Integrated Training Area Management EA and Final FNSI

1998).The Alaska Interagency Wildland Fire Management Plan (Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group1998), which is reviewed annually, designated wildland fire management areas and allowed landmanagers to establish fire management options according to land use objectives and constraints. The planalso established four fire management options used to determine the appropriate level of fire suppression:Critical, Full, Modified, and Limited. Land managers may select among these options for different parcelsof land, based on evaluation of legal mandates, policies, regulations, resource management objectives,and local conditions. In addition, two fire management option categories have been developed specificallyfor lands managed by USARAK: Unplanned Areas and Restricted Areas or Hot Zones (USARAK 1999).In fire-prone areas, climate, human activity, and types of vegetation (or fuels) determine the level ofwildland fire risk. Common fuels found on USARAK installations include: black spruce (highlyflammable, located in wetter and cooler sites, crown fires common); white spruce (less flammable,located in warmer and drier sites, crown fires less common); mixed spruce/hardwood stands (mostlywhite with occasional black spruce, hardwoods less flammable, moderate fire intensity); bluejointreedgrass (patchy occurrence, fires can start and spread easily, and burn intensely); and tundra (grassesare typically highly flammable, slightly less so in alpine tundra areas) (Musitano and Hayes 2002).Three management actions are used to prevent wildfires. First, the likelihood of starting a fire is reducedby limiting military activities according to fire danger as calculated by the Canadian Forest Fire DangerRating System. Range Control uses these ratings to restrict munitions and pyrotechnics as fire dangerincreases. Second, wildfire danger is lessened by decreasing fuel hazard through the mechanical removalof fuels and through prescribed burning. The third management action involves stationing a wildland fireteam and equipment from the Alaska Fire Service during some training activities conducted at times ofhigh fire danger. Range Control already requires troops to carry firefighting tools during high fire danger,and a proposal is pending to station a wildland firefighting team at all training events conducted duringhigh fire danger.Additional information regarding fire management on USARAK lands can be found in theTransformation of U.S. Army Alaska Final Environmental Impact Statement (USARAK 2004).Fort RichardsonWildfires were found to be prevalent in the 1800s and early 1900s. Forty-eight percent of Fort Richardsonover the past 200 years has been affected by fire (Jorgenson et al. 2002). Although fires were relativelysmall and localized due to the weather and climate, human settlement resulted in fire suppression and thedevelopment of road systems further reduced natural fire frequency at Fort Richardson. Althoughwildfires are a concern at Fort Richardson, they are rarely a significant problem.The north post of Fort Richardson is classified for Full and Critical fire management options due to thehigh value of resources at risk from fire, in addition to the post’s proximity to Anchorage, Eagle River,and Elmendorf Air Force Base (Alaska Wildland Fire Coordinating Group 1998). Most of the north postis classified for Critical fire management. The training areas along Knik Arm are classified for Full firemanagement. Many military resources at north post are at risk from wildland fire. Cultural resources staffidentified sites in the north post area, but management options related to wildland fire have not beendetermined. The north post is bound by Elmendorf Air Force Base, private parcels, railroad lands, andNative Corporation lands (USARAK 2002b)._____________________________________________________________________________________________Environmental AssessmentUnited States Army Alaska, Integrated Training Area Management ProgramManagement Plan 44