Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project

Transcription

1 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Fire and Fuels Report Prepared by: T. Buhl Fire/Fuels Specialist for: Jackson Ranger District Bridger-Teton National Forest Date April 9, 2011 Updated February 4, 2014 Updated April 11, 2016 Updated February 3, 2017

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA s TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , or call (800) (voice) or (202) (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

3 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Overview of Issues Addressed... 1 Methodology, Scientific Accuracy, and Assumptions... 2 Affected Environment... 3 Existing Condition... 3 Regulatory Direction for Desired Condition... 9 Federal Policy... 9 Other Required Disclosures Environmental Consequences Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Reduce Potential Impacts to Special Areas and Wildlife Habitat Comparison of Alternatives 2 and Summary References Cited Appendix A - Alternative 2 Treatments Appendix B Alternative 3 Treatments Appendix C - Glossary of Terms Preparer Other Contributors List of Tables Table 1. Acres burned in project area... 4 Table 2. Current distribution of fire behavior fuel models in the Teton to Snake project area... 7 Table 3. Fireline intensity interpretations... 7 Table 4. Potential fire behavior characteristics modeled under a dry fuel moisture scenario with 25 mph upslope 20-foot winds... 8 Table 5. Alternative 2 proposed treatments and acres Table 6. Fire behavior potential within the defense and threat zones under alternative two Table 7. Alternative 3 proposed treatments and acres Table 8. Fire behavior potential within the defense and threat zones under alternative Table 9. Comparison of fire behavior potential by zone and alternative Table 10. Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the Purpose and Need List of Figures Figure 1. Photo showing understory ladder fuels with over story live and dead conifers... 6 Figure 2. Green Knoll fire on July 27, 2001 burning in the Mosquito Creek drainage... 9 Bridger-Teton National Forest i

4

5 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Introduction The Bridger Teton National Forest is proposing the Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project. This project would use prescribed burning and mechanical thinning treatment activities to reduce fuels and modify fire behavior. The project encompasses approximately 76,056 acres and lies west of the Jackson Hole valley. The Teton County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Teton County CWPP 2005) identifies 50,178 acres of the project area as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and identifies several communities adjacent to the project area as communities at risk. For this project, the WUI is divided into two sub-classifications: defense zone and threat zone. The defense zone is an area extending onequarter mile from the ownership boundary between national forest and private land, the threat zone includes the remaining area within the WUI boundary. In this report we discuss the existing and desired condition and provide an overview of the fuel treatments and effects of those treatments by alternative. Overview of Issues Addressed This project (USDA 2010) includes the need to: improve firefighter and public safety; reduce wildland fire threat to residential areas; and allow forest managers to transition from suppressing all fires to a more natural fire regime. The following issues related to fire and fuels were identified during internal and external scoping for the project: Wildland Fire and Homes: Proposed treatments may be inefficient and ineffective in reducing home losses due to fire. Fire Behavior: Proposed fuel reduction work will not reduce fire behavior. Fire Suppression: Proposed treatments will not reduce future wildfire suppression activities and associated impacts. Issue Indicators The measures to assess how well each alternative meets the purpose and need are: Fireline Intensity expressed as flame length Change in potential flame length across the project area. Flame lengths generally less than 4 feet are desired, allowing for safe direct attack by handcrews. Flame lengths greater than 4 feet generally require equipment to be employed such as dozers and aircraft; beyond 8 feet torching, crowning and spotting can occur (Rothermel 1983, p. 59). Fire Type Change in the potential fire type across the project area, measured as acres of surface fire versus passive or crown fire 1. Surface fire is desired to allow for safer and more effective fire suppression action. 1 Surface Fire: Fire that burns loose debris on the surface, which include dead branches, leaves, and low vegetation. Surface fire burns only in the surface fuelbed. Passive Crown Fire: consuming single or small groups of 1

6 Fire and Fuels Report Snag Density Levels Reduction in the number of standing dead trees (snags) per acre within 200 feet of homes. Reducing snag density levels will allow a better margin of safety for firefighting forces engaging in fire suppression actions. Methodology, Scientific Accuracy, and Assumptions The fuels specialists made two field visits in 2009 and 2010 to observe fuel conditions in the project area and identify areas where treatment may be needed. Stand exam and fuels data collected from representative stands was processed through the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Stage 2003) to simulate the effects of the proposed mechanical and prescribed burn treatments on forest canopy characteristics including canopy cover, canopy bulk density, canopy base height, and canopy height. These outputs were then applied to the Bridger-Teton National Forests calibrated Landfire Data 2 to build a post-treatment landscape file for use in the FlamMap fire behavior model (Finney 2006). The FlamMap model was then used to assess the distribution of potential wildland fire behavior characteristics under a set of fuel moisture and wind conditions as determined in the existing condition fire modeling report (Helmbrecht 2010). Post treatment modeling was conducted assuming all fuels treatments have been applied. Fire behavior fuel models used were derived from Scott and Burgan (2005) as a measure to display general changes in fuel profiles by vegetative cover type. Fuel models were adjusted over the project area to reflect the current and post treatment conditions. Interpretation, professional judgment, and local knowledge of fire behavior were used to evaluate the inputs and outputs of the models. Given the uncertainty of any modeling exercise, the results are best used to compare the relative effects of the alternatives, rather than as an indicator of absolute effects (Graham et al. 2004). For more information on modeling methodology and assumptions refer to the Fuels and Fire Behavior Report for this project (Helmbrecht 2011). Information Sources Information sources used for this analysis are listed below and represent some of the best available science that was available at the time of report completion. National Agricultural Imagery Program (USDA Farm Service Agency 2011) aerial photo digital imagery. Site visits during the summer of 2009 & 2010 GIS spatial data acquired from the Bridger Teton National Forest and other sources where noted: Landfire spatial data. Bridger Teton National Forest Plan management area boundaries Property ownership boundaries Project area boundary trees or bushes. Active Crown Fire: The surface fire ignites crowns and the fire spread is able to propagate through the tree canopy. 2 LANDFIRE ( is a national vegetation and fuels mapping project that provides nationally consistent and seamless geospatial data products for use in wildland fire analysis and modeling. LANDFIRE National data on elevation, aspect, slope, fire behavior fuel model, canopy cover, canopy height, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density were used as the basis for geospatial wildland fire modeling. The LANDFIRE National data was refined in 2009 by the fire and fuels staff on the Bridger Teton National Forest to better represent conditions at the local level. 2

7 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Historic wildfires Scientific literature Past management activities Wildland urban interface classification and boundaries Historic weather records Other unpublished documents Incomplete and Unavailable Information None known. Assumptions A number of assumptions are made in this analysis and are listed below: Current Forest Plan and other pertinent management direction would continue indefinitely into the future No major disturbance, such as wildfire, blow down or insect epidemics would occur until implementation is completed. This analysis discusses future risk and probable effects if a disturbance occurs. It is not a future projection of the occurrence. The Teton to Snake Project area is sufficient to analyze and discuss effects to the fire and fuels resource. Information contained in the Fuels and Fire Behavior Report (Helmbrecht 2013) and the Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Processes Report (Abendroth 2013) and can also be applied to the Teton to Snake Project area. Refer to the modeling methodology and assumptions discussed in the Fuels and Fire Behavior report (Helmbrecht 2013) for more discussion on the assumptions used in this analysis. Affected Environment Existing Condition The natural fire regime is a general classification of the role fire would play across the landscape in the absence of modern human intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993). The natural or historical fire regimes are classified by number of years between fires (frequency) and the severity of the fire on the dominant over story vegetation. The mixture of forest types found in western Wyoming developed under a variety of fire regimes, with varying moisture, temperature and vegetation composition (Bradley and Fischer 2002). The historic fire regime in the project area consisted of low- to mixed-severity small fires occurring almost yearly, mixed severity fires occurring during drought periods in the absence of high winds, and large, moderate to high-severity fires occurring during drought periods and high winds. The result was forested (including aspen) patches of varying ages and sizes in an herbaceous and shrub-dominated landscape. In the early 1970 s, Loope and Gruell noted the successional plant changes in the absence of fire have resulted in a deterioration of aspen stands, increases in conifer cover, heavy fuel buildup and an increase in shrubs, including big sagebrush. This is still quite evident in the Teton to Snake project area where a dense component of young trees and shrubs has created 3

8 Fire and Fuels Report concentrations of ladder fuels 3. For more information on this subject, refer to the Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Processes Report (Abendroth 2011). Fire History and Occurrence Fire has been the major influence on vegetation patterns, composition, structure, function, age and development of both individual stands and the larger landscape (Arno2000). Historically wildfires in the project area appear to have been more frequent and greatly impacted forest vegetation. The below excerpt by T. S. Brandegee (1899) described the forests around Jackson Hole: Only a fraction of its area, probably not more than one-fourth, is covered with trees, and most of these are young, small, and of species of little value for lumber. This condition appears to be due simply and solely to fires which have swept over the country so completely and persistently that scarcely any part has been entirely exempt from them, while nearly all portions have been burned again and again within a generation. A large proportion of the area has been burned so persistently and frequently that the forests have ceased, temporarily at least, to attempt to restore themselves, and these regions are now grass-covered parks. About 21,918 acres within the project area have been burned by wildfires greater than 80 acres since the early 1930s, not including the numerous small wildfires that occurred and were suppressed or simply went out. Most of that acreage burned during three wildfires in 1934, which was prior to the institution of the 10 am Policy in The 10 am Policy made aggressive fire suppression the standard response and which led to reductions in the numbers of wildfires. Table 1 includes about 700 acres of wildfire area that was burned in 1934 and then again in Historic fire occurrence data also show 198 fires, an average of four fires per year have been suppressed in the project area from 1953 to Although fires occur in the project area during most years, the drought years of 1934 and 2001 saw large acreages burned. Table 1. Acres burned in project area Fire Acres , ,165 Total 21,918 There have been occasional large, stand-replacement fires occurring under very dry and windy conditions. Recent examples on the BTNF include the Purdy fire in 2006 which burned approximately 17,000 acres and the Green Knoll Fire in The Green Knoll Fire burned approximately 4,700 acres and threatened the communities of Wilson, Teton Village and many landowners in the surrounding area. The fire burned for over a month and resulted in the evacuation of many homeowners. Fire Behavior and Fuel Condition Fire behavior is driven by the combination of fuels, topography, and weather across the landscape. Surface fires spread according to the direction and speed of wind and/or the steepness of a slope. Passive 3 Ladder fuels are defined as Fuel that provides vertical continuity between surface fuel and canopy fuel strata, increasing the likelihood that fire will carry from surface fuel into the crowns of shrubs and trees 4

9 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project crown fire encompasses a wide range of fire behavior from individual trees torching to nearly active crown fire. Active crown fire spreads rapidly and involves surface and canopy fuels and spreads from tree to tree through the canopy. Crown fires are more difficult to control and have more severe effects as compared to a surface fire due to higher rates of spread, increased fire intensity, and increased probability of spot fires igniting ahead of the fire front. Fuel conditions exist in the project area that could contribute to high intensity fire adjacent to communities. Treatments that decrease surface, ladder and canopy fuels generally make the area more resistant to standreplacing wildfires. Keane and others (2002) state that since the early 1930s, fire suppression programs in the United States and Canada successfully reduced wildland fires in many Rocky Mountain ecosystems. This lack of fires has created forest and range landscapes with atypical accumulations of fuels that pose a hazard to many ecosystem characteristics. The health of many Rocky Mountain ecosystems is now in decline because of fire exclusion; fire exclusion has actually made it more difficult to fight fires, and this poses greater risks to the people who fight fires and for those who live in and around Rocky Mountain forests and rangelands. They also indicate that the role of fire will continue to change in the Rocky Mountains as we continue to exclude fires from landscapes. It is not a question of if a landscape will burn, but rather, when it burns and how severe and intense that fire will be. Fuel conditions vary widely throughout the project area. In the defense zone many of the areas proposed for treatment are densely stocked and have developed ladder fuels as well as increased concentrations of surface fuels 4 due to insect and disease mortality and natural forest succession. Figure 1 is an example of an area in Taylor Mountain Unit 2 that is being proposed for treatment. With concentrations of fuels, individual trees or groups of trees may torch and fire could continue through the tree crowns aided by high winds. Ignition in many of these areas could produce extreme fire behavior and threaten private land or other resource values. In addition concentrations of fuels may hinder the ability of firefighters to construct fireline. 4 Surface fuel is defined as fuel lying on or near the surface of the ground, consisting of leaf and needle litter, dead branch material downed logs, bark, tree cones, and living plants of low stature. 5

10 Fire and Fuels Report Figure 1. Photo showing understory ladder fuels with over story live and dead conifers Rothermel (1972) defined a fire behavior fuel model as a complete set of fuel inputs for the mathematical fire spread model. This model can predict surface fire behavior and transition to crown fire. In 2005, Scott and Burgan developed the Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models to improve the accuracy of fire behavior predictions outside of the severe period of the fire season, such as during prescribed fire and resource benefit fire applications. These models were used to determine the distribution of fuel model throughout the project area. The majority of the fuels in the project area (36%) are mapped as TU1 fuel model consisting of a low load of grass and shrub fuel mixed with forest litter 5. Pockets of fuel model TU5 are found throughout the project area primarily on the cooler and wetter north facing aspects. The primary carrier of fire in fuel model TU5 is heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree understory which can lead to crown fire due to the abundance of ladder fuels. The TL4 fuel model is also found in the project area and consists of a moderate load of fine litter and coarse fuels. Fuel loading and arrangement in these areas varies considerably with most of the tonnage in the form of logs and timber litter. The majority of the non-forested fuel models within the project area are mapped as GS2 consisting of a moderate load of grass and shrubs and GR1, dry climate grass. The GS2 fuel model is represented by the open grass and 5 Litter; n. Leaves, needles, fine twigs, and other organic material on the forest or grassland floor that have undergone little or no decomposition. 6

11 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project brush areas and can exhibit high rates of spread and flame lengths under drier conditions. The distribution of fuel models in the Teton to Snake project area is shown in Table 2. Table 2. Current distribution of fire behavior fuel models in the Teton to Snake project area Fuel Model Fuel Model Descriptor Acres % of Total TU1 Low load, dry climate timber-grass-shrub 28,775 36% TU5 Very high load, dry climate timber-shrub 13,899 17% GS2 Moderate load, dry climate grass-shrub 10,951 14% TL4 Small downed logs 10,291 13% GR1 Short, sparse dry climate grass 8,524 11% SH2 Moderate load, dry climate shrub 2,260 3% TL3 Moderate load, conifer litter 1,844 2% GR2 Low load, dry climate grass 560 < 1% GS1 Low load, dry climate grass-shrub 524 < 1% TL1 Low load, compact conifer litter 34 < 1% TL5 High load, conifer litter 6 < 1% NB Non-burnable 2,226 3% Fireline intensity is widely used as a means to relate visible fire characteristics and interpret general suppression strategies. There are several ways of expressing fireline intensity. A visual indicator of fireline intensity is flame length (Rothermel 1983). These flame length classes and interpretations are familiar to fire managers and are widely accepted as an intuitive communications tool. Table 3 compares fireline intensity, flame length, and fire suppression difficulty interpretations. Table 3. Fireline intensity interpretations Fireline Intensity Low Moderate High Very High Flame Length < 4 feet 4-8 feet 8-11 feet > 11 feet Table based on Rothermel (1983) Interpretations Direct attack at the head and flanks with hand crews; handlines should stop spread of fire Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using handtools. Handline cannot be relied on to stop fire spread. Equipment such as dozers, engines, and retardant aircraft can be effective. Fires may present serious control problems such as torching, crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the fire head are likely ineffective. This fire would require indirect attack methods Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable; control efforts at the head are likely ineffective. This fire would require indirect attack methods Fire modeling was used to evaluate the existing potential of flame length associated with fireline intensity and crown fire for the proposed project area under high fire danger weather conditions. Results of these modeled outcomes are summarized in Table 4 and visually displayed in the project record. 7

12 Fire and Fuels Report Table 4. Potential fire behavior characteristics modeled under a dry fuel moisture scenario with 25 mph upslope 20-foot winds Potential Fire Behavior Characteristic Flame Length Fire Type Defense Zone Threat Zone Acres Percent a Acres Percent a < 4 feet 3,519 58% 23,951 56% > 4 feet 2,530 42% 18,764 44% Surface 4,557 75% 30,102 70% Passive Crown % 7,670 18% Active Crown % 4,943 12% a- Percent of burnable acres. Non-burnable acres are not shown in table. As shown in Table 4, modeling results show that 42% of the defense zone and 44% of the threat zone have potential fire behavior characteristics that make direct suppression strategies ineffective or unsafe for firefighters, making it necessary to utilize mechanized equipment, and possibly aircraft, for suppression activities. Although the total acreage of the project area exhibiting these conditions is relatively low, their proximity to homes and critical infrastructure is a concern. Conditions like these can lead to high acreage burned and significant adverse effects on resources (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Local Fire Managers state that fires generally spread due to spotting 6 and wind driven crown fires. The Green Knoll Fire in 2001 was an example of this type of fire behavior. In eight days the fire grew from 150 acres to over 4,470 acres with spotting observed beyond a quarter mile Figure 2. Any areas expected to experience passive or active crown fire have the potential for spotting. Fires initiating within these areas may threaten private lands and residences within and adjacent to the project area. 6 Spotting is defined as Behavior of a fire producing sparks or embers that are carried by the wind and which start new fires beyond the zone of direct ignition by the main fire. 8

13 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Figure 2. Green Knoll fire on July 27, 2001 burning in the Mosquito Creek drainage Regulatory Direction for Desired Condition The following regulatory direction serves as guidance and supports the need for this project. Federal Policy The Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy direction (2009) provides revised direction for implementation of the Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy Document (January 2001). Those guidelines are summarized below: 1. Wildland fire management agencies will use common standards for all aspects of their fire management programs to facilitate effective collaboration among cooperating agencies. 2. Agencies and bureaus will review, update, and develop agreements that clarify the jurisdictional interrelationships and define the roles and responsibilities among local, state, tribal and federal fire protection entities. 3. Responses to wildland fire will be coordinated across levels of government regardless of the jurisdiction at the ignition source. 4. Fire management planning will be intergovernmental in scope and developed on a landscape scale. 9

14 Fire and Fuels Report 5. Wildland fire is a general term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. Wildland fires are categorized into two distinct types: a. Wildfires Unplanned ignitions or prescribed fires that are declared wildfires b. Prescribed Fires - Planned ignitions. 6. A wildland fire may be concurrently managed for one or more objectives and objectives can change as the fire spreads across the landscape. Objectives are affected by changes in fuels, weather, topography; varying social understanding and tolerance; and involvement of other governmental jurisdictions having different missions and objectives. 7. Management response to a wildland fire on federal land is based on objectives established in the applicable Land/ Resource Management Plan and/or the Fire Management Plan. 8. Initial action on human-caused wildfire will be to suppress the fire at the lowest cost with the fewest negative consequences with respect to firefighter and public safety. 9. Managers will use a decision support process to guide and document wildfire management decisions. The process will provide situational assessment, analyze hazards and risk, define implementation actions, and document decisions and rationale for those decisions. In 2009, it was determined The Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001) document remains sound and presents a single cohesive federal fire policy. The foundational principles for Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy are: 1. Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. 2. The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process. 3. Fire management plans, programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and their implementation. 4. Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities. 5. Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives. 6. Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available science. 7. Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations. 8. Federal, State, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential. 9. Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective. In addition, the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy states that wildland fire analysis will consider long-term benefits in relation to risks for the short and long term: Fire, as a critical natural process, will be integrated into land and resource management plans and activities on a landscape scale, and across agency boundaries. Response to wildland fire is based on ecological, social, and legal consequences of fire. The circumstances under which a fire occurs, and the likely consequences on firefighter and public safety and welfare, natural and cultural resources, and values to be protected dictate the appropriate management response to fire. 10

15 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Forest-wide Management Standards and Guidelines. This project tiers to the 1990 Bridger Teton National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (amended USDA 2004), which provides guidance for this proposal. Activities are proposed within three Forest Plan management areas designated within the project area; MA-41 Jackson Hole South, MA-48 Snake River Canyon and The Palisades Wilderness Study Area. The management areas are described below; The Palisades Wilderness Study Area- Wilderness Eligibility Standard No Activities will occur that would jeopardize the eligibility of the Palisades Wilderness Study Area for future Congressional designation as Wilderness. Management Area 41, Jackson Hole South- No applicable standards lease standards/stipulations only. Management Area 48, Snake River Canyon- River Qualities Standard The Snake River, nominated as a Scenic River, and the lower Hoback River, which has been determined eligible for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River System, will be managed to protect their scenic and recreational values. The Bridger-Teton Land and Resource Management Plan s Fire Management Standards and Guidelines were revised in 2004 in order to be consistent with changes to Forest Service policy and direction. This amendment enabled fire managers more flexibility of how fires are managed on the forest. The applicable Forest-wide fire management standards and guidelines are as follows: Fire Protection Standard: Provide an appropriate fire protection and use program that is economically efficient, responsive to land management objectives and provides for public safety and protection of property values. Fire Management Standard: Firefighter and public safety is the highest priority during all fire management activities. Wildland Fire Suppression Standard: A full range of suppression tactics is authorized Forest-wide, consistent with Forest-wide and individual DFC management emphasis and direction. Prescribed Fire Standard: Prescribed fire is authorized Forest-wide consistent with Forest-wide and DFC emphasis and direction. Prescribed fire use in wilderness must meet current Forest Service wilderness and wildland fire policy and manual direction Prescribed fire guideline: Prescribed fire may be used to accomplish resource objectives, which include, but are not limited to: Protecting, enhancing, or providing desirable habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species; Controlling insect and diseases. Reducing fuel loading to acceptable levels. Improving or developing desired wildlife habitat conditions. Achieving other desired vegetation conditions to meet management objectives. Maintaining fire-dependent animal and plant species. 11

16 Fire and Fuels Report Wildland Fire Use Standard 7 : Wildland fire use is authorized Forest-wide, consistent with Forest-wide and DFC emphasis and direction. Activity Fuels Standard: The amount and composition of activity fuels that are left on project sites will be determined through project level NEPA and site-specific silvicultural prescriptions. There are seven Desired Future Condition (DFC) areas represented in the Teton to Snake project area, each having specific management direction to accomplish Forest Plan goals and objectives (Forest Plan 1990, amended USDA 2004). Each DFC also has a unique set of prescriptions, standards, and guidelines to further define management direction. The Desired Future Conditions relevant to the fire and fuels resource are as follows: Within the Palisades Wilderness Study Area, fire management emphasizes preservation of wilderness character and allows natural processes of ecological change to operate freely. The number, size and intensity of fires approximate the natural fire regime. The favored suppression techniques should be those that have the least impact on wilderness values and resources. Evidence of fire suppression activities will not be evident within one year. Fire management activities will reduce the risk to public safety and capital improvements. For aspen management, priority is placed on perpetuating aspen stands that are in the process of conversion to conifer stands due to the lack of fire disturbance. One of the benefits of perpetuating aspen in the project area is its ability to moderate the spread of fire. Provide an appropriate fire protection and use program that is economically efficient, responsive to land management objectives, and provides for public safety and protection of property values (USDA 2004). Firefighter and public safety is the highest priority during all fire management activities (USDA 2004). Federal Permits, Licenses, or Other Entitlements None known. Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR (a) directs to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental review laws and executive orders. Environmental Consequences Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Spatial Bounds: The direct and indirect effects analysis focused primarily within the project area boundary. The cumulative effects area boundary extends approximately 1 mile beyond the perimeter of the project boundary. This is considered adequate in size from which treatments could influence fire 7 Use of Wildland Fire has replaced the term Wildland Fire Use and is defined as management of either wildfire or prescribed fire to meet resource objectives. (2009 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy) 12

17 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project behavior on a landscape level and to address the issue of wildland fire and proposed treatment effectiveness in reducing home losses within and adjacent to the project area. Temporal Bounds: The time frame considered is approximately 10 years in the future at which time the proposed treatment activities would be completed. Fuels conditions will be monitored and any future reentry would be evaluated and studied in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, which includes public involvement. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects for the fire and fuels resource consider the impacts of the alternatives when combined with the following past, present, and foreseeable future actions and events: Fuel profile changes resulting from fires and fuels reduction activities. The actions contributing to cumulative effects were selected because they have caused or have the potential to cause changes in fire behavior. The spatial scale of the cumulative effects analysis was selected because impacts to fuels and fire behavior accumulate at a given location on the ground, irrespective of actions in surrounding areas. The temporal scope was selected because the impacts to fuels and fire behavior at a given location can accumulate over time from different activities or events. Alternative 1 No Action Direct Effects The no-action alternative would not meet the purpose and need of this project. It would not alter the fuel profile to reduce fire behavior and there would be no direct effect to forest fuels or fire behavior. Without modifying fuel loading and forest structure, fire behavior under summer conditions would persist as described under the existing condition. Potential fire behavior characteristics would be similar to those described under the existing condition and summarized in Table 4. In the absence of human-caused or natural disturbance, there would be an increased accumulation of fuels due to insect and disease activity; and the natural progression of forest growth may change. Indirect Effects The result would be increased surface, ladder and crown fuels that affect flame length, contribute to the torching of trees, and make crown fire more likely (Peterson et al and Graham 2004). Wildfires that escape initial attack may impact adjacent private lands and other resource values. Direct suppression tactics by firefighting forces would not be as effective as compared with the action alternatives. The no action alternative would restrict local fire managers from utilizing fire for meeting various land management objectives and would not reduce snag levels to provide a greater margin of safety for firefighters engaging in fire suppression activities. Fire suppression activities would continue in the project area without opportunities to allow natural fire ignitions to be managed in the Palisades WSA. Suppressing lightning caused wildfires runs counter to the goal of protecting natural and untrammeled qualities in wilderness (Miller 2012). Case studies of watersheds in two national parks in California found the impacts of suppression on fire return interval departure (FRID) were substantial. The results showed if all ignitions were allowed to burn, the fire return interval would have improved from a high departure rating to a low departure rating in one of the study areas. The author noted the consequences of suppressing fires included substantial impacts to the fire return interval which may have a substantial impact on an entire ecosystem (Miller 2012). It is probable another large wildfire may threaten private lands adjacent to the project boundary just as the Green Knoll fire did. 13

18 Fire and Fuels Report Cumulative Effects Other known fuels reduction activities from the recent past, present, and the foreseeable future would complement other Forest Service, state and private fuel reduction treatments that have occurred or are occurring in the area. These actions would collectively reduce fire behavior (flame length and crown fire potential) by removing surface, ladder and crown fuels. Other fuels reduction and vegetation management projects that have occurred in the area include the Hoback Junction project, which is 5,304 acres of which 93 acres are mechanical treatment and the remaining acres are prescribed fire. The BTNF is also administering the Snake River Canyon Wildlife Project which lies on Caribou Targhee NF lands. This project is located in the southern portion of the Teton to Snake project area and consists of approximately 12,000 acres of prescribed burning to improve wildlife habitat, of which approximately 2,300 acres lies within the Teton to Snake project area. This project is currently undergoing a NEPA 18.1 review of the 1999 NEPA document. In 2004, the BTNF conducted several thinning and pile burning treatments at the eastern project boundary. These treatments overlap this project and occur in several of the units proposed for treatment including units in the Rec Trail, Red Top Meadows, Singing Trees, Highland Hills and Phillips Bench areas. The Wyoming State Forestry Department also has several projects in the vicinity. They are planning the Indian Paintbrush project, which is a 160 acre fuels reduction project and have recently completed the 30 acre Butler Creek Fuels Reduction project. Known projects that are occurring or have been completed on private land include; the Snake River Ranch project, which is 300 acres adjacent to the Teton to Snake project area, Crescent H Fuels, Cribiore Fuels, Kerr Fuels, Pine Glen South, Butler Creek Fuels and HSP Fuels. Adjacent landowners have also received Firewise information and an indeterminate amount of activities could be planned and implemented on adjacent private lands in the future. The Bonneville Power Administration routinely clears the powerline right-of-way that runs through the project area and it is anticipated this activity will continue to occur. The Snake River Ranch Fuels Reduction project has also included reducing snags as an objective. Other projects discussed above did not specifically address snag reduction, however it is general practice snags posing a hazard to operations will be felled and removed. It is probable these combined activities would result in a decrease in snags in treated areas subsequently increasing the margin of safety for firefighters outside of the project area. As a result of the no action alternative, certain areas would remain at risk for high intensity wildfire and would be more vulnerable to stand replacing wildfire under extreme conditions. In addition, the USDA Forest Service might be viewed as not meeting commitments it has made as a member of the community and the Teton Area Wildfire Protection Coalition (TAWPC). The TAWPC is an interagency working group developed to enhance a comprehensive, collaborative approach to community wildland fire protection (NPS 2011).The continual suppression of fires in the Palisades WSA will result in increased fuel accumulation and changes to vegetation composition and structure. Continuing this course may lead to larger landscape fires burning in fewer, more unmanageable events, with more severe consequences (Reinhardt et al. 2008). Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The no action alternative would fail to achieve National Fire Plan goals, Forest Land Management Plan goals, and would be unresponsive to the Teton County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 14

19 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project Alternative 2 Proposed Action In Alternative 2 we are proposing to apply fire and non-fire treatments to reduce surface, ladder and crown fuels in order to modify the fuel profile in treatment units. We are proposing to thin trees on approximately 2,527 acres and prescribe burn approximately 19,984 acres of national forest system lands. Alternative 2 would affect approximately twenty-five percent of the project area with prescribed burning and approximately two percent of the project area with thinning treatments. Table 5 displays the proposed treatments for all units. The mechanical treatments would consist of non-commercial or commercial thinning followed by hand pile and landing pile burning, a lop and scatter treatment or prescribed under burning to reduce activity and natural fuel loading levels. Two units would also have a pruning treatment to raise tree canopy base heights. Commercial thinning treatments would cut trees greater than or equal to 9 inches DBH. Activity fuels created by commercial thinning operations would be piled by hand or by a machine and burned. Non-commercial thinning treatments would consist of cutting small trees (less than 9 inches DBH) using chainsaws. Activity fuels created as a result of this treatment would be hand piled and burned or offered as fire wood in areas where there is a large amount of fuels or lop and scattered in areas where there is a low amount of activity fuels. Low intensity under burning would also be employed in three designated treatment units and would occur after mechanical treatment is complete. These units presently have a high proportion of aspen, and while removing competing conifers would aid in aspen perpetuation, a follow up prescribe burn treatment would further promote aspen regeneration and remove natural or activity created fuels. Snags would also be reduced within 200 feet of the private land boundary in 37 designated units to reduce the threat to firefighters. See Appendix A - Alternative 2 Treatments for treatment descriptions by unit. Table 5. Alternative 2 proposed treatments and acres Treatment Total Treatment Acres Treatment Acres in Defense Zone a Treatment Acres in Roadless Areas a Treatment Acres in Wilderness Study Area a Prescribed Fire 19,984 1,209 6,857 11,113 Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Hand Cut (HC) Hand Pile and Burn (HPB) Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Hand Cut (HC) Hand Pile and Burn (HPB) Prescribed Fire last (PF) Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Prune (PR) Hand Cut (HC) Hand Pile and Burn (HPB) Lop and Scatter (LS) Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Commercial Thin (CT) Ground-based Yarding (GBY) Machine Cut/Machine Pile and Burn (MC/MPB) OR-- Hand Cut/Hand Pile and Burn (HC/HPB) 1,245 1, a - Acres shown in these columns may not equal the Total Treatment Acres column due to overlap and not including general NFS lands. 15

20 Fire and Fuels Report Prescribed burning involves controlled application of fire to naturally or artificially created fuels and is proposed as a standalone treatment in 23 units. Prescribed burning would reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels and break up contiguous vegetation, reducing potential fire behavior. Prescribed burning would be of low- to moderate intensity and ignited using ground or aerial firing methods. To meet objectives, approximately percent of prescribed fire units would be blackened, creating a mosaic of burned and unburned areas. Small areas of prescribed burn units may result in moderate to higher severity fire effects. However, these areas would be small and occur in isolated patches. Conifer stands adjacent to or within aspen communities would be felled and/or burned. Prescribed burning would occur when weather and fuel conditions are favorable and risk of fire escape is low. All burning would take place under the guidelines in the prescribed fire burn plan which would be developed specifically for all project-related burning activities. Prescribed burn plans would address parameters for weather, air quality, contingency resources and potential escapes. Fire behavior was modeled based on surface fuels, stand composition and structure to evaluate potential fireline intensity (flame length) and crown fire potential for the project area. These results are summarized in Table 6. Table 6. Fire behavior potential within the defense and threat zones under alternative two Potential Fire Behavior Defense Zone Threat Zone Characteristic Acres Percent Acres Percent Flame Length Fire Type <= 4 feet 4,393 73% 29,596 69% > 4 feet 1,655 27% 13,119 31% Surface 5,303 88% 33,074 77% Passive Crown 514 8% 5,910 14% Active Crown 232 4% 3,731 9% Implementing the proposed action would result in the following improvements in potential fire behavior characteristics: 35 percent decrease in areas with the potential for flame lengths greater than four feet in the defense zone, and 30 percent decrease in the threat zone when compared to the existing condition. Similarly, results show a decrease in area with the potential for active crown fire: 65 percent decrease in the defense zone, and 25 percent decrease in the threat zone (Table 6). Connected Actions Connected actions are considered necessary in order to implement proposed treatments. The following connected actions are being proposed with this project: Fire control lines, temporary road construction and other road work, and construction of landings. Prescribed burning prescriptions developed prior to implementation of the chosen alternative will define weather and fire behavior conditions which provide for meeting the purpose and need of the project, as 16

21 Teton to Snake Fuels Management Project well as minimizing negative impacts during implementation. Control lines may be necessary to assure prescribed fire remains within designated unit boundaries. Control lines are defined as all constructed or natural fire barriers and treated fire edges used to control a fire (NWCG 1994). This includes but is not limited to the following; black line, hand line, pruning, mowing, saw line and hose lays. Control lines would occur along existing trails and ridgelines or in areas of thinner vegetation when feasible. A coarse analysis determined approximately 11 miles of control line may be constructed under alternative 2 and approximately 6.4 miles may be constructed under alternative 3. There would be 1.07 miles of temporary roads constructed to allow equipment access to units with alternative 2 and 3. Landings constructed as a result of the chosen alternative are needed in order to process and dispose of material. It is estimated approximately 32 landings would be created as a result of alternative 2 and 27 landings with alternative 3. It is anticipated the connected actions discussed above will not have a measurable significant effect on the fire and fuels resource and therefore were not analyzed in detail. Alternative 3 Reduce Potential Impacts to Special Areas and Wildlife Habitat Alternative 3 would also meet the purpose and need of this project and is a modification of alternative 2. With alternative 3 we are proposing to mechanically thin 1,755 acres and prescribed burn about 12,523 acres (two percent and nineteen percent of the project area respectively). See Appendix B Alternative 3 Treatments for treatment descriptions by unit. For alternative 3 some of the units have been removed, unit boundaries have changed or treatment methods have been modified as compared to alternative 2. Alternative 3 would also include removing snags in designated areas of 27 units being proposed for treatment. Table 7 shows the difference in treatment types for alternative 3. Table 7. Alternative 3 proposed treatments and acres Treatment Total Treatment Acres Treatment Acres in Defense Zone a Treatment Acres in Roadless Areas a Treatment Acres in Wilderness Study Area a Prescribed Fire 12, ,111 6,887 Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Hand Cut (HC) Hand Pile and Burn (HPB) Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Hand Cut (HC) Hand Pile and Burn (HPB) Lop and Scatter (LS) Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Prune (PR) Hand Cut (HC) Hand Pile and Burn (HPB) Lop and Scatter (LS) Non-commercial Thin (NCT) Commercial Thin (CT) Ground-based Yarding (GBY) Machine Cut/Machine Pile and Burn (MC/MPB) OR-- Hand Cut/Hand Pile and Burn (HC/HPB) a - Acres shown in these columns may not equal the Total Treatment Acres column due to overlap and not including general NFS lands. 17

22 Fire and Fuels Report Table 8 summarizes the modeling results under alternative three for both the defense and threat zones by flame length and fire type. Under alternative three the fuel profile is modified over less area than under alternative two, resulting in less overall change in fire behavior. Modeling results show a 20 percent decrease in area with the potential for flame lengths greater than four feet in the defense zone and a 22 percent decrease in the threat zone when compared to the existing condition (Table 4). Similarly, results show a decrease in the area with the potential for active crown fire, with a 41 percent decrease in the defense zone and 12 percent decrease in the threat zone (Table 9). Table 8. Fire behavior potential within the defense and threat zones under alternative 3 Potential Fire Behavior Defense Zone Threat Zone Characteristic Acres Percent a Acres Percent a Flame Length Fire Type <= 4 feet 4,024 67% 28,004 66% > 4 feet 2,024 33% 14,711 34% Surface 4,995 83% 32,104 75% Passive Crown % 6,286 15% Active Crown 394 7% 4,325 10% Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 3 Table 9 shows the comparison of fire behavior potential across the defense and threat zones under each alternative and the percent decrease in area with the potential for flame lengths greater than four feet and potential for active crown fire for both zones as compared to the existing condition. Table 9. Comparison of fire behavior potential by zone and alternative Flame Length Zone Alternative Percent <= 4 feet > 4 feet Change a Surface Passive Crown Fire Type Active Crown Percent Change b Defense Zone Threat Zone Existing Condition Alternative Two Alternative Three Existing Condition Alternative Two Alternative Three 3,519 2,530 0% 4, % 4,393 1,655 35% 5, % 4,024 2,024 20% 4, % 23,951 18,764 0% 30,102 7,670 4,943 0% 29,596 13,119 30% 33,074 5,910 3,731 25% 28,004 14,711 22% 32,104 6,286 4,325 12% a - Percent decrease in area of the zone with the potential for flame lengths greater than four feet compared to the existing condition. b - Percent decrease in area of the zone with the potential for active crown fire compared to the existing condition. 18