SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us
SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us SBCT Final EIS - Govsupport.us
Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment3.2.3 WILDFIRE MANAGEMENT3.2.3.1 Wildfire Management DirectionFire management on USARAK installations is required by the Sikes Act and by AR 200–3. Fire managementplans are required by the Resource Management Plan, which is mandated under Public Law106–65, the Military Lands Withdrawal Act. Additional direction regarding fire management is statedin a 1995 Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) andUSARAK as well as in the Army wildland fire policy guidance document (Army 2002). Wildland firemanagement in Alaska requires multi-agency cooperation. Fire management is a joint effort byUSARAK and the BLM, Alaska Fire Service (AFS). The agencies have developed two inter-servicesupport agreements, which establish the AFS’s responsibility for all fire detection and suppression oninstallation lands (AFS and USARAK 1995a,b). In exchange, the Army provides the AFS with use ofcertain buildings, utilities, land, training services, air support, and other support services.The AFS also has a Reciprocal Fire Management Agreement with the State of Alaska’s Departmentof Natural Resources, Division of Forestry (AFS and State of Alaska 1998). Under this agreement,the agencies have implemented a coordinated fire suppression effort and have identified areas whereeach agency has agreed to provide wildland fire suppression, regardless of whether the lands are understate or federal ownership.The Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan, which is reviewed each year, designated wildland firemanagement areas and allowed land managers to establish fire management options according to landuse objectives and constraints. The Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan also established four firemanagement options: Critical, Full, Modified, and Limited (USARAK 2004). Land managers may selectamong these options for different parcels of land based on evaluation of legal mandates, policies,regulations, resource management objectives, and local conditions (Alaska Wildland Fire CoordinatingGroup 1998). In addition, two additional fire management option categories have been developedspecifically for lands managed by USARAK. Unplanned Areas are not officially designated but receivefire management equal to the Full management option. The AFS has responsibility for initial responsein Unplanned Areas (USARAK 1999b). Restricted Areas or Hot Zones include impact areasand other locations where no “on the ground” firefighting can be accomplished due to danger of unexplodedordnance. High-hazard impact areas are managed as Hot Zones with Limited management.3.2.3.2 Fort RichardsonFire Management AreasThe north post of FRA is classified for Full and Critical fire management options due the high valueof resources at risk from fire, in addition to the post’s proximity to Anchorage, Eagle River, and ElmendorfAFB (Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group 1998). Most of the north post is classifiedfor Critical fire management. The training areas along Knik Arm are classified for Full fire management.Many military resources at north post are at risk from wildland fire. Cultural resources staffidentified sites in the north post area, and management options related to wildland fire have been developed.Cultural resources potentially at risk from wildfire have also been identified in DTA Eastand Main Fort Greely Post, and management options related to wildland fire have been determined.The north post is bounded by Elmendorf AFB, private parcels, railroad lands, and Native Corporationlands (USARAK 2002b).The south post has areas classified under Critical, Full, and Limited fire management. Most of thesouth post is under Full fire management because the area is mainly used for military training andFebruary 2008 3–104 2/25th SBCT Final EIS
Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentsmall arms ranges. The alpine zones are classified for Limited fire management because of their remotelocation. Many military resources are at risk from wildland fire in the training areas of the southpost, including two small arms complexes. Additional surveys are needed to ascertain sites whereordnance has been used and disposed. Cultural resources staff identified sites in the south post area,and management options related to wildfire have been determined. The south post is bound by privateparcels and state lands (USARAK 2002b).Fire History and Firefighting ResourcesThe AFS maintains incident reports for fires on the lands used by USARAK. Record keeping has variedover the years. Some fires, therefore, have more information available than others. Eight fireswere recorded between 1956 and 2000, and ranged from one to 25 acres. All fires were human-caused(USARAK 2004). Incendiary devices and lightning are the two major causes of fires on installationlands. Other less common causes of fire are field burning, exhaust, recreation, trash burning, andwarming fires.Three management actions are used to prevent wildfires. First, the likelihood of starting a fire is reducedby limiting military activities, as imposed by the fire danger rating system. Certain military activitiesare restricted when thresholds of risk are reached. Weather readings are collected by theUSARAK Fire Department and used to calculate the fire danger rating according to the CanadianForest Fire Danger Rating System. The fire department provides the rating to Range Control, whichrestricts the level of munitions and pyrotechnics as the fire danger increases. All munitions may beprohibited during extreme fire danger conditions. Second, wildfire danger is lessened by decreasingfuel hazard through the mechanical removal of fuels and through prescribed burning. The third managementaction to help prevent wildfires involves constructing and maintaining fire or fuel woodbreaks.Fire probably had a more important influence on ecosystem functions in the Anchorage area duringpresettlement times. Wildfires were found to be prevalent in the 1800s and early 1900s. Forty-eightpercent of FRA over the past 200 years has been affected by fire (Jorgenson et al. 2002). This was indicatedby the occurrence of early to mid-successional forest stages that have developed since thefires in the 1800s and early 1900s (Jorgenson et al. 2002). Although fires were relatively small andlocalized due to the weather and climate, settlement resulted in fire suppression and the developmentof road systems that further reduced natural fire frequency at FRA.Although wildfires are a concern at FRA, they are rarely a significant problem. Numerous fires havebeen recorded in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley to the north, but no major fires have occurred on FRAsince 1950 (Jorgenson et al. 2002). Severe drought conditions occur about once every 20 years, and,in normal years, there is an average of less than five wildfires. These fires are usually mission-related,small, and easily contained.The FRA Fire Department provides the initial response for wildfire suppression, which has traditionallybeen confined to areas behind the small arms complex. Because of the extensive mortality ofwhite spruce in the area, fire prevention activities were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to reduce fuelloads adjacent to the small arms ranges (USARAK 2002b). When necessary, BLM reimburses theAlaska Division of Forestry to suppress wildfires in the southern half of the state, including FRA. TheDivision of Forestry also provides training for wildfire suppression at FRA. USARAK and ElmendorfAFB have a mutual aid agreement for fire suppression (USARAK 2002b).There is some concern over the spruce bark beetle that killed most of the larger white spruce in thenorth and south post training areas. The dead spruce has resulted in high fuel load conditions on theFebruary 2008 3–105 2/25th SBCT Final EIS
- Page 163 and 164: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 165 and 166: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentc
- Page 167 and 168: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentf
- Page 169 and 170: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentv
- Page 171 and 172: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 173 and 174: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentR
- Page 175 and 176: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentc
- Page 177 and 178: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment[
- Page 179 and 180: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentc
- Page 181 and 182: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environments
- Page 183 and 184: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentB
- Page 185 and 186: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentR
- Page 187 and 188: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentF
- Page 189 and 190: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment
- Page 191 and 192: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentA
- Page 193 and 194: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentt
- Page 195 and 196: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 197 and 198: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentn
- Page 199: Rajeev GandhiComputerRS-CIT Feb-13
- Page 202 and 203: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentK
- Page 204 and 205: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment3
- Page 206 and 207: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentG
- Page 208 and 209: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmento
- Page 210 and 211: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentT
- Page 212 and 213: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentG
- Page 216 and 217: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentf
- Page 218 and 219: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmento
- Page 220 and 221: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentP
- Page 222 and 223: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentP
- Page 224 and 225: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmenti
- Page 226 and 227: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentH
- Page 228 and 229: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentH
- Page 230 and 231: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentt
- Page 232 and 233: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentt
- Page 234 and 235: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentg
- Page 236 and 237: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentA
- Page 238 and 239: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentN
- Page 240 and 241: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmenta
- Page 242 and 243: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentw
- Page 244 and 245: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentP
- Page 246 and 247: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentU
- Page 248 and 249: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment3
- Page 250 and 251: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment
- Page 252 and 253: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentn
- Page 254 and 255: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentf
- Page 256 and 257: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected EnvironmentG
- Page 258 and 259: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment3
- Page 260 and 261: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentp
- Page 262 and 263: Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environment3
Chapter 3 ⎯ Affected Environmentsmall arms ranges. The alpine zones are classified for Limited fire management beca<strong>us</strong>e of their remotelocation. Many military resources are at risk from wildland fire in the training areas of the southpost, including two small arms complexes. Additional surveys are needed to ascertain sites whereordnance has been <strong>us</strong>ed and disposed. Cultural resources staff identified sites in the south post area,and management options related to wildfire have been determined. The south post is bound by privateparcels and state lands (USARAK 2002b).Fire History and Firefighting ResourcesThe AFS maintains incident reports for fires on the lands <strong>us</strong>ed by USARAK. Record keeping has variedover the years. Some fires, therefore, have more information available than others. Eight fireswere recorded between 1956 and 2000, and ranged from one to 25 acres. All fires were human-ca<strong>us</strong>ed(USARAK 2004). Incendiary devices and lightning are the two major ca<strong>us</strong>es of fires on installationlands. Other less common ca<strong>us</strong>es of fire are field burning, exha<strong>us</strong>t, recreation, trash burning, andwarming fires.Three management actions are <strong>us</strong>ed to prevent wildfires. First, the likelihood of starting a fire is reducedby limiting military activities, as imposed by the fire danger rating system. Certain military activitiesare restricted when thresholds of risk are reached. Weather readings are collected by theUSARAK Fire Department and <strong>us</strong>ed to calculate the fire danger rating according to the CanadianForest Fire Danger Rating System. The fire department provides the rating to Range Control, whichrestricts the level of munitions and pyrotechnics as the fire danger increases. All munitions may beprohibited during extreme fire danger conditions. Second, wildfire danger is lessened by decreasingfuel hazard through the mechanical removal of fuels and through prescribed burning. The third managementaction to help prevent wildfires involves constructing and maintaining fire or fuel woodbreaks.Fire probably had a more important influence on ecosystem functions in the Anchorage area duringpresettlement times. Wildfires were found to be prevalent in the 1800s and early 1900s. Forty-eightpercent of FRA over the past 200 years has been affected by fire (Jorgenson et al. 2002). This was indicatedby the occurrence of early to mid-successional forest stages that have developed since thefires in the 1800s and early 1900s (Jorgenson et al. 2002). Although fires were relatively small andlocalized due to the weather and climate, settlement resulted in fire suppression and the developmentof road systems that further reduced natural fire frequency at FRA.Although wildfires are a concern at FRA, they are rarely a significant problem. Numero<strong>us</strong> fires havebeen recorded in the Matan<strong>us</strong>ka-S<strong>us</strong>itna Valley to the north, but no major fires have occurred on FRAsince 1950 (Jorgenson et al. 2002). Severe drought conditions occur about once every 20 years, and,in normal years, there is an average of less than five wildfires. These fires are <strong>us</strong>ually mission-related,small, and easily contained.The FRA Fire Department provides the initial response for wildfire suppression, which has traditionallybeen confined to areas behind the small arms complex. Beca<strong>us</strong>e of the extensive mortality ofwhite spruce in the area, fire prevention activities were conducted in 1999 and 2000 to reduce fuelloads adjacent to the small arms ranges (USARAK 2002b). When necessary, BLM reimburses theAlaska Division of Forestry to suppress wildfires in the southern half of the state, including FRA. TheDivision of Forestry also provides training for wildfire suppression at FRA. USARAK and ElmendorfAFB have a mutual aid agreement for fire suppression (USARAK 2002b).There is some concern over the spruce bark beetle that killed most of the larger white spruce in thenorth and south post training areas. The dead spruce has resulted in high fuel load conditions on theFebruary 2008 3–105 2/25th <strong>SBCT</strong> <strong>Final</strong> <strong>EIS</strong>