auggie creek restoration/fuels project fire and fuels...

of 33

Auggie Creek Restoration/Fuels Project Fire and Fuels Report

Phil Shelmerdine November 10, 2008

Introduction The Auggie Creek analysis area is located North and east of Seeley Lake, Montana. The analysis area is divided in two areas, the Auggie Creek treatment area and the Mountain Creek treatment area. Both of these areas lie within the defined wildland-urban interface (WUI). The proposed treatments are intended to restore forest conditions by developing a diverse mix of vegetative composition and structure that would reduce the risk of significant bark beetle infestations and reduce the risk of sustained high intensity wildfire in the WUI. The project would also restore, protect, and recruit old-growth and mature, low elevation forests by increasing the vigor of seral ponderosa pine and western larch species, increasing the likelihood of regenerating/recruiting ponderosa pine and western larch, restoring historic structural and spatial patterns which, in turn, reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing fire, and restoring low intensity fire to these stands after vegetative treatments. Regulatory Requirements Healthy Forests Restoration Act The Healthy Forests Restoration Act, which passed into law in December 2003, came about as a response to the wildfires of 2000 and 2002 throughout the United States, primarily in the West. The Healthy Forests Restoration Act strengthens public participation in developing high priority forest health projects by encouraging early public participation in the review and planning processes, allowing federal land agencies to actively manage the land to reduce the threat of destructive wildfires while upholding environmental standards (White House, 2003). National Fire Plan The report “Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and Environment”, also known as the National Fire Plan, provides national direction for firefighting, hazardous fuel reduction, rehabilitation, community assistance and accountability (USDA, NFP 2000). In the report, the Chief of the Forest Service directed operating principles including: firefighting readiness, prevention through education, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, collaborative stewardship, monitoring, jobs, and applied research and technology transfer. The Lolo National Forest’s Auggie Project is responsive to the rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction, and restoration elements of the National Fire Plan, which states:

Rehabilitation – Focus rehabilitation efforts on restoring watershed function, including protection of soil, water resources, biological communities, and prevention of invasive weeds. Hazardous Fuel Reduction – Assign highest priority for hazardous fuels reduction to: communities at risk, readily accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and endangered species habitat, and other important local features where conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires. Restoration – Restore healthy, diverse, and resilient ecological systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires on a priority watershed basis. Methods will include

of 33

removal of excess vegetation and dead fuels through thinning, prescribed fire, and other treatments.

FS Manuals/Handbooks Specific guidelines for wildland fire use and prescribed fire applications are found in Forest Service Manual 5100 (Fire Management) and a number of Forest Service Handbooks resulting from FSM 5100 direction. Forest Service Handbook 5109.19 (Fire Management Analysis and Planning) gives specific direction on planning practices related to fire and fuels management. In 1995, the Federal Wildland Fire Policy and Program Review was initiated, then reviewed and updated in 2001 (USDA/USDI 2001). Some of the principles of this review include: 1) firefighter and public safety are the first priority; 2) wildland fire is an essential ecological process and natural change agent; and 3) fire management plans must be based on the best available science. This policy contains direction to allow wildland fire use and prescribed fire to restore fire’s natural role in appropriate areas where approved plans are in place. The Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide (USDA/USDI 2008) is an interagency guide established to standardize procedures for implementation of the Federal Wild land Fire Policy and Program Review of 1995. The Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2008 (USDI, Standards for Fire, 2008) adopted by the Forest Service in 2002 to help standardize operations across the different agencies. Prescribed fire objectives for smoke management will be met with the constraints established by Montana State Airshed Group’s Memorandum of Understanding (USDA 1986 LNF Plan p.II-17). Lolo National Forest Plan and Fire Management Plan The Lolo National Forest Plan includes Forest-wide fire management direction that is consistent with other resource goals (USDA, 1986 LNF Plan). The Missoula Interagency Dispatch Center (MIDC) Mobilization Guide (2007) is an annually updated operational guide. For all fires, the single overriding priority is protection of human life followed by a prioritization of values to be protected, human health and safety, and the cost of protection (USDI, Standards for Fire, 2008 p.01-3). The Fire Management Plan contains specific guidance for the management of wildland fire, prescribed fire, wildland fire use, and other fuel treatment methods as tools to safely achieve both resource protection and resourced management objectives on lands administered by the Forest (USDA, 1986a p.7). Firefighter safety is paramount while providing resource protection and fire use necessary to protect, maintain, and enhance resource values and attain land management goals and objectives (USDA 1986 LNF Plan). In support of this, the Forest Fire Management Team is committed to:

Recognizing employees, as our most valuable asset, and ensuring that “the protection of human life is the single, overriding suppression priority” (USDI, Standards for Fire, 2008 p.01-3). “Improve the understanding of our fire management mission and strive to meet the expectations of our public, cooperators, and shareholders” (USDA, 1986a p.35). “Maintain integrated programs that are flexible enough to respond to management needs” (USDA 1986a p.35). “Provide leadership in prescribed fire use to successfully accomplish land management objectives by fully integrating fire management principles and techniques into the

of 33

development of interdisciplinary proposals based upon the acceptable range of results and desired conditions” (USDA, 1986a p.36). “Provide expertise in wildland fire use to achieve desired conditions and enhance resource benefits” (USDA, 1986a p.36).

Direction provided in the Forest Plan (1986) ensures that fire programs are cost effective, compatible with the role of fire in ecosystems, and responsive to resource management objectives, including:

Using prescribed fire to maintain healthy ecosystems that meet land management objectives. Integrate fire’s natural role in regulating stand structure in predetermined areas. Maintaining prescribed fire programs that meet or exceed federal, state, and local air quality regulations and agreements. Fire is recognized as a valuable tool for reducing natural fuels and activity fuels generated from harvest operations. Prescribed fire treatments have been identified as necessary in fuels management. Management-ignited prescribed fires are allowed in all but 1 of the management areas (USDA 1986 LNF Plan). All wildland fire will receive an appropriate management response depending on location and ignition source (USDA, 1986a). There are three Fire Management Units (FMU) identified within the Fire Management Plan. FMU1 is the identified WUI. The appropriate management response is to suppress all wildland fires using rapid, aggressive initial attack actions to control the wildland fire (USDA, 1986a p.36).

Forest Plan Management Area Direction Fire management activities considered in the action alternatives are consistent with direction in the Lolo National Forest Plan (1986) Chapter 2 Forest-Wide Management Direction, Management Area Standards as described below. Fire Management activities considered in the action alternative are consistent with the Lolo National Forest Fire Management Plan (2008-2009) Appendix X to the Lolo National Forest Plan (1986). The following summarizes the Management Areas (MA) in the analysis area along with the standards relevant to fire and fuels management.

MA 9. (91 acres, 7% of project area) standards: #9. To achieve management goals and objectives, prescribed burning may be planned and executed to maintain or restore the composition and structure of plant communities, or for hazard reduction purposes. Wildfires suppression methods will be applicable to Fire Management Unit 2 defined in Appendix X. MA 13 (306 acres, 20% of project area) standards:

of 33

#22. To achieve management goals and objectives, prescribed burning may be planned and executed to maintain or restore the composition and structure of plant communities, or for hazard reduction purposes. Wildfires will be confined, contained, or controlled as provided for by criteria and guidelines for each fire management unit in the Fire Management Plan, described in Appendix X. Suppression methods will generally employ the use of tolls, rather than heavy equipment. MA 21 (340 acres, 22% of project area) standards: #7. Wildfires will be controlled to protect old-growth qualities and resource objectives associated with this type. To achieve management goals and objectives, prescribed burning may be planned and executed to maintain or restore the composition and structure of plant communities, or for hazard reduction purposes. MA 24 (202 acres, 13% of project area) standards: #7. Wildfires will be confined, contained, or controlled as provided for by criteria and guidelines for each fire management unit in the Fire Management plan, described in Appendix X. To achieve management goals and objectives, prescribed burning may be planned and executed to maintain or restore the composition and structure of plant communities, or for hazard reduction purposes. MA 25 (590 acres, 39% of project area) standards: #7. Wildfires will be confined, contained, or controlled as provided for by criteria and guidelines for each fire management unit in the Fire Management plan, described in Appendix X.

To achieve management goals and objectives, prescribed burning may be planned and executed to maintain or restore the composition and structure of plant communities, or for hazard reduction purposes.

County and Interagency Fire Management Direction The Seeley-Swan Fire Plan (2004) with 2008 Revisions and the Powell County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005) provides direction to reduce hazardous fuel concentrations on specified Federal lands adjacent to wildland-urban interface. The recently updated Seeley-Swan Fire Plan (2008) examined the interrelationships of Land fire data, fire history, hazardous fuels, housing density and general fire behavior within the Seeley-Swan Valley across all ownerships. The Forest Service did not try to re-create a local area fire history for this project, since a broad-scale analysis has already been done which included the Auggie project (see Appendix E). All areas identified for treatment are within the WUI as define by the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan (see Appendix D). Analysis Area Boundary

of 33

The analysis area used for fire and fuels incorporates 1,318 acres within the Auggie Creek treatment area polygon and 203 acres within Mountain Creek treatment area polygon. Analysis Methods The following information, tools, and models were used to analyze the effects of the proposed activities on fire and fuels: BehavePlus 3.0.2 Fire Modeling System The BehavePlus Fire Modeling System is a PC-based program that is a collection of models that describe fire behavior, fire effects, and the fire environment. It is a flexible system that produces tables, graphs, and simple diagrams and can be used for a multitude of fire management applications. BehavePlus is the successor to the BEHAVE fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system (Andrews 1986, Andrews and Chase 1989, Burgan and Rothermel, 1984, Andrews and Bradshaw, 1990). It is called the BehavePlus Fire Modeling System to reflect its expanded scope. Development continues with the addition of fire modeling capabilities and features to facilitate application http://www.firemodels.org/content/view/24/33/. Indicators used to compare the effects of the alternatives include rate of spread, fire line intensity, flame length, scorch height, and the probability of mortality. Fuel Modeling System (Anderson, 1982) This was used to select representative Fuel Models for the current condition, the effects of the Action Alternative, and the anticipated conditions of the No Action Alternative. Selected Fuel Models were used in the BehavePlus 3.0.2 Fire Modeling System. Land fire Data (Courtesy of Seeley-Swan Fire Plan) This data was used in conjunction with Anderson (1982) to present and analyze current and predicted Fuel Models and fire risk in a spatial context. Fire Group studies Fire group studies from Fischer and Bradley (1987) were used to examine fire’s ecological role on forest succession in correlation with Fire Regime data. National Historic Fire Regimes (Schmidt and others 2000) and Lolo NF, Auggie Project analysis area Fire Regime data was used to examine the historic interrelationships of fire frequency and fire severity within the analysis area. This study assessed the current and anticipated conditions and the amount of deviation from historic Fire Regime that has and would continue to occur. Fire Regime data along with Behaveplus 2.0.2 data was used to examine the effects of alternatives on wildfire severity. Existing Conditions Fire was historically a dominant agent of change and filled a very important role in Rocky Mountain ecosystems. Fires are natural modifiers of the vegetation, killing all trees and above-ground vegetation (high intensity, lethal fire), or only burning smaller trees or no trees at all and only burning understory grasses and shrubs (low intensity, non-lethal fires). Fire releases nutrients to the soil and affects the amount of dead woody debris and snags on a site. Fires affect soil moisture and stream-flows because of the change in amount of precipitation available and sometimes consume forest floor organic soil layers. Fires are often followed with hard rains before soil conditions recover. This can cause the watershed–forming process of erosion, altering hill slopes and stream channels.

of 33

Historically, fire has played an important role in shaping the area around the Auggie Creek project area. About 5,496 acres in two of the three 7th code HUCs burned in 1910, 1967, and 1919, although there were no historic fires in the Auggie treatment area and 102 ac in the Mountain Creek treatment area. Approximately 100 years ago much of the area around Auggie Creek experienced one or more large, intense fire events. This fire history is evidenced by the current widespread representation of mostly even-aged mature lodgepole pine stands. Lodgepole pine cones are dependent on the passage of fire for regeneration (DeBano et. al., 1998). More recently, fire suppression has restricted naturally occurring fire and limited the beneficial fire effects to the project landscape. Forest management has since recognized fire’s critical function in long-term ecosystem health. Fire, either future wildfires or management-ignited prescribed burns, will continue to modify the landscape. Within the Mountain Creek treatment area (Units H11 through H17) the result of past harvest activities has produced a monoculture of dense uniform ponderosa pine, which were planted in even rows. This stand was originally cut in 1948 and has had several subsequent silvicultural entries. Within the Auggie Creek treatment area, the majority of the proposed units (or portions of them), except Units H3 through H7 and H10, have been treated with timber harvest in the past. Units H1 through H10 are all multi-storied stands with a large component of ladder fuels, and tight crowns. Given a fire start during a typical summer, these units are all susceptible to group tree torching and, depending on wind, could experience crown fires. Units T1 through T7 have very light understory vegetation, and the variety of bear grass, elk sedge and bare ground reduce the ability to carry a ground fire. Units T8 through T15 have a higher stocking level, and the ground fuels are light with a higher component of bear grass and sedges. The higher stocking levels in these units result in tight crown spacing and more ladder fuels. A little wind could carry fire more readily through these stands. Units S1, S2 and S3 were cut in 1997, and these units were also treated with prescribed fire in 2000 and 2001. The current condition in these units is very similar to a Fuel Model 8. Units S4 through S8 range in age from 30 to 99 years old, and there is a mosaic of conditions throughout the units. For the most part, the units are heavily stocked with tight crowns and a large ladder fuel component (see photo 2 below). Some areas are more open but still have horizontal and vertical continuity in the crowns (see photo 3).

of 33

Photo3 (Unit S6)

Forest fuel conditions in the Auggie Creek analysis area have been affected by fire suppression, past timber management treatments, and mountain pine beetle infestations. Current fuel conditions are evolving towards substantial increases in surface fuel loading. Over time the effects of the growing mountain pine beetle infestation will generate additions to surface fuel loading impacting increasingly larger portions of the project area. Past Recreation Management Within the Auggie creek analysis area about 12 miles of trail and about 33 miles of active and old roads systems are present that would provide firelines for wildfire or prescribed fire application. These system trails can be used to break up the prescribed burning into smaller units to better take advantage of optimal burning condition within the different areas. The Auggie creek area has about 9 miles of active road systems around the unit; these include Highway 83, Rice Ridge Road, Auggie Morrell Road, and the Morrell Road. The Mountain Creek area has old roads surrounding the southern perimeter, these are Road #s 36380, 36381 and 36389, and they account for about 1 mile. Past Fire Suppression The Lolo National Forest Fire Management Plan (2008-2009) indicates from 1997 to 2006 the Lolo averaged 179 wildfires per year that burned an average 16,139 acres annually. Less than 2 percent of these wildfires escaped initial attack and became large fires. Within the WUI area defined as Lolo National Forest Fire Management Unit 1, the Lolo averages 109 wildland fires per year burning 3,479 acres annually. Sixty-one percent of the suppression workload occurs within the WUI. Eighty-eight percent of these fires are ignited by people. Fire suppression over the past 90 years has reduced naturally occurring fire events and limited beneficial fire effects over the project landscape. These periodic natural fire events would have reduced forest fuel concentrations helping to maintain a patchwork of various stand structures. In general, there would have likely been more fire spread occurrences at the lower elevations.

of 33

These naturally occurring fire events would have reduced forest fuel continuity to varying degrees based on fuel moisture, weather, and topography. These fires would have most likely killed the more shade-tolerant, less fire-resistant tree species and effectively thinned the forest. Fire would have recycled nutrients to the soil to stimulate both residual and new regeneration. Fire suppression has reduced the beneficial effects of low and mixed severity fire events that would have most likely promoted a widespread mosaic of stand structures. Since fire has not been allowed to burn, vegetation across the landscape is fairly homogeneous. Fuels are more continuous than was thought to exist under more natural fire regimes. Fire exclusion has led to an overall increase in tree densities. This has increased the vertical and horizontal fuel continuity. Shade-tolerant tree species are becoming increasingly present and provide fuel ladders so future wildfire would be more likely to transition from the forest floor into the tree canopy. Fire suppression has allowed fuels and fuel continuity to increase in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Using GIS data, fire starts, causes and acreages were calculated in the three 7th code HUCs which include the Auggie project area (see Map x) (170102031007 = “Auggie-Seeley sub-watershed”, 170102031006 = “Morrell Creek sub-watershed”, and 170102031005 = “Mountain Creek sub-watershed”). Fire starts average 9 per year over the 28-year period 1980 through 2007. Lightning fires account for 58% of the fire starts but only 59% of the acres burned. Person-caused fires account for 42% of the fire starts and 41% of the acres burned. Campfires account for most of the person-caused fires. Fire starts in Auggie-Seeley, Morrell Creek and Mountain Creek sub-watersheds from 1980 to 2007 # of fires # of acres*

Lightning-Caused 153 74

Person-Caused 112 51

*Acreage is rounded to nearest whole number Following is the breakdown by 7th code HUC (i.e., “sub-watershed”). The Auggie Seeley sub-watershed, which encompasses the majority of the Auggie project area, has almost 50% person-caused fire starts. This sub-watershed includes several very high-use campgrounds, Highway 83, and several high-use Forest roads. Morrell sub-watershed has almost 40%, and Mountain Creek sub-watershed has over 30% person-caused fire starts. The Morrell Creek sub-watershed has a high-use road system that follows Morrell Creek and is used year-round, and the majority of the town of Seeley Lake lies within this sub-watershed. The Mountain Creek sub-watershed encompasses all of the Mountain Creek treatment area of the Auggie project. Fire starts in Auggie-Seeley sub-watershed from 1980 to 2007 # of fires # of acres*


Person-Caused 68 17

*Acreage is rounded to nearest whole number Fire starts in Morrell Creek sub-watershed from 1980 to 2007 # of fires # of acres*


of 33

Person-Caused 27 2

*Acreage is rounded to nearest whole number Fire starts in Mountain Creek sub-watershed from 1980 to 2007 # of fires # of acres*


Person-Caused 17 32

*Acreage is rounded to nearest whole number The data indicates that there is a high likelihood that a fire or several fires may occur within the area every year and over a 40% chance it will be person-caused. Past Timber Management Forest Service timber stand data records indicate that prior to 2008 within the Auggie project treatment area polygons there have been approximately 759 acres of regeneration harvests, 912 acres of intermediate harvests, and 36 acres of uneven aged harvest. During this period, it is estimated that prescribed fire was applied to approximately 400 acres. There are 5 plantations within the treatment areas totaling about 230 acres. Current fuel conditions and historical practices indicate that prescribed fire was used in these areas. More recently burn plans indicate that an additional 154 acres of prescribed fire was used in conjunction with timber sale activity. Numerous other harvest units are widely distributed over the project as indicated by GIS data, however no records were found of prescribed fire associated with these harvest units. Numerous indications of landing pile burning are still present through out the analysis area. Previous timber management activities have reduced fuel loading in some areas (photo 1) and increased ladder fuels diversity throughout the project area (photo 2). Photo 1 (Unit T3)

of 33

Photo 2 (unit S8)

This fuel loading mosaic would likely affect future wildfire behavior as fire spreads over the landscape. Previously harvested stands have regenerated and are now stocked with, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, and western larch. Wildfires burning in areas depicted in photo 1 would likely be low intensity surface fires with minimally severe fire effects. Wildfires burning in areas depicted in photo 2 would likely be mixed to high severity fires with possible severe fire effects. The combined effects of past timber management treatments partially mimic fire’s natural role (i.e., moderate to stand-replacement severity fire events) by reducing fuels in areas and generating stand age diversity over the analysis area. Community Water Plant Seeley Lake Water District maintains a water treatment facility north of the project area and has underground water lines passing through the western portion of the area adjacent to Highway 83. The water district is planning to expand the facility and the water lines. The expansion project would clear the current above ground lines and new lines would be dug creating exposed soil for a short period which would eventually reseed. There would be a complete absence of woody debris for a long period of time. Power Lines Missoula Electric Cooperative maintains one power line that runs through Sections 34 and 35 of the project area in Unit S2 and borders the south edge of Unit T11. They maintain a clearing beneath the power lines to prevent trees from growing into the lines. Some of the clearing activities were on private land. While we are unable to determine the effects caused by each of the previous treatments or activities in the area, combined they have created the existing condition in the Auggie project area. Mountain Pine Beetle As discussed in the Vegetation Report, mature, mostly even-aged lodgepole pine predominate many areas within the Auggie Creek analysis area. This mature successional condition puts lodgepole pine stands at high-risk and susceptible to mountain pine beetle infestations. Mountain pine beetle infestations are currently well-established within the analysis area.

of 33

Without treatment, mountain pine beetle will most likely cause widespread lodgepole pine mortality over large portions of the project area, significantly contributing to fuel loading. The current mountain pine beetle infestations affect fuel configurations and wildfire behavior. Mountain pine beetles kill and defoliate mature lodgepole pine, and infested areas would initially have a decreased probability for crown fire development and spread. However, there would be a short-term, minor increase in fine surface fuels from the defoliation. With time, the dead standing lodgepole pine would fall in a random jack-straw pattern. Mountain pine beetle’s preference for large diameter trees would dramatically increase surface fuel loading. Page “indicated that there were statistically significant increases in the amounts of fine surface fuels in recently infested stands, i.e., those stands <5 years past peak mortality. In the previously infested stands, there were large increases in the amounts of dead woody fuels in all but the smallest size classes” (Page 2007). The down dead lodgepole pine would likely be intertwined and partially suspended from the forest floor. This suspended fuel arrangement combined with the dry cool climate and the decay resilient nature of lodgepole pine would make this increased fuel load condition persist for many years. As more lodgepole pine fall, more shade-tolerant species regeneration would increase. The combined effect of large down dead material and fine live fuels from shade-tolerant tree species would significantly increase fuel continuity and fuel loading along the forest floor. Under extended dry conditions, wildfire in this fuel configuration would most likely have extremely high fire intensities. These high intensity fires would likely eliminate even tree species generally more resistant to fire damage than lodgepole pine such as Douglas-fir and western larch, returning the area to mostly pure lodgepole pine (Amman 1977). As a wildfire spreads, fire behavior from these events would likely affect adjacent vigorous healthy stands not affected by mountain pine beetle. This condition would likely increase the probability for crown fire development and mortality in nearby stands. In summary, the scope of the mountain pine beetle infestation and its widespread influence on fuel loading will have a notable affect on future wildfire behavior in the Auggie Creek analysis area. Under hot dry summer conditions a wildfire in this projected fuel configuration could facilitate widespread intense fire behavior. Fire suppression will continue in this area, and suppression efforts will likely be successful in keeping fires small under most low to moderate weather conditions. This delays, but does not mitigate, a large intense wildfire under severe fire weather conditions. Fire Groups Fire Groups (USDA, EMB GUIDE) were used to assess landscape level fuels. The Seeley Lake Ranger District generated a Fire Group map for the analysis area. Four Fire Groups are represented in the Auggie Project analysis area. Fire Group 7 and 9 are more common throughout the analysis area and Fire Groups 6 and 8 have a smaller representation with in the analysis area. Fire group 6 represents about 12% of the analysis area. Fire group 7 represents about 58% the analysis area. Fire group 8 about 12% acres and fire group 9 about 15% and the wet areas account for approximately 3%. Habitat types are categorized into Fire Groups based on the response of the tree species to fire and the roles of these tree species during succession. The predominant analysis area Fire Groups are defined below. Fire Group Six. Fire Group Six is defined as cool and moist Douglas-fir types. Fire Group Six habitat types normally occur at lower elevations on many aspects. These stands were characterized by mixed species (ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, western larch, lodgepole pine, and grand fir). In Fire Group Six the natural fire-free interval is 15 to 42 years. Mostly low and

of 33

moderate severity fires maintained most commonly open park-like stands dominated by ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir (USDA, EMB GUIDE). Fire Group 6 represents one of the most important areas in need of fire on the forest (USDA, EMB GUIDE ). Historically, fire was an important agent in controlling density and species composition. Low-to moderate-severity fires converted dense stands of pole-sized or larger trees to a more open condition and subsequent light burning maintained stands in a park-like state. Frequent low or moderate fires favored larch and ponderosa pine over Douglas-fir in stands where these species occurred (USDA, EMB GUIDE). Fire Group Seven. Fire Group Seven is defined as cool habitat types usually dominated by lodgepole pine. In Fire Group Seven, the fire-free interval is 50 to 130 years. Periodic fire disturbances of low to moderate intensity on these sites favor species such as lodgepole pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. Fire in these types are usually preceded by heavy mortality from mountain pine beetle (USDA, EMB GUIDE). Fire Group Eight. Fire Group Eight is defined as dry, lower subalpine habitat types. Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine are the dominant seral species in this habitat type (EMB GUIDE). This is a collection of habitat types in the spruce and subalpine fir series that usually support mixed stands of Douglas–fir and lodgepole pine (Fischer and Bradley 1987). In Fire Group Eight the fire interval is 50 to 90 years. Low intensity ground fire favored Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine (USDA, EMB GUIDE). Fire Group Nine. Fire Group Nine is defined as moist, lower subalpine habitat types. In Fire Group Nine the fire interval is estimated at greater than 120 years. Other studies have shown fire return intervals of 10 to 100 years (USDA, EMB GUIDE). Fire Group Nine fuels are similar to those found in Fire Group Eight. Down dead woody material on the forest floor averages about 25 tons per acre, but may be much higher. A large percentage of the down woody material is greater than 3 inches in diameter. This can result in severe surface fire during unusually dry conditions (USDA, EMB GUIDE). Where dense understories exist, fires can spread to the tree crowns. Without crowning there is a good chance the overstory trees would be killed by cambium heating. Under normal moisture conditions a lush undergrowth of shrubs and herbs usually serves as an effective barrier to rapid fire spread. Fire Regime Fire occurs on the American landscape on a variety of time tables. Nationally, this variation of fire occurrence has been categorized into five historical fire regimes (Schmidt et. al. 2002) as displayed in Table XXX below. Fire Regimes provide historical interrelationships as to fire frequency and fire severity. Within the Auggie Project analysis area, Fire Regime III (Fire Group 6) and Fire Regime IV (Fire Groups 7, 8, 9) are represented. Table XXX National Historical Fire Regimes (Schmidt and others 2002)

Fire Regime Frequency (Fire Return Interval)

Severity Fire Group(s)

of 33

Fire Regime Frequency (Fire Return Interval)

Severity Fire Group(s)

I 0-35 years-high frequency

Low-severity 2 and 4

II 0-35 years-high frequency

Stand-replacement

(Minimally present on the Lolo NF)

III 35-100 + years-moderate frequency

Mixed-severity 5 and 6

IV 35-100 + years-moderate frequency

Stand-replacement

7, 8, 9 and 11

V > 200 years–low frequency

Stand-replacement

10

Generally, when fires burn more frequently, they tend to be low-intensity surface fires burning leaf and needle litter, dead branch material, down logs, bark, cones, and low growing plants. The larger overstory trees tend to survive the fire, and patches of unburned forest often remain. The more frequent the fire interval the more likely excess fuel is periodically consumed. Periodic fire has a long-term combined effect of reducing fuel loads in areas and reducing overall fire intensities for larger areas. Forests under this scenario tend to retain a long-term large tree overstory component on the site, with relatively fewer smaller understory trees. In Fire Regimes where fire burns less frequently, fire intensity tends to be moderate to high. Over time, fuels accumulate and create both a vertical and horizontal continuity. Under dry conditions fire would spread rapidly and burn with high severity. Historically, the Auggie Project analysis area most likely experienced fire events at a moderate to high frequency with a fire return interval less than 35 years. Girard Grove less than 2 miles west of the project area experienced a fire frequency of 24 years. This is possibly due to Native American Burning (USDA, EMB GUIDE p. 11). These fire events would most likely have been low to mixed-severity. Historical fire cycles have been modified with the advent of fire suppression. Long-term fire suppression has limited fire’s natural role, as a periodic fuel reduction component of the forest. Fire exclusion promotes an escalating, continuous fuel arrangement, increasing the likelihood for high wildfire severity. A wildfire burning under hot summer time conditions in these forest conditions has a far greater likelihood of being much more severe than historic fires. Fuels Condition Fire managers use 13 Fuel Models to aid in fire behavior predictions. These Fuel Models are organized into four groups: grass, shrub, timber and slash. Land fire data depicts five fuel models in the analysis area. Current fuel conditions comprising the majority of the proposed treatment area are comparable to Fuel Model 8 with intermixed pockets of Fuel Models 1, 2, 5 and 10. Fuel model 11 is also present in small pockets around several of the old logging units (see photo 4). Table B7 summarizes fuel model characteristics represented in the analysis area. Table B7 Fuel Model Characteristics Represented in the Auggie Creek Analysis Area Fuel Model FM

1 FM 5

FM 8

FM 10

FM 11

of 33

Total fuel load < 3 inch dead and live (tons/acre) .74 3.5 5.0 12.0 11.5 Dead fuel loading, ¼ inch (tons/acre) .74 1.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 Live fuel load, foliage (tons/acre) 0 2.0 0.0 2.0 0 Source: Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior (Anderson 1982) Fuel Model 1 comprises approximately 4% of the analysis area; Fuel Model 2 less than 1%; Fuel Model 5 about 8%; Fuel Model 8 about 76%; Fuel Model 10 about 5%; and Fuel Model 11 less than 1%. Fuel Model 2 is not included in Tables B1 – B7 because it represents such a small percentage of the analysis area, although Fuel Model 11 is included because the effects of the no action and proposed action alternative may move fuel conditions to Fuel Model 11. Photo 4

Table B1 BehavePlus Outputs for Rate of Spread in Auggie Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Models 1, 5, 8, 10 and 11

Rate of Spread (ch/hr)

Fuel Model

Mid-flame wind speed (mi/hr)

1 5 8 10 11 0.0 9.2 3.6 0.4 1.8 0.9 2.0 24.5 15.4 0.9 5.3 3.2 4.0 73.5 34.8 1.9 11.1 5.9 6.0 158.1 58.6 3.2 18.4 8.9 8.0 279.5 85.8 4.7 26.9 12.0 10.0 345.1 115.8 6.4 36.3 15.2 Table B2 BehavePlus Outputs for Fire line Intensity in Auggie Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Models 1, 5, 8, 10 and 11

of 33

Fire line Intensity (Btu/ft/s)

Fuel Model


1 5 8 10 11 0.0 16 49 1 50 14 2.0 43 215 4 144 47 4.0 129 484 7 303 88 6.0 278 815 12 502 133 8.0 491 1192 18 733 180 10.0 607 1610 25 990 228 Table B3 BehavePlus Outputs for Flame Length for Auggie Creek Treatment Area in Fuel Models 1, 5, 8, 10 and 11

Flame Length (feet)

Fuel Model


1 5 8 10 11 0.0 1.6 2.7 0.5 2.7 1.5 2.0 2.5 5.3 0.8 4.4 2.7 4.0 4.2 7.7 1.1 6.2 3.5 6.0 6.0 9.8 1.4 7.9 4.3 8.0 7.8 11.7 1.7 9.4 4.9 10.0 8.6 13.4 2.0 10.7 5.5 Table B4 BehavePlus Outputs for Scorch Height for Auggie Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Models 1, 5, 8, 10 and 11

Scorch Height (feet)

Fuel Model


1 5 8 10 11 0.0 7 14 1 14 6 2.0 12 37 1 28 13 4.0 22 61 1 43 16 6.0 34 81 1 55 17 8.0 46 99 1 65 17 10.0 46 113 1 74 17 Table B5 BehavePlus Outputs for Probability of Mortality for Auggie Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Models 1, 5, 8, 10 and 11

Probability of Mortality (%)

Fuel Model


1 5 8 10 11 0.0 69 69 69 69 69

of 33

2.0 69 69 69 69 69 4.0 69 93 69 69 69 6.0 69 100 69 69 69 8.0 69 100 69 99 69 10.0 69 100 69 100 69 Table B6 BehavePlus Outputs for Mountain Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Models 8, 10 and 11

Rate of Spread (chi/hr)


Flame Length (feet)




FM 8

FM 10

FM 11

FM 8

FM 10

FM 11

FM 8

FM 10

FM 11

FM 8

FM 10

FM 11

FM 8

FM 10

FM 11

0.0 .3 1.3 .7 1 36 10 .5 2.3 1.3 1 11 5 58 76 37 2.0 .8 4.8 2.9 3 13

0 43 .8 4.2 2.6 1 26 12 58 10

0 61

4.0 1.8 10.6

5.6 7 289

84 1.1 6.1 3.5 1 42 15 58 100

82

6.0 3.1 17.9

8.6 12 488

129

1.4 7.8 4.2 1 54 16 58 100

87

8.0 4.6 26.4

11.7

18 719

176

1.7 9.3 4.9 1 64 17 58 100

88

10.0 6.3 35.8

15 24 976

224

2.0 10.7

5.4 1 73 17 58 100

88

Existing Condition (Past Activities) Adjacent to, but not Within the Analysis Area Private Fuel Reduction Since 2003, a substantial amount of fuel reduction work has occurred on private land. Since each fuel reduction project was accomplished to meet the goals of the landowner, each project was slightly different. These projects have and will have similar effects on fuels as fuel reduction activities on National Forest System lands. It is anticipated that the piles created by private landowners would be disposed of by intermittent burning based on past history in the area. This pile burning could adversely effect the soil if the piles are burned in the summer or early fall due to the lack of soil moisture. The chemical and physical properties of soil are not greatly affected by heating until the soil becomes dry (DeBano et. al., 1998). The pile burning could also adversely affect air quality if burning guidelines and restrictions are not followed. The Seeley-Swan Fire Plan identified 4 priority levels within the Plan boundary, and the resulting acreages that occurred within each priority area since 2003 (see Table xx). Table xx – Seeley-Swan Fire Plan Priority Areas (Seeley-Swan Fire Plan, 2008)

Fuels Reduction Treatments (acres)

Priority level High Moderate Low Very Low Landowner Lolo National Forest

1093 1427 491 254

MT DNRC – SWLO

471 160 78 7

Plum Creek Timber Co.

688 1956 2991 14191

Private 384 167 71 55

of 33

Missoula County 33 0 16 3 Other 4 5 2 0 Total 2673 3715 3649 14510 Community The community of Seeley Lake lies adjacent to the Auggie project area. It has a year-round population of 2,000 residents and a summer population of over 4000 people. The area offers year-round recreation opportunities (Seeley Lake Chamber of Commerce). The Auggie Creek treatment area ski trail area is a high use area by locals and visitors year-round. Homes Within one-half mile of the Auggie and Mountain Creek treatment area boundaries there are almost 300 individual properties, most of which have homes or business built on them. Using the Montana Cadastral and Missoula County Property Information System sites, the 2003 full reappraisal values of the properties within one-half mile of the project boundaries is estimated at over 30 million dollars. This estimate also includes homes and businesses on National Forest Service and Montana State-leased lands. This estimate does not include the value of the elementary school or churches. Personal-Use Firewood Cutting Personal-use firewood cutting increases the number of visitors to the Forest increasing the chance of human-caused fires. Numerous households in the valley rely on firewood for heat. Firewood cutting decreases the large fuel loadings in a localized area but can increase the fine fuel loads due to the remaining slash. The number of standing dead trees has increased in the past few years most likely due to beetles and aging. With the price of heating fuel on the rise it is not anticipated that the number of homeowners using firewood will decrease. Timber Harvest Recent timber harvest adjacent to the project area includes the Seeley Fuels project and the Chain of Lakes project. These projects have reduced the understory and mid-story ladder fuel component, to help create areas of defensible space in the event of a wildfire. Environmental Consequences Effects Common to Alternatives 1 and 2 Both Alternatives would have no effect on the quantity of lightning or human-caused wildfire starts. Lightning and human-caused wildfires will continue to influence the Auggie and Mountain Creek landscape. It is likely Lolo NF Fire Management Staff will continue to prioritize this area with an initial attack suppression response. A wildfire exceeding initial attack would be followed by Fire Management Staff implementing a more aggressive management response strategy. Any wildland fire occurring in this area would not be allowed to burn unabated in this locality due to its high value resources and proximity to town. Although naturally occurring wildfire events could possibly produce positive beneficial fire effects over the landscape, the Forest Service’s liability, risk to resources, and threats to the public would greatly compound. The Lolo NF Fire Management Plan (2008-2009) geographically delineates three Fire Management Units (FMU). Each FMU has associated values and risk that determine the appropriate management response. The Auggie Creek and Mountain Creek treatment areas, which are designated as WUI in the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan, are located in FMU-1. FMU-1 objectives include: suppressing all wildfires using rapid, aggressive initial attack to control 96-98 percent of all wildfires; ensuring 70-85 percent of the annual hazardous fuel acres treated are in FMU-1; and 30-35 percent of those acres are treated using mechanical methods. FMU-1

of 33

areas are first priority for assigning initial attack suppression resources and hazardous fuel treatments. No Action Alternative - Direct and Indirect Effects The No Action Alternative would affect future wildfire behavior because there would be no harvesting or prescribed fire. There would be an overall continuing decline in forest health due to unnaturally excess biomass and a continued absence of beneficial fire effects. Under hot dry summer conditions the effects of the No Action Alternative would promote an increasing likelihood of severe wildfire behavior. In mixed conifer stands the probability of torching and crowning would increase as shade-tolerant ladder fuels proliferate over the area. There would be an increasing likelihood of crown fire development and sustained crown fire spread with each fire season in the mixed conifer types. Mountain pine beetle preference for large diameter lodgepole pine would dramatically increase fuel loading over large portions of the analysis area. We anticipate that within the next 5 to 20 years, many of the recent dead lodgepole pine will fall down, creating a heavy, dead, woody, surface fuel-bed conducive to intense fire behavior and severe fire effects. During low to moderate fire danger, fire suppression efforts would likely be effective. Under extended periods of high fire danger there would be an increasing potential for large fire growth and severe fire effects. Crown fire development and sustained intense surface fire would be more likely during these hot, dry periods with each season. Firefighters and the public would be exposed to larger more intense wildfires. Fire suppression cost would increase as tactical efficiency and effectiveness declined. Severe wildfire generated inside the project area would threaten adjacent homes, businesses, and resources. Fuel Model 8 areas are likely to transition to Fuel Model 10 conditions. This progression toward Fuel Model 10 conditions would occur due to the effects of mountain pine beetle mortality, increasing shade-tolerant tree species in the understory, and continued fire suppression. Stands with mountain pine beetle infestation would most likely shift from a mostly vertical fuel arrangement with low wildfire intensity potential to a significantly increased horizontal fuel load arrangement with high wildfire intensity potential. Continued fire exclusion would facilitate shade-tolerant tree species establishment in the understory throughout the analysis area. This combined influence of increasing dead and live surface fuel loading would likely result in fewer areas with Fuel Model 8 conditions and more areas with Fuel Model 10. There would be an increasing potential for severe wildfire behavior. Wildfires in Fuel Model 10 tend to be at the upper limit of control by direct attack. With increased winds and drier conditions torching, crowning, and spotting is more frequent in this fuel situation making a large high intensity wildfire more likely (Anderson, 1982). As discussed previously, the BehavePlus 3.0.2 Fire Modeling System (Andrews and others) was used to analyze surface fire behavior of typical current and projected fuel conditions in the analysis area. The BehavePlus 3.0.2 Model is not an absolute representation of fire behavior, but is a relative indicator of fire behavior that can aid land managers in the decision-making process. Limitations of this model run results include weather and topographic variables that would likely occur as a fire spreads over time and space. BehavePlus runs were generated to compare current and future potential fire behavior assuming no treatment is applied to proposed units. Fuel Model 8 was used to represent a typical, current fuel condition were the majority of the biomass is standing, surface fuel loading is light, and ladder fuels are minimal. Fuel Model 10 reflects the anticipated, fuel transformation

of 33

as stand vigor declines with time. Fuel Model 10 depicts a biomass shift from vertical to horizontal with increased surface fuel loading and ladder fuels. BehavePlus input parameters within the Auggie Creek treatment area that were used characterize dry, late summer, high fire danger conditions. Input parameters were: 70–foot lodgepole pine; 0.2 crown ratio; live woody fuel moisture 50%; fuel moistures: 1-hour = 4%, 10-hour = 5%, and 100-hour = 6%; mid-flame wind speed 0-10 mph; air temperature 80 º Fahrenheit; and a 15% slope. The slope across the Auggie Creek Treatment Area varies from flat up to 25% with an average of 4%. The Mountain Creek Treatment Area varies from flat to 4% slope with an average of 2%. BehavePlus input parameters that were used within the Mountain Creek treatment area were: 30–foot ponderosa pine; 0.8 crown ratio; live woody fuel moisture 50%; fuel moistures: 1-hour = 4%, 10-hour = 5%, and 100-hour = 6%; mid-flame wind speed 0-10 mph; air temperature 80 º Fahrenheit; and a 2% slope. The Mountain Creek treatment area has some grass component in the understory as well as some brush and low canopy levels. As shown in Tables B8 and B9 below, analysis results indicate, under the same fuel moisture, weather, and topography, Fuel Model 10 conditions generate notably more severe surface fire behavior than Fuel Model 8. Under high fire danger conditions, there would be a trend toward increased rate of spread, fire line intensity, flame length, scorch height, and a higher probability of mortality. With no treatment applied, increasing portions of the analysis area would acquire an increased likelihood for severe wildfire behavior. Table B8 BehavePlus Outputs for Auggie Treatment Area for Fuel Model 8 (Existing Condition) and Fuel Model 10 (No Action)



Flame Length (feet)




FM 8 FM 10 FM 8 FM 10 FM 8 FM 10 FM 8 FM 10 FM 8 FM 10

0.0 0.4 1.8 1 50 0.5 2.7 1 14 69 69 2.0 0.9 5.3 4 144 0.8 4.4 1 28 69 69 4.0 1.9 11.1 7 303 1.1 6.2 1 43 69 69 6.0 3.2 18.4 12 502 1.4 7.9 1 55 69 69 8.0 4.7 26.9 18 733 1.7 9.4 1 65 69 99 10.0 6.4 36.3 25 990 2 10.7 1 74 69 100 Table B9 BehavePlus Outputs for Mountain Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Model 8 (Existing Condition) and Fuel Model 10 (No Action)



Flame Length (feet)





0.0 .3 1.3 1 36 .5 2.3 1 11 58 76 2.0 .8 4.8 3 130 .8 4.2 1 26 58 100 4.0 1.8 10.6 7 289 1.1 6.1 1 42 58 100 6.0 3.1 17.9 12 488 1.4 7.8 1 54 58 100 8.0 4.6 26.4 18 719 1.7 9.3 1 64 58 100 10.0 6.3 35.8 24 976 2.0 10.7 1 73 58 100

of 33

Summary: Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the quantity of lightning or human-caused wildfires affecting the project area however, it would affect future wildfire behavior. There would be an overall continuing decline in forest health due to unnatural excess biomass and a long-term absence of beneficial fire effects. Under hot dry summer conditions the effect of the No Action Alternative would be an increasing likelihood of severe wildfire behavior. A new fire start would likely initially spread as a surface fire. Torching and crowning would be progressively probable. There would be an increasing likelihood of crown fire development and sustained crown fire spread with each fire season. The No Action Alternative would cumulatively counteract the recent fuel mitigation to the west and south of the Auggie Project area, offsetting lower wildfire severity effects. The potential for high wildfire smoke impacts would increase. There would be increasing risk from wildfire to firefighters and the public. Fire suppression cost would likely increase as tactical efficiency and effectiveness declines. The No Action Alternative would decrease fire protection capabilities on lands adjacent to the project area. It is also probable that a wildfire generated inside the project area would threaten the town of Seeley Lake and residences adjacent to the project boundary. Alternative 2 - Direct and Indirect Effects Fuel Condition / Fire Behavior In the Action Alternative the total area proposed for vegetation treatments is 965 acres. Treatments include: improvement cutting, group tree selection, precommercial thinning, slashing and underburning. Improvement cutting would occur on approximately 371 acres. Precommercial thinning would occur on approximately 169 acres. Slashing would occur on approximately 542 acres. In all but Units H11, H12, H14, H15, H16, H17, underburning would occur. This would result in underburning approximately 863 acres within unit boundaries. The Action Alternative includes allowing prescribed fire to burn outside of treatment unit boundaries, to best utilize natural barriers. Allowing prescribed fire to back into riparian areas minimizes the need to construct containment lines. It is estimated that approximately ½ mile of containment lines may need to be constructed primarily along the west flank of the Auggie Creek treatment area adjacent to the private lands. Both the Auggie Creek treatment area and the Mountain Creek treatment area burn units are relatively flat and would be ignited under spring or fall burning conditions. The Action Alternative would apply prescribed fire to approximately 863 acres. Prescribed fire would most likely distribute beneficial fire effects in a patchwork mosaic over each burn unit. Prescribed burning would reduce surface fuel load concentrations, stimulate nutrient recycling, promote forest health, and enhance and diversify wildlife habitat. Areas treated by prescribed burning would serve as effective fuel breaks to impede future wildfire spread. Based on experience from past prescribed burning activities, springtime burning would likely consume some fine and smaller diameter woody surface fuels. Shrubs would likely be top-killed. Isolated torching would be possible but not likely. Fire effects would likely be more common on sites where more sunlight reaches the forest floor. Springtime fire spread would be less probable in areas with dense canopy and greater surface shading. Mostly homogeneous prescribed fire effects would likely be scattered over the burn unit area. Harvest treatments would likely facilitate low-intensity, surface fire spread and increase fire effects distribution over areas. Litter layer consumption would likely be variable. The duff layer

of 33

would likely not burn. Homogeneous and some diverse prescribed fire effects would likely be well-distributed over the burn unit area. Fall underburning would likely consume litter and duff layers to variable degrees in a mosaic pattern over most of the burn unit. Most fine and small woody surface fuels would likely be consumed or partially burned. Large down woody material would likely be partially burn or consumed. Isolated torching and crowning would be possible. Diverse prescribed fire effects would be widespread over burn unit area. Harvest treatments would generate landing piles, which would be burned in the late fall during designated favorable air dispersion days and weather conditions conducive to burn pile containment. The use of harvesting and thinning/slashing in conjunction with prescribed fire would change the overall severity and intensity of a future wildland fire. As concluded by Graham and others, “thinning and other thinning-like stand treatments can substantially influence subsequent fire behavior at the stand level by either increasing or decreasing fire intensity and associated severity of effects. Depending on intensity, thinning from below and possibly free thinning can most effectively alter fire behavior by reducing crown bulk density, increasing crown base height, and changing species composition to lighter crowned and fire-adapted species. Such intermediate treatments can reduce the severity and intensity of wildfires for a given set of physical and weather variables.” They also go on to say “the best success in modifying fire behavior through the use of thinning throughout the West is when applied in conjunction with prescribed fire.” (Graham, et. al. 1999). Weatherspoon (1996) states that “heavily thinning an overstocked stand from below and using whole-tree removal (or chipping and spreading the limbs and tops), followed by a prescribed understory burn to reduce natural fuels, will almost certainly reduce the wildfire hazard of the stand.” By opening the stand through thinning more sunlight is able to penetrate the canopy and more wind is present at the forest floor, allowing forest fuels to dry out at the same time more open stand conditions “increase the growth of forbs and shrubs, which retain moisture until later in the season, reducing fire behavior.” (Brown et. al. 2004; Agee 2002; Weatherspoon, 1996). Hurteau (2008) and others also suggest that thinning could also produce a net cooling effect by reflecting more sunlight off the forest floor, and not absorbing it into the darker overstory vegetation. Improvement cutting, group tree selection and slashing with no broadcast prescribed fire would occur over approximately 102 acres. Improvement harvest without prescribed fire (Units H11, H12, H14, H15, H16, and H17) would partially imitate natural fire events by reducing biomass in portions of the units. Removing some merchantable trees would increase nutrient availability, allowing the remaining stands to release. This would also increase stand structural heterogeneity and habitat diversity within the area. This change would generate a change in Fuel Model from 8 to Fuel Model 11. In this analysis, Fuel Model 8 represents surface fuel conditions prior to harvest and Fuel Model 11 represents surface fuel conditions after harvest. However, without these treatments the stands would change from Fuel Model 8 to Fuel Model 10, which is the anticipated condition in the near future. The BehavePlus fire model was used to compare surface wildfire behavior in ponderosa pine, under very dry summer time conditions for all three Fuel Models. These treatments would reduce future wildfire severity as modeled by Fuel Model 10, but there would be increased wildfire intensity potential from current Fuel Model 8. Given hot dry summer conditions, the proposed treatments would affect wildfire behavior by increasing surface fire spread over the majority of the harvest unit areas. Isolated pockets of torching could occur but it is highly likely a fire would remain a surface fire. There would be a greatly reduced likelihood of crown fire development and sustained crown fire spread. Future

of 33

wildfire events may exhibit increased rates of spread and increased flame lengths (see Table B6), but treatment with prescribed fire or thinning with fuel removal generally keeps fire from moving into tree crowns which reduces fire damage and makes fire suppression more effective (Scott, 1998). Table B10 BehavePlus Outputs for Auggie Treatment Area for Fuel Model 8 (Existing Condition) and Fuel Model 11 (Proposed Action)



Flame Length (feet)





0.0 0.4 0.9 1 14 0.5 1.5 1 6 69 69 2.0 0.9 3.2 4 47 0.8 2.7 1 13 69 69 4.0 1.9 5.9 7 88 1.1 3.5 1 16 69 69 6.0 3.2 8.9 12 133 1.4 4.3 1 17 69 69 8.0 4.7 12 18 180 1.7 4.9 1 17 69 69 10.0 6.4 15.2 25 228 2 5.5 1 17 69 69 Table B11 BehavePlus Outputs for Mountain Creek Treatment Area for Fuel Model 8 (Existing Condition) and Fuel Model 11 (Proposed Action)



Flame Length (feet)





0.0 0.3 0.7 1 10 0.5 1.3 1 5 58 37 2.0 0.8 2.9 3 43 0.8 2.6 1 12 58 61 4.0 1.8 5.6 7 84 1.1 3.5 1 15 58 82 6.0 3.1 8.6 12 129 1.4 4.2 1 16 58 87 8.0 4.6 11.7 18 176 1.7 4.9 1 17 58 88 10.0 6.3 15 24 224 2.0 5.4 1 17 58 88 By opening the canopy and increasing the slash load the potential for large fire growth does increase. But within the Mountain Creek treatment area old roads, Mountain Creek, and numerous wetland features exist as natural barriers that would act to slow or prevent large fire growth depending on the location of the fire start, and allow suppression forces more time to respond. As discussed previously, output values are not an absolute but do show surface fire behavior trends. In this analysis, all Fuel Models indicate increased fire line intensity and flame length with increased wind speed. For the remaining 102 acres with in the Mountain Creek treatment area that would be harvested but not burned, post-harvest values indicate a slight increase in fire line intensity and flame length from pre-harvest condition. Fire behavior predicted for Fuel Model 11 would, for the most part, still be conducive to direct attack by suppression forces. As mentioned above, over time with no treatment the stands would evolve into Fuel Model 10 dramatically increasing both fire line intensity and flame length. These Fuel Model 10 conditions would surpass direct attack capabilities and stand-replacement fire would be increasingly probable. Commercial harvest would facilitate a fire regime shift from stand-replacement severity towards low-to-mixed-severity.

of 33

In the Action Alternative, improvement cutting, group tree selection with slashing, and prescribed fire would occur on approximately 44 acres (Unit H13). Improvement harvest with slashing and prescribed fire would occur on approximately 225 acres (Units H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, H8, H9, and H10). They would partially imitate natural fire events by reducing biomass in portions of units. Removing some merchantable trees would increase nutrient availability to a well-spaced, more vigorous overstory and a more open productive understory. This would also increase stand structural heterogeneity and habitat diversity within the analysis area. These treatments would reduce future wildfire severity by reducing vertical and horizontal fuel. Improvement cutting and/or group tree selection with slashing and prescribed fire on 269 acres would modify fuel continuity and arrangement. In the short term this change would generate a change in Fuel Models from 8 to 11. Once an application of prescribed fire was implemented the potential fire behavior as represented by Fuel Model 11 would be reduced (see Table B6). When these acres were burned, wildfire intensity and flame lengths would be significantly less than those for Fuel Model 8 which would permit safe direct attack by firefighters. Treating Unit H13, which is located in the Mountain Creek treatment area, would open the stand up and allow more sunlight to directly warm the forest floor. However Mountain Creek and numerous wetland features exist as natural barriers that would act to slow or prevent large fire growth depending on the location of the fire start, and allow suppression forces more time to respond. Units H1 through H10, which are located in the Auggie Creek treatment area, would be opened up more and allow some sunlight to penetrate the canopy. The anticipated direct effect of more sunlight would not significantly effect the drying of the ground fuels, based on the location of the units and the general topography and features around the units. These units are located on relatively flat terrain, criss-crossed by the trails system and between streams and wet pockets. The anticipated jackpot type of burning would be the best suited for this area. Jackpot burning is a modified method of broadcast burning, mainly used to dispose of slash concentrations where fuel is not continuous. In the Action Alternative, slashing and prescribed fire would occur over approximately 171 acres. Units S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10 and S11 have previously been harvested. Approximately 254 acres (Units S1, S2, and S3) have previously received a fuels reduction harvest and prescribed fire application as part of the Morrell timber sale project, which was jackpot burned in 2000 and 2001. These three units would not be slashed prior to underburning due to their existing condition. These units would likely be treated in the next 3 to 5 years, partially imitating natural fire return events by reducing biomass in portions of units. Mechanically removing some trees and applying prescribed fire would increase nutrient availability to a well-spaced, more vigorous overstory and a more open productive understory. These treatments would reduce future wildfire severity by reducing vertical and horizontal fuel. In Units S4 through S8, the slashing would occur after the prescribed burning resulting in a Fuel Model shift from 8 to 11. A shift on this scale is not considered to be unfavorable due to the small size of the units and their locations throughout the whole area, as well as the small scale of the slashing which is necessary to mitigate any soils concerns. In the Action Alternative, precommercial thinning and prescribed fire would occur over approximately 169 acres (Units T1 throughT15). These units have previously been entered. This treatment could result in a Fuel Model shift from 8 to 11. A shift on this scale is not considered to be unfavorable due to the small size of the units and their locations throughout the whole area. The prescribed fire treatment would partially imitate natural fire return events by reducing biomass in portions of units. This treatment would reduce future wildfire severity in portions of the units by reducing vertical and horizontal fuel arrangement. The timing of the

of 33

precommercial thinning treatments would follow the completion of the prescribed burning in Units S1 through S11 and H1 through H9. Wildland-Urban Interface Implementing Alternative 2 would reduce the risk of sustained high intensity wildfire in the WUI. One comment letter on the proposed Auggie Project focused on the fuels management component of the project and disagreed with the effectiveness of fuel reduction treatments outside areas greater than 120 feet from structures. The comment letter’s author cited Cohen (1999) which indicates that thinning vegetation within 40 meters of structures reduces the likelihood of structure ignition from intense flame fronts, and that it is ultimately the homeowner’s responsibility to reduce the ignitability of their homes. While providing an additional measure of protection to homes from wildfires would be a beneficial outcome of this proposed project, it is not the driving purpose. However, by creating a larger area of reduced fuels, the risk of a crown fire is reduced. The proposed treatments would create an environment where fire would be more likely to remain on the forest floor and be easier for firefighters to suppress. As stated by Cohen (1999), “reducing the fuel loadings, fuel continuity, and the availability of ladder fuels (on both national forest and private lands) would keep fire confined to the ground, reduce fire intensity, reduce firebrands and afford a high probability of control through the use of engines, hand crews and air tactical resources. To reduce the threat of ignition from firebrands, fuels need to be reduced both near and at some distance from the structure. Firebrands that result in ignitions can originate from wildland fires that are a distance of 1 kilometer or more.” “A structure may ignite directly from firebrands that have come from an intense wildland fire at over ½ mile away (Cohen 2003).” Cumulative Effects The Action Alternative would promote forest health, distribute beneficial fire effects, and be advantageous to wildfire suppression efforts. Proposed treatments would create areas with a more vigorous, healthy, heterogeneous vegetative component adding biodiversity to the project area. National Forest System lands, adjacent WUI, Plum Creek Timber lands, and State of Montana lands would likely be positively affected due to a reduced likelihood for large-scale severe wildfires. The Action Alternative would facilitate a shift from stand-replacement severity towards low-to-mixed wildfire severity. The collective effect of treatments would likely start to emulate fire’s natural role, which has been absent in the recent past, over the analysis area. Smoke produced by prescribed burning would be regulated and managed to minimize potential impacts, while wildfire smoke production would likely be reduced. There would be a reduced risk from wildfire to firefighters and the public. Fire suppression cost would likely decrease as tactical efficiency and effectiveness would improve. This treatment would align with the other similar Forest Service treatments along the Highway 83 corridor and around the town. The Seeley Fuels project, which focused north of town and primarily on the east side of Highway 83, reduced ladder fuels, crown bulk density, increased crown spacing, and after fully implemented, will reduce ground fuels. The Chain of Lakes project was similar in treatment except it focused primarily west of Highway 83. Previous Forest Service treatments have created old clearcuts with dense young stands within the treatment area; these areas are included in the proposed action, others are scattered around in the landscape. These dense young stands can have a variety of different fire effects if a wildfire occurs, everything from a heat sink to a stand-replacement event. Other Forest Service treatments have also had a variety of different effects in regard to the stand differentiation, some are dense monoculture others are open multi-species. Past fires have had an effect on the whole valley. As previously discussed, numerous fires have happened in the past and will probably continue in the future. Most recently the Jocko Lakes fire has increased the awareness of people in the community that more work needs to be done on both private and public lands. Many small private land owners have taken

of 33

the initiative to do work on their own or through contract resources. Other groups and individuals have taken the initiative to help others identify the need and help find funding and contractors to do the work. Keeping track of the numbers and locations of private landowners that are doing or have completed work to protect their property is a full time job and being able to quantify or map these is not realistic at this time. Forest Plan Consistency Fire management actions proposed in the Action Alternative are consistent with the Lolo National Forest Plan (1986), the Lolo National Forest Fire Management Plan (2008-2009) and the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan (2008).

of 33

Fire, Fuels and Air Quality References Agee, James K. 2002, The Fallacy of Passive Management: Managing for Firesafe Forest Reserves; Conservation in Practice, Winter 2002, Vol 3 no 1. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119928241/PDFSTART Anderson, Hal E. April 1982, Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. Gen. Tech. Rept. GTR-INT-122, USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT Amman, Gene D. 1977. The role of the mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine ecosystems: Impact on succession. In: Mattson, W. J., ed. The Role of arthropods in forest ecosystems; Proceedings, 15th international congress of entomology; 1976, August 19-27; Washington D.C. Springer-Verlag, New York: 3-18. http://www.usu.edu/beetle/documents/40-Amman1977.pdf Brown, Richard T.; Agee, J.K.; Franklin, J.F., Forest Restoration and Fire: Principles in the Context of Place, Conservation Biology, pages 903-912, Volume 18, No 4. August 2004. Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 and 1990 CAA, as amended 1977 and 1990: http://www.epa.gov/ Cohen, Jack D. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to homes: Where and how much? In: Gonzales-Caban, Armando; Omi, Philip N., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines; 1999 April 5-9. San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-173. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. p. 189-195. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1999_cohen_j001.pdf Cohen, Jack D. Ph.D. 2000. “What is the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes?” Presented as the Thompson Memorial Lecture, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ., April 10, 2000. http://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_wildlandfirethreat.pdf Cohen, Jack D. Ph.D. 2003. “Thoughts on the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem.” Published in Wildfire Magazine and International Journal of Wildland Fire http://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_wildurbaninterface.pdf Cohen, Jack D. Ph.D. 2003. “An Examination of the Summerhaven, Arizona Home Destruction Related to the Local Wildland Fire Behavior during the June 2003 Aspen Fire.” http://www.governor.state.az.us/fhc/documents/SummerhavenWUIDestruction.pdf Cohen, Jack D. Ph.D. 2003. “Structure Ignition Assessment Model (SIAM).” USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-158. 1995. An abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Biswell Symposium: Fire Issues and Solutions in Urban Interface and Wildland Ecosystems, February 15-17,1994, Walnut Creek, California. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr158/psw_gtr158_05_cohen.pdf DeBano, Leonard F., Daniel G. Neary, and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1998. Fire Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 332pp Dzomba, Thomas; Story, Mark. 2005. Smoke NEPA Guidance: Air Resource Smoke Impacts from Prescribed Fire on National Forests & Grasslands of Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, &

of 33

South Dakota in Regions 1 & 4. November. http://www.fs.fed.us/air/documents/Smoke%20NEPA_2005_Nov.pdf Fischer, W., and A. Bradley. 1987. Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. INT-GTR-223. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Ogden, Utah, U.S.A. 95 p. Graham, Russell T.,Alen E. Harvey, Threasa B. Jain, Jonalea R. Tonn, 1999. September. The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. USDA, Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. USDI, BLM, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-463. 28p. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr463.pdf Hurteau, Matthew D, Kock,G.W., Hungate, B.A. 2008; Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment; Front Ecol Environ 2008;6,doi:10.1890/070187 (www.frontiersinecology.org) Impacts; http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/carson/html_misc/impacts_of_wildfires.htm Missoula County Property Information System at http://www.co.missoula.mt.us/owner/Map/Default.aspx Montana Cadastral Survey at http://gis.mt.gov/ Montana Restoration Committee; http://www.montanarestoration.org/restoration/principles Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, Operating Guide, August 2008. http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/fire/nrcc/smoke_web_pages/OpGuide.pdf Montana Department Of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) http://www.deq.mt.gov/AirQuality/AQinfo.asp NWCG Famweb Fire and Weather data; http://fam.nwcg.gov/fam-web/weatherfirecd/montana.htm#Fire%20Occurrence%20Files Ottmar, Roger D.; Alvarado, Ernesto; 2002. "Linking Vegetation Patterns to Potential Smoke Production and Fire Hazard" Sierra Nevada Science symposium, Kings Beach, California, October 7-10, 2002. (USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-193. 2004) http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr193/psw_gtr193_2a_05_Ottmar_Alvarado.pdf Ottmar, R.D. 2001. Smoke source characteristics. In: Hardy, C.C., R.D. Ottmar, J.L. Peterson, J.E. Core, P. Seamon, eds/comps. Smoke management guide for prescribed and wildland fire 2001 edition. National Wildfire Coordination Group; PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. December 2001. Chapter 5, pp 89-106. Available online at http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/SMG/SMG-72.pdf. Page, Wesley Green and Jenkins, M.J. 2007, Mountain Pine Beetle-Induced Changes to Selected Lodgepole Pine Fuel Complexes within the Intermountain Region, Forest Science 53(4):507–518. http://www.wy.blm.gov/fireuse/pubs/ChangesFuelsComplexes.pdf Prichard, Susan J, Roger D. Ottmar, and Gary K. Anderson, Consume User’s guide, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, 400 North 34th Street, Suite 201, Seattle, Washington 98103. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fera/research/smoke/consume/consume30_users_guide.pdf

of 33

Reinhardt, Elizabeth, Using FOFEM 5.0 to estimate tree mortality, fuel consumption, smoke production and soil heating from wildland fire, USDA Forest Service Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT http://www.fire.org/downloads/fofem/5.2/FOFEM5Using.pdf Sandberg, David V.; Ottmar, Roger D; Peterson, Janice L.; Core, John. 2002. Wildland Fire On Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p. SASEM (Simple Approach Smoke Estimation Model) http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/pmo/products/inventory/App659.html or http://frames.nbii.gov/metadata/tools/SASEM_4.0.html Schmidt, Kirsten M.; Menakis, James P.; Hardy, Colin C.; Hann, Wendel J.; Bunnell, David L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41 p. + CD http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr87.pdf Scott, Joe H. 1998, Fuel Reduction in Residential and Scenic Forests: a Comparison of Three Treatments in a Western Montana Ponderosa Pine Stand. Research Paper, RMRS-RP-5, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 19p. Seeley Lake Chamber of Commerce; http://www.seeleylakechamber.com/area.html Seeley-Swan Fire Plan May 2008 Update to the March 2004 Plan. http://www.crcmt.org/2008%20Seeley-Swan%20Fire%20Plan.pdf USDA, Forest Service, Lolo National Forest, Ecosystem Management Burning Guide. Fire Regimes and Fire Groups. Chapter 3. USDA, Forest Service, 1986, Lolo National Forest Plan, Lolo National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula MT, February 1986. USDA, Forest Service, 1986a, Lolo National Forest Plan, Lolo National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula MT, February 1986, chapter X (Fire Management Plan) USDA, NFP 2000, http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/NFP/index.shtml USDA Forest Service, USDI, BLM, 2001, January. Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire management Policy. http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/history/index.htm USDA Forest Service, USDI, BLM, 2008, July. Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide. http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/rx/rxfireguide.pdf USDI, Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service. 2008, Standards for Fire and Aviation Operations 2008, (NFES 2724), January, 2008 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Aerometric Information Retrieval System Data, Air Pollution Maps, Ready To View Maps, (Accessed September 3, 2008); http://www.epa.gov/air/data/geosel.html, or http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html).

of 33

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Transportation and Air Quality (Accessed September 3, 2008) http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ap42.htm#highway U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1998. Interim air quality policy on wildfire and prescribed fires. U.S. Environmental Policy Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, PM designations, Website; www.epa.gov/pmdesignations). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule, 40 CFR Part 51. http://www.nwcg.gov/teams/pmo/products/inventory/App659.html http://frames.nbii.gov/metadata/tools/SASEM_4.0.html http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/xerten/introductory.html http://www.firemodels.org/content/view/24/33/ Weatherspoon C.P. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. http://www.ceres.ca.gov/snep/pubs/web/PDF/VII_C44.PDF Whitehouse 2003. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/

of 33

Appendix D: WUI

of 33

Appendix E: Fire History

The approximated date and extent of historical fires in the Seeley-Swan Fire Plan region.

of 33

Appendix G: LandFire Fuel Model Representation Pre

of 33

Appendix H: LandFire Fuel Model Representation Post

Fuel model change in the area in conjunction with recent other vegetative treatments

auggie creek restoration/fuels project fire and fuels...

Documents