Final Environmental Impact Statement

Vestal Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3
treatment, the fire hazard would continue to move toward very high. The greatest
potential for wildland fire growth and severity exists with this alternative. For a
comparison of fire hazard by alternative please refer to Figure 15.
The No Action alternative would not reduce fire hazard in the WUI or within the project
area. It would actually increase fire hazard with approximately 91 percent of the WUI in
a high to very high fire hazard. This alternative would move away from objective 10-01.
No fuel reduction treatments would occur within this project area. The substantial values
would not be protected by reducing hazard or risk. This alternative would move away
from objective 10-04.
Air Quality
Although air quality would not be directly impacted under the No Action alternative,
there would not be any control over the timing or amount of emissions released into
adjacent airsheds in the event of a wildfire. A large wildfire has the potential to make a
much greater impact on adjacent communities and Type 1 airsheds, possibly exceeding
National Air Quality Standards. The EPA addresses smoke from wildland fire under
their natural events policy at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/nepol.pdf.
(USDA Forest Service 2005a)
Very few of the natural fuel breaks and past harvest units within the analysis area are
large enough to moderate a rapidly spreading high intensity fire. (USDA Forest Service
2008a) Therefore, it is likely that a large scale stand replacement fire would eventually
occur within the analysis area. Due to the projected high level of surface fuel loading
(40-60 tons/acre) these fires could be quite severe resulting in undesirable effects. Under
the No Action alternative, the Vestal Project would not contribute to the need to protect
local communities and watersheds from large-scale, high intensity wildfire.
Alternative 2
Alternative 2 focuses on the management of vegetation to maintain and improve forest
health and reduce the risk of large-scale, high intensity wildfire.
Direct and Indirect Effects
Alternative 2 would decrease the potential for large scale, high intensity fires, allowing
for characteristic low to mixed severity fires to occur. This alternative also would have a
significant effect on fire behavior. The chances for successful initial attack under this
alternative are much greater than No Action and the risk to residential areas, the general
public, and firefighters is also greatly reduced. If these stands encounter fire, treated
stands generally burn in a surface fire configuration with isolated and small group
torching. In addition, an improvement of FRCC can be expected as conditions move
towards a more natural condition.
The actions associated with this alternative are not substantial enough to significantly
alter human activities or usage in the area therefore fire risk is not expected to change
because the probability of an ignition occurring is not expected to change.
Fire hazard would be greatly reduced in this alternative (see Figure 14 and Table 43).
The mechanical treatments and prescribed burning would decrease ladder fuels, reduce
the surface fuel loading, and break up the continuity of the fuels. Prescribed burning
117