[IMCWMA Partners] [MCWMA Partners] supplemental proposal

Sat Jul 12 14:03:06 MDT 2008

To interested folk ~

My reply is not even close to being polished (and will be very abbreviated).  I have not yet read Tara's proposal I am the point of contact for CAL FIRE fire suppression repair activities across all ownerships for all of Mendocino County (your sympathy is gratefully accepted).  Actually, as I organize this effort I feel I will have great satisfaction in minimizing damage to resources within the means available to me.  I am sensitive to the weed introduction or further weed dispersal issue, however I may have limitations re: the extent to which we can minimize weeds.  Lynn is right there are varying fire intensities throughout the county as fire weather and firefighting priorities evolved.  CAL FIRE is responsible for the repair of damage related to fire suppression activities -- this is codified in the Public Resources Code -- and not repair of damage from the fire itself.  That said CAL FIRE is sensitive to the impacts of fire damage and is in the process of forming what are being called State Emergency Assessment Teams (SEAT).  Where those teams will be deployed is unknown.  These are the teams that will do analysis in various parts of CA as Lynn mentioned had been done in Southern CA.  This is beyond the suppression repair mandate & last I heard was being organized at the Sacramento level.  For areas which require soil stabilization, my direction to field staff is to utilize organic material present near the site requiring stabilization whenever possible and practical -- in my plan I have incorporated guidelines or standards for this application.  My other goal is to ensure weed free straw mulch be applied if I am authorized to do this type of mulch application in certain instances -- I believe I will be allowed to do that.  I did see Kerry Heise's email questions regarding when will fire lines be seeded on commercial timberlands & if there are mandates to reseed.  We (CAL FIRE) do not normally seed any fire suppression lines.  There are no mandates.  We may identify some exceptions in more sensitive areas but, as a rule, we do not engage in this.  If the land owner elects to reseed, it is certainly their prerogative.  

I am an aficionado of all things botanical (including weed eradication & rare plants issues).  I will do my best.  If anyone has questions I will do my best to answer them but I am busy and, like Lynn, am exhausted with many hours already committed and have been receiving many inputs and issues related to the complex.  I will be back on the incident on Tuesday morning.  My email is getting clogged & my work cell phone voice messaging system is also get clogged but I'll work on that.  My focus will continue to be coordinating fire suppression repair for weeks (and possibly months) to come. I appreciate any thoughts on my comments & Lynn's.

Jeanette Pedersen
CAL FIRE Forester II (RPF #2497) for Mendocino Unit
(707) 391-6752 cell

________________________________

From: partners-bounces at imcwma.org on behalf of Tara Athan
Sent: Fri 7/11/2008 11:16 AM
To: partners >> MCWMA partners
Subject: Re: [IMCWMA Partners] [MCWMA Partners] supplemental proposal

Here is a response from Lynn Webb: 

Hi, 

I've been working on fire and contract crisis, but want to jump in and throw out some background.  If this is not a polished reply, I will plea exhaustion.  

On Forest service land there is a Burned Area Rehab team that looks at immediate fire rehab for land the feds manage. On state fires on private land typically the state works to repair immediate damage caused by the fire suppression effort. This is typically addressing erosion control efforts on the fire lines that were constructed.  They pay special attention to where fire lines had to cross drainages. They try to work the land owners, for example construct derivable water bars vs barrier ones.   In the last few years the state has done some inter agency efforts for example in Southern Calif. They have focused mainly on major issues like denuded watersheds that have the potential to deliver landslides to populated areas.  

So what we will have next spring is lots of dozer lines on a range of ownerships.  Some of these ownerships will be reluctant to allow any visitors because of their economic activities on the land (the other meaning of weed). Some owners may be interested but don't care about a new weed unless it's going to effect their land use, aesthetics or fire risk. How do we get these folks on board?  I'd suggest focus on the "bad weeds" and whether the population is already established outside the fire line.  

The lightning complex is having a range of effects, one of the variables will be when and how the fire burned.  Luckily for fire behavior if not for our lungs, the low winds and moderate temperatures occurred early on. Fires in sensitive areas and near communities were the priority for suppression, so I'd expect less damage there. With time the weather has changed, fire behavior intensified and the post fire effects will be more pronounced.  There will be some areas of stand replacing intensity where some landowners may be interested in reforestation. How would our surveys complement their efforts?

Decades ago annual rye was aerially seeded, now there is a general recognition that we live in a fire adapted ecosystem and any seeding should be limited to erosion threats and annual rye is not the seed to use.  Both native and naturalized exotics adapted to fire will increase in some areas.  The key will be to figure out which and where those exotics represent a persistent threat.  

In terms of restoration or revegetation, that will be a land owner specific issue. For example, I chatted a bit with Rene about the tractor line at Montgomery woods, she was going to try and collect local native seed. That makes sense for the parks objectives, but would be   implacable for other ownerships.   

I see a benefit in the WMA being to steer landowners to a certified weed free and non persistent seed if they feel they "have" to seed.  We could also mount an education campaign for land owners with a list of low fire risk natives they can plant around their homes.

Post fire is an interesting time, it reminds us our ecosystem is indeed dynamic. There are positives and negatives, and we will have lots of variability within the county. I've spent much of my carrier in this mode and would love to share more but I'm swamped. 

Lynn

Lynn Webb

Jackson Demonstration State Forest

________________________________

From: partners-bounces at mcwma.org [mailto:partners-bounces at mcwma.org] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 9:43 PM
To: MCWMA partners
Subject: [MCWMA Partners] supplemental proposal

Here is a draft of the supplemental proposal for bulldozer line survey. I would really appreciate your feedback as to whether this makes sense.
I haven't put together the detailed budget but here are my thoughts.
Total 50,000 (maximum allowed)
50% to development of protocol, arranging access, GIS, and other aspects of project management
50% to labor on the ground for the survey.
Estimating a team of 1 botanist and 2 techs costs about $1000 a day and covers 10 mi, so $100/mi.
$25,000 would buy 250 miles of surveying over 25 days. Might need two crews if window for surveying is short.
This is a small fraction (perhaps 10%) of the total length of lines, and would be supplemented by other grants and also surveys conducted by the major commercial landowners and agencies of their own properties.

Question- where does revegetation fit into this? CDFA will not fund revegetation, but we could apply for revegetation funding from other sources as match. Revegetation is certainly a necessary component of long-term invasive suppression. Does it make sense to also survey for native seed sources while surveying for the invasives? Would we recommend planting non-persistent cover crops, such as cereal barley, and planting again the following year with locally collected native seed? Or would it be better to promote revegetation with native seed, even if it doesn't come from local sources?

All suggestions welcome - please get these to me by Monday (proposal due on Tuesday).

Thanks for your input.

Tara

-- 
My e-mail delivery has been unreliable lately, so I am asking for
return receipts from all my email messages.
OK'ing the return receipt lets me know that my message was delivered.
Thank you.

Tara Athan
Coordinator, Mendocino Coast Cooperative Weed Management Area
coord [AT] mcwma.org
707-485-1198
PO Box 415
Redwood Valley, CA 95470
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>  
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1546 - Release Date: 7/11/2008 6:47 AM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/>  
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.7/1546 - Release Date: 7/11/2008 6:47 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://imcwma.org/pipermail/partners_imcwma.org/attachments/20080712/8a3f02bb/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Partners mailing list
Partners at mcwma.org
http://mcwma.org/mailman/listinfo/partners_mcwma.org