FY07-09 proposal 200724700

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Mountain Columbia / Clark Fork

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: Maintenance costs are limited to some additonal restoration and maintenance of a recreation foot trail in the area. Some retreading may be needed immediately following fire, and in subsequent years, there will be increased trail clearing costs due to burned trees falling over. The Forest Service will assume these costs. Future prescribed burning will be needed in the lower elevation portions of the project area (approx. 2000 acres) in 15-20 years.

Termination date: 12/31/2016
Comments: Project will terminate when fire has been applied to the 4,800 acres within the desired burn perimeter. We realize that the Forest Service portion of this project may continue beyond the involvement of BPA.

Final deliverables: Prescribed fire applied to between 4,500 and 5,000 acres within the designated boundary. Fire resulting in approximately 39% understory/low intensity, 53% mixed lethal/moderate intensity, and 8% stand replacement/high intensity fire throughout the project area.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This is a discrete, short-term project with likely immediate benefits to bighorn sheep, and possible longer-term benefits for grizzly bear reoccupation. While designed to benefit bighorn sheep, surely late seral species on the site would also be affected, as would any downstream aquatic species if severe erosion were to result. The proposal describes its relation to planning in the area but Habitat Units to be gained are not identified. The proposal notes that this is not in a planned subbasin, but cites surrounding plans. The proposed action is consistent with the Program and with other relevant Federal and State initiatives and is related to projects on the same USFS district and adjacent National Forest. Montana Fish and Game seems to be involved, but not to any State or any BPA programs. Habitat Units likely would accrue, but the USFS may not be accustomed to viewing their activities in this light. The methods section of the proposal repeats the justification, but elsewhere the general burn procedure is described, but not the entire project, including pre-burn surveys, environmental clearances etc. The USFS probably has the ability to complete the planned project. The ISRP would like a description of how this site fits into the year-long requirements of the sheep and if proposed work is part of a larger, integrated plan. The proposal states effectiveness monitoring is omitted due to recent research showing the approach is sound. However, the authors should consider conducting follow-up monitoring on direct vegetative response to the burns. The ISRP requests a response to how vegetation on the burn areas will be monitored. This doesn't need to be a research-level effort. The goal of sampling would be to allow comparison of vegetation change and animal use over time. The ISRP also request a discussion of erosion and sedimentation, and noxious weed invasion, all of which might occur. The ISRP requests a more complete description of “Information transfer will be electronic.” Please describe what information, to whom and why? It would be valuable to develop this into a fundable proposal. Many of the subbasin plans identify fuel and forest succession problems, but controlled burn proposals are scarce. Prescribed fire as a treatment would be widely applicable; however, few of the proposing agencies have the fire management experience of the Forest Service.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This is a discrete, short-term controlled burn project with likely immediate and longer-term benefits to bighorn sheep, and possible benefits for grizzly bear reoccupation. Many of the subbasin plans identify fuel and forest succession problems, but controlled burn proposals are scarce. Prescribed fire as a treatment would be widely applicable. Habitat Units likely would accrue, but HUs to be gained are not reported. The proposal notes that this is not in a planned subbasin, but cites surrounding plans. The proposed action is consistent with the Program and with other relevant Federal and State initiatives and is related to projects on the same USFS district and adjacent National Forest. Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks is responsible for wildlife populations. In the original proposal, only general burn procedures were described. The Forest Service response provided useful details in answer to ISRP questions including pre-burn surveys, environmental clearances, information reporting and other details. Monitoring had been deemed unnecessary, but in response to the ISRP, an aerial photo monitoring procedure is proposed to examine changes in timber type following burning. The response addressed concern about infiltration and sedimentation following controlled burns with general information, but the ISRP notes that the intensity of the proposed burns, including 53% mixed lethal/moderate and 8% stand replacing, is greater than that described in that discussion. Site specific characteristics, such as the steepness of these south and west slopes and preference for fall burning that will leave slopes less vegetated during peak precipitation were not addressed. The ISRP remains concerned about sediment dumping into the Thompson River. The Thompson feeds a segment of the Clark Fork where bull trout spawn (the ISRP is not clear if there is spawning in the Thompson as well). As stated, the watershed impacts of a natural burn would probably be more destructive than controlled burning, but that does not negate concern for impacts of this project. Perhaps burning from low to high elevation over several years would establish some buffering vegetation and reduce overall potential impact on streams.