Chaffee County denies $88,000 amendment for Methodist Front mastication after expert and public opposition

Chaffee County commissioners voted Nov. 12 to deny a request to spend $88,000 in leftover grant funds on a pinyon‑juniper mastication project in Droney Gulch, after multiple residents, wildfire fighters and ecologists urged caution and questioned the tactic's effectiveness.

Gabe Hobson, the county's senior planner for long‑range implementation, told the board the $88,000 would be matched by $175,000 from other partners and could fund between about 120 and 320 acres of mastication depending on bids. The amendment had been recommended by the Common Ground Citizen Advisory Committee on a 5–2 vote, contingent on additional maps, a weeds‑mitigation plan, an extended timeline and confirmation of landowner permission.

Public commenters and invited experts repeatedly argued that mastication — mechanically shredding standing pinyon and juniper — can increase surface fuel continuity, inhibit firefighter access, harm cryptobiotic soil crust, and encourage invasive cheatgrass. Ecologist Delia Malone said the Droney Gulch area hosts a ‘‘globally critically imperiled’’ plant occurrence and warned that off‑site activities, including mastication, could harm that rare flora and diminish wildlife habitat. Farrin McAdoo, a former wildland firefighter, described mastication as a tactic that "doesn't remove any fuel from the landscape" and warned it can make burned material harder for crews to manage.

Angie Jensen, who described prior County projects, told commissioners an agency forester once said "we know this won't stop a fire, but the public just needs to see something done," a line that several commissioners cited as a reason to demand stronger rationale for treatments.

Commissioner (Speaker 4) moved to deny the amendment and direct the $88,000 to remain in the unallocated Common Ground fund; Commissioner (Speaker 2) seconded. The motion passed and commissioners directed staff to pursue more education, bring additional evidence and mitigation planning back to the CAC, and consider a workshop or site visit so the board can better evaluate treatment tactics before authorizing funding.

Why it matters: The decision halts near‑term mechanical treatment funded by that amendment and signals commissioners' demand for more site‑specific science, explicit mitigation plans for invasives and soil protection, and community engagement before spending public funds on landscape treatments.

Next steps: County staff said they will compile additional expert materials (including the forest health expert session recording) and work with the CAC to refine evaluation criteria and mitigation requirements for future project requests.