Mule Deer Statewide Management Plan 1. The proposed project falls with in crucial mule deer habitat restoration priority areas. 2. 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. 3. Work with land management agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, and local leaders through the regional Watershed Restoration Initiative working groups to identify and prioritize mule deer habitats that are in need of enhancement or restoration (Figure 6). Forest Plan- The proposed action has been reviewed and is conformance with the Forest Land Management Plan FLMP (1986) for the Ashley National Forest. The FLMP identifies the need and gives specific direction and objectives for management and maintenance of critical habitat by means of treating conifer encroachment. Additional FLMP objectives which are included in the Allotment Management Plans for each allotment include: 1. Manage the habitat of all T&E or sensitive plant and animal species to maintain or enhance status (Objective 3, IV-30). 2. Maintain or improve soil stability, site productivity, and repair or stabilize damaged watersheds (Objective 2, IV-39). 3. Maintain or improve riparian areas and riparian dependent resource values including wildlife, fish, vegetation, watershed, and recreation in a stable or upward trend. Manage for species diversity (Objective 1, IV-45). 4. Manage vegetation to enhance the riparian ecosystem (Objective 2, IV-46). 5. Maintain natural complexity and high relative productivity of riparian areas (IV-45). 6. Riparian areas will be given a high priority for rehabilitation in range improvement, fish and wildlife improvement, watershed restoration, road maintenance, and KV programs (IV-46). 7. Manage vegetation in riparian areas to be in good or excellent ecological condition, with a stable or upward trend (IV-46). Agreement for Shared Stewardship between the State of Utah and the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. *Using all available tools for active management. The States and the Forest Service will use every available authority and tool to do more work on the ground, including timber sales, mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, hazardous fuels reduction, long-term stewardship contracts, innovative wood-product utilization, carefully managing fire, and working with partners. Sage Grouse Plan The project would benefit SGMAs by reducing the ability of wildfire to expand beyond containment lines Protect SGMAs by. i. Pre-suppression: Landscapes across all jurisdictions are resilient to fire-related disturbances in accordance with management objectives. Human populations and infrastructure can withstand a wildfire without loss of life and property. a. Prioritize fuels mitigation to protect habitats within and near SGMAs, second only to the protection of human life and property, with the goal of reducing threats to sage-grouse from wildfire. State Resource Management Plan Increase communication and cooperation among programs within the Department of Natural Resources and other State and Federal agencies.
Fire / Fuels:
Recent fire risk modeling determined that the entire municipal watershed is at a high risk of a devastating uncharacteristic wildfire. Three out of the five projects will have direct benefits to the fire risk by removing fuels or rearranging fuels where risk will decrease over time and allow firefighters areas to contain the burns. Fuels projects were allowed in the Congressional Act that designated the majority of this area. The fuel breaks will not only protect the watershed, but some will be completed near the Oaks Park Cabin Community, private property near Massey Meadow, recreational routes. Minimizing spread of any uncharacteristic wildfire will also has tremendous benefit for wildlife, recreation, and grazing.
Water Quality/Quantity:
The largest indirect benefit to water quality will occur after the completion of the fuel breaks under the new CE category by assisting firefighters to gain the upper hand on an otherwise widespread uncharacteristic wildfire and preventing the entire area from burning. All of the other projects will benefit water quality and quantity. The pre-commercial thinning portion of the project will allow precipitation to land on the forest floor and enter the groundwater/surface water cycle increasing available water. It will also provide a rearrangement of fuels that in the long term should decrease fire severity. The meadow enhancement portion of the project will eliminate trees in mountain meadows. This will decrease evapotranspirative desiccation allowing more water in the system which should increase both wetted area and stream flow and increase distance between live water and timber burn areas in the event of a wildfire.. The stream restoration will involve placement of grade control structures and planting which would decrease sediment loads and catch sediment preventing the sediment from flowing downstream benefiting local water quality and increasing wet areas for late season water. Some areas around the stream have lost all wetland vegetative species, this project should restore the water table leading to an expansion of hydric vegetation. The guzzlers would decrease pressure on existing water sources benefitting local water quality. Several of these sub-watersheds are listed on the 303(d) impaired waters list. The above treatments will benefit these impairments. The stream restoration will reduce sediment input reducing contaminants, the meadow restoration will provide a wider buffer zone for material to drop out prior to entering the stream, and the guzzlers will move livestock and wildlife away from perennial sources reducing ungulate disturbance.
Compliance:
NEPA is complete for the meadow enhancement project and the precommercial thinning. NEPA will be complete in Spring 2022 for the Browne Creek Restoration and Guzzler Project. The Archaeology funding for the fuel breaks would allow the USFS to utilize a new CE passed under the 2021 Infrastructure Law, and pursue other funding opportunities for implementation. The projects will comply with the Draft Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area plan.
Methods:
The Ashley National Forest has identified several projects that will benefit the proper function of the watershed now and provide potential benefits in the event of a wildfire. -Mountain meadows that are experiencing a significant amount of conifer encroachment will have lop and scatter treatments which would reestablish former boundaries and maintain and enhance these areas. -Pre-commercial thinning would occur in some lodgepole pine stands that would allow establishment of larger trees and eliminate the brushy thick trees. -Guzzlers will be constructed in areas to diversify water supplies spreading livestock and wildlife away from overused water resources. -South Fork Browne Creek will undergo restoration to decrease sediment loads and enhance aquatic habitat, -Cultural Resource surveys would occur in order to quickly utilize a new categorical exclusion to create fire breaks. After the completion of the NEPA the timber cold be sold to the public for firewood or saw timber.
Monitoring:
The Ashley has a long term monitoring program that will be utilized to determine long term trends. More specific monitoring will occur on a local basis. For example: the stream restoration will be monitored every 2-4 years to determine needs for reentry and to observe the stream's progress. Pre-Commercial Thinning areas will be monitored for growth to determine when commercial harvest will occur. The meadow enhancement project will be monitored to determine when reentry will be needed and to seed if increasing the meadow's resiliency will measurably add to available forage. The fuel breaks will be actively monitored to ensure the ability of firefighters to utilize the areas to combat wildfire. . Trail cameras may also be utilized to determine both wildlife and livestock use of the Guzzlers. Utah wildlife tracker shows that Mountain Goats and Mule Deer use the area near the guzzlers frequently. The Utah Wildlife Tracker will continue to be used to see if any of the projects lead to increased use. A completion report will be added to the database and updated.
Partners:
The U.S. Congress is coordination with Uintah County established the Ashley Karst National Recreation and Geologic Area. They identified the importance of this area to local communities water supply. The Forest Service and the Central Utah Water Conservancy (CUWCD) have worked together to enhance the protection of water quality in the event of a wildfire. CUWCD is also contributing funding for a portion of this project. The Forest Service in collaboration with Utah Forestry Fire and State lands have ranked several landscapes on the Ashley National Forest and this area was rated in the upper tier. The USFS has contacted DWR fish biologists to determine if the stream restoration would provide a substantial benefit to Cutthroat Trout fish. The USFS contacted Trout Unlimited to pursue opportunities to partner to complete the stream restoration work which may include utilizing the local chapter for volunteer labor. A grazing permittee applied for funding through UGIP to pursue partial funding for the guzzler portion of the project. If the archaeology portion of the project is completed next summer it will allow the Ashley National Forest to request more funding from additional partners and expand into different jurisdictions both private and public land. The USFS has begun early discussions with the NRCS on the potential of a grant that would help fund work on both public and private land in this area. This would allow for the other phases of the project to continue on other jurisdictions. The projects currently proposed for implementation are completely within the Ashley National Forest and do not occur close enough to other jurisdictions to completer work outside of NFS ground.
Future Management:
This project will have a large influence in how the future of this area will be utilized. The fuel breaks have been identified to provide firefighters the best opportunity to prevent a widespread uncharacteristic fire that would change grazing practices, timber harvests and watershed function. The meadow restoration will also enhance vegetation for continued grazing. The Ashley is also beginning a Prescribed Fire Analysis for this area the fuel breaks, meadow enhancement and thinning will allow for this activity to proceed at a quicker pace. As the prescribed fire and fire break analyses move forward entities that share boundaries with the USFS will be contacted to determine if they would like to also perform fuel treatments. All of the projects will be monitored to determine need for reentry and maintenance. All project are expected to require long term maintenance. If the archaeology is completed next summer it will allow the USFS to seek implementation dollars from additional partners including the potential for the NRCS and USFS to pursue a Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Program Grant funding work on both public and private property. The timber thinning will be monitored to determine when thinned stands will be ready for sustainable harvest.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
The lop and scatter project and the pre-commercial thinning projects will open up the canopies and enhance meadows which allow for an increase in forage for grazing and wildlife and allow for better access for hunters. The thinning will also allow for trees to grow and be sustainably harvested in the future. The restoration at Browne Creek will increase fishing opportunities. The future fuel breaks will enhance the ability to combat wildfires to minimize acres lost. This benefits all sustainable uses. Some of the timber removed for fuel breaks will be sold to the public. The Guzzler project will enhance water resources for wildlife and livestock for recreational and agricultural benefits.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$373,156.00 $16,000.00 $389,156.00 $31,355.00 $420,511.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Contractual Services Pre-commercial thinning contract (570.4 acres @ $265/acre) $151,156.00 $0.00 $3,500.00 2023
Contractual Services Archeological Surveys $90,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2023
Contractual Services Equipment and Operators for Stream Restoration $15,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 2023
Contractual Services Meadow Lop and Scatter contract (1961 acres @ $55/acre) $100,000.00 $0.00 $7,855.00 2023
Materials and Supplies Guzzler tanks (2 @ 1800 gal. including delivery). Funding expected from UGIP grant. $0.00 $16,000.00 $0.00 2023
Materials and Supplies Guzzler apron materials and supplies for two guzzlers (see attached materials and construction doc). $7,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Equipment and/or Seed Transport Helicopter Service to place two guzzlers and materials on site $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2023
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$1,942,252.34 $16,000.00 $1,958,252.34 $33,857.29 $1,992,109.63
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
United States Forest Service (USFS) $0.00 $0.00 $31,355.00 2023
UDAF-Grazing Improvement Fund (GIP) $12,000 provided thru UGIP and $4,000 from permittee. $0.00 $16,000.00 $0.00 2023
United States Forest Service (USFS) A197 E4Z234A05M - Mastication $147,789.84 $0.00 $0.00 2024
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $2,502.29 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05 $630,000 - Mod 1 - Mastication $190,000 - Mod 1 - Arch $144,096.34 $0.00 $0.00 2023
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05A Cultural $155,000 Guzzler $17,000 L/S $50,000 Pre Commercial Thinning $156,156 $135,602.64 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 E4Z234A05A $12,548.21 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 E4Z234A05A $3,580.87 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) T192 E4Z234A05A $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
Central Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) T252 E4Z234A05A $75,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05M Mod 1 and 3 Mastication $243,810.16 $0.00 $0.00 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05H Mod 1 - CRI $14,746.67 $0.00 $0.00 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05A $242,553.36 $0.00 $0.00 2025
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05M $416,189.84 $0.00 $0.00 2025
USFS - Shared Stewardship A156 E4Z234A05H $175,253.33 $0.00 $0.00 2025
United States Forest Service (USFS) A197 E4Z234A05M $252,210.16 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Mule Deer Foundation (MDF) S023 E4Z234A05A $22,451.79 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Sportsman for Fish & Wildlife (SFW) S027 E4Z234A05A $6,419.13 $0.00 $0.00 2025
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) Low
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Colorado River Cutthroat Trout N2 R1
Threat Impact
Temperature Extremes High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Greater Sage-grouse N3 R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Ruffed Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Dusky Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Droughts Medium
Dusky Grouse R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Increasing Stream Temperatures Unknown
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Habitat Shifting and Alteration Medium
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Soil Erosion / Loss High
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Improper Grazing – Livestock (current) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channel Downcutting (indirect, unintentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Channelization / Bank Alteration (direct, intentional) High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Droughts High
Riverine
Threat Impact
Sediment Transport Imbalance Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
Can you give some more detail on how the wildlife tracker was used to identify guzzler locations? You mention in the monitoring section that the tracker shows mountain goats and mule deer use the guzzler area frequently, but when I look at it, it appears that they use areas nearby where the guzzlers are planned, but are actually avoiding the specific guzzler locations. (At least the collared animals are, but then, we don't have any location data for non-collared animals.) Did you choose these locations because of this avoidance and are hoping the guzzlers will distribute wildlife use across the landscape? One of the two locations appears to be an old pond, the location of which would not have been determined using this recent tool. I think the wildlife tracker could be a valuable tool to help monitor wildlife response to these projects, but I'm skeptical about it's use in planning them. Please convince me.
Comment 01/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I misstated that it was used in identifying the area. The area was identified prior to access being given to USFS employees. After the access was received, the tracker was used to confirm mule deer use in the area. We were surprised to see the extended amount of time Mountain Goats used the area. The wildlife stick closer to water sources, so creating two new sources would probably extend the range and availability of forage.
Comment 01/28/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I updated the proposal to better demonstrate that process by stating that the data was used to confirm wildlife use and not in the planning process.
Comment 01/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
I think you are missing a few relevant management plans, which could limit how many points I'm able to award when it comes to ranking. I know both the State of Utah and Uintah County resource management plans have objectives and strategies that would apply to this project. There are also species specific plans for sage-grouse and Colorado cutthroat trout. If you're claiming benefits to these species, there are likely objectives from these plans that apply.
Comment 01/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I have added sections for the State and County plans. As well as sage-grouse and CRCT.
Comment 01/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
As a resident of Ashley Valley I want this project to succeed. Not just in getting funded, but in actually accomplishing its objectives to protect the Ashley Valley water supply through fire protection. To that end, I would like to suggest that the lodgepole pine thinning have less emphasis on preparing for future commercial harvest and more on fire protection. I would like to see tree spacing in these thinned areas more closely resemble what the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache has done on their Burnt Beaver project and less like what the Ashley has done in the past. I'm not convinced the tree spacing on past Ashley thinning projects is enough to stop or slow a wildfire like we saw on Dollar Ridge and East Fork. In addition, I would like to see more of this work done in the actual Ashley Karst area. Perhaps some of it is already being planned, such as the briefly mentioned prescribed fire analysis? The proposal may benefit from a little more explanation about some of these future phases. I also have a question on the fuel breaks. Can you describe what these will eventually look like? Will they be shaded fuel breaks where you thin and remove understory vegetation but leave the crowns, which could still carry a severe fire? The shaded fuel breaks constructed around Moon Lake a few years ago did basically nothing to slow the East Fork fire. How are these being designed to be more effective than those were?
Comment 01/13/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: James McRae
The NEPA decision for the pre-commercial thinning treatment included in this project identifies leaving 300 to 360 residual trees per acre. Leaving 300 trees per acre can be accomplished with an average spacing of roughly 12 feet. This target density was developed to maintain a reasonable balance between individual tree growth and stand growth. In other words, larger trees would develop over a set period of time at a lower density, but more wood volume could be produced over the same time period at a higher density. The treatment polygons are almost entirely within lands identified as suitable for timber production. Slightly less than 9% of the Ashley National Forest is suitable for timber production. As such, timber production should be one of the objectives in the management of these areas. One disadvantage with a wider tree spacing is growing space is available for fill-in regeneration to establish and develop. This may create a need to do some maintenance in the future to keep the density down and reduce the ladder fuels. One benefit to a tighter spacing is it helps to maintain a more uniformed single-storied structure. The residual trees are able to capture the site and restrict the establishment and development of additional trees in the understory. With the spacing being prescribed for this project, the tree stands can reach rotation age without requiring any additional density management. The proposed treatment will reduce but not eliminate the risk of undesirable wildfires in the future. Creating conditions capable of stopping wildfires exhibiting the extreme kind of fire behavior witnessed on the Dollar Ridge and East Fork fires is probably not compatible with other resource objectives in this area.
Comment 01/14/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
The Fuel breaks along the road will consist of a "shaded design feature". Meaning immediately adjacent to the road corridor the vast majority of the understory and overstory vegetation will be removed, masticated or mowed to limit the amount of burnable fuels. The width of this zone is variable depending upon the vegetation type, vegetation height, slope and other conditions in the area. Some areas may be as wide as 300 feet if practical. As the area moves away from the road, the next zone will remove ladder fuels and thin overstory trees; with the intent to decrease the risk of fire transitioning from the ground into the crowns of the vegetation. The intent of these shaded fuel breaks is to reduce fire behavior, increase suppression success, improve the resistance and resilience of remaining vegetation and decreasing the risk of an unplanned fire event spreading into areas where fire is not beneficial to the system. Fire Behavior in 2020-2021: A couple points on the Moon Lake project and the East Fork fire: 1) extreme fire weather conditions are going to be very difficult for any natural or man-made barrier to inhibit fire growth, recent examples include: o East Fork (2020) fire moving out of the Wilderness area, above the tree line and moved 15 miles in less than an hour. o Cameron Peak fire in Colorado (2020) that jumped the continental divide and grew to over 200,000 acres. o Marshall Fire (December 2021) that burned in 100 mph winds and burned 1,000 structures in a grass fuel type. 2) winds on the East Fork fire were greater than 50 mph 3) the Mook Lake Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HFR) project wasn't completed 4) the incomplete Moon Lake HFR project did decrease fire behavior in the area; thus, a unburned green island around the Moon Lake campground including the resort and all buildings in the compound.
Comment 01/14/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
As noted in the project title this is phase 1 of a wider project. The areas identified for treatment are areas currently cleared and ready to implement. The Ashley NF is currently assessing other areas for treatment including additional thinning within the new NRGA. As the USFS has worked with Water Districts, Brush Creek and Little Brush Creek were also identified as priorities for water supply.
Comment 01/28/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I added a study that was completed in Alaska concerning Shaded Fuel Breaks. Hopefully this helps with your concerns.
Comment 02/03/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
I also added a brief memo from Washington State discussing fuel breaks and landscape treatments if interested.
Comment 01/12/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Tory Mathis
You have inappropriate fire frequency and intensity identified as a threat to aspen-conifer habitat type. I've mentioned before that this habitat type (as described in the wildlife action plan) is really all about aspen, and not at all concerned with conifers. As such, the inappropriate fire in regard to aspen is generally that there is too little of it. Aspen tend to respond well to hot, large fires. Since this project is all about preventing hot, large-scale fires, perhaps it would be best to remove this threat from that habitat type. Perhaps future phases that include prescribed fire or mechanical treatments that mimic fire would better address this threat.
Comment 01/13/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Ryan Mower
A site has been observed post fire at Dry Gulch where excessive ground fuels (large fallen trees) burned for a lengthy period of time and appeared to scald the root system below; hence, no sprouts followed fire. That is an exception, but has been monitored. Do you mind if we leave this threat in for now and at least have a discussion?
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
This project overlaps with dusky grouse and ruffed grouse, and you could add them as a benefiting species. Habitat diversity is important to both, as well as the fire protection aspect of the project.
Comment 01/26/2022 Type: 1 Commenter: Natasha Hadden
Thanks for you comment Avery! I will add them!
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
2419 Guzzler Construction Big game/Upland game
2420 Guzzler Construction Big game/Upland game
10960 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
11028 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Bank slope adjustment/terracing
11028 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Check dam(s) (medium stage)
11028 Aquatic/Riparian Treatment Area Stream Corridor/Channel Improvements Vanes (log)
11043 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
11303 Affected Area
Project Map
Project Map