why is the project proposed?
DESCRIPTION
Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management Proposal Overview Gallatin National Forest Hebgen Lake Ranger District. Why is the project proposed?. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Lonesome Wood Lonesome Wood Vegetation Vegetation
Management Management Proposal OverviewProposal Overview
Gallatin National ForestGallatin National ForestHebgen Lake Ranger DistrictHebgen Lake Ranger District
To avoid these situations avoid these situations..
PRIMARY FOCUS--To improve firefighter and public safety by reducing fuels on public lands around the wildland urban interface (WUI), evacuation routes, and in strategic fuel breaks.
To enhance aspen habitat
To reduce insect and disease susceptibility in treated areas.
Why is the project proposed?
OTHER OBJECTIVES
Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management proposal is an outcome of the Hebgen Watershed Risk Assessment, completed in November 2005. The Risk
Assessment was a landscape level coarse assessment of the danger of wildfire to a variety of resources in this area, if no management actions are taken.
The watershed assessment evaluated approximately 68,000
acres north, west and southwest of Hebgen Lake. The interdisciplinary team that conducted the analysis considered existing, historical, and projected
future landscape conditions, and weighed these considerations with current Forest Plan management direction and the current and projected social setting.
Within the project area there are private residences with business operations. The project area also includes 34 recreation residences in four summer
home groups including Lonesomehurst, Romset, Rumbaugh, and Clark Springs. There are more than a dozen dispersed recreation areas, four developed
recreation sites, access for 8 trail systems and 15 forest road systems. Several hundred people may be recreating or conducting business in the vicinity on
a typical summer day.
Direction in the GNF Forest Plan (1987) as amended, and the National Fire Plan (2000) was incorporated in the design of this proposal. The proposal
meets the intent of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.
Gallatin County has a draft Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which is scheduled to be published in Spring 2007. The entire Lonesome Wood
Vegetation Management project area is identified in the draft CWPP as a WUI area at risk from wildfires. A CWPP identifies areas for hazardous fuel
reduction treatments, sets priorities for treating them, and recommends the types and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land that will help
protect one or more at risk communities and their essential infrastructure. (HFRA Website)
BackgroundBackground
Where is the proposal ?Where is the proposal ?
The project area is located on National Forest System
(NFS) lands on the west side of Hebgen Lake near the
community of West Yellowstone, MT.
The Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management project area extends from Highway 20 on the south, Hebgen Lake on the east
and north.
What is proposed?What is proposed?
< Vegetation treatments that reduce wildland fuels are the primary focus of the project around the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and evacuation routes. In addition, treatments on areas in and adjacent to WUI are designed to meet fuel and other resource objectives.
< Thinning and/or prescribed burning is proposed on about 3,200 acres within the 24,000 acre project area. The primary treatment activity is described and is identified in the table and on the Proposed Action maps in this program. Treatments within the individual units vary, and as a result, inclusions of multiple treatments are often incorporated.
Activities and Desired Outcome
Reduce Stand Density by Thinning.
< Units identified for commercial thin may have any size class
of tree removed. A ground based logging system would be the
primary method of tree removal. Trees over six inches in diameter
would most likely be skidded to landings and hauled offsite for use
as a commercial product. Trees less than 6 inches in diameter
may also need to be removed in conjunction with commercial
logging, as described in the next paragraph.
< Units identified for small tree removal either have trees with
mixed ages or are primarily small trees. Treatment would be
limited to trees smaller than 6 inches in diameter. The
treatment may be implemented by hand or with tracked equipment
that would facilitate removal of the biomass from the landscape.
Skid or access trails may be needed in these units to facilitate
removal of biomass. On slopes greater than 35%, the thinning and
associated treatments would be implemented by hand.
Desired Outcome
< The desired tree spacing along the road and in the WUI is 20-
30 feet between trees. Beyond the 400’ in the evacuation
routes in fuel breaks, trees would be denser at about 15-20’
between trees. An estimated 40-50% of the total trees in a
stand would be removed. In units with bark beetle concerns
spacing would be about 30-40 feet between trees.
< The desired tree spacing for this treatment is the same as
described above. In addition, in some units the current stand
condition is not suitable for thinning. In these units the overall
stand density would be reduced by about 40% by creating
small openings between 1/3 to 5 acres. This prescription
would be implemented primarily in units where trees less than
6 inches in diameter are the target for removal.
Activities and Desired Outcome
< Prescribed burning –Remove conifers within and about 1 ½ tree
lengths out from the clone. Monitor aspen sprouting response, and
implement a broadcast burn to further stimulate sprouting if
needed. In some other areas with relatively few trees, broadcast
burn to maintain open areas.
< Activities may include but are not limited to thinning through
logging, yarding unmerchantable material, piling, hauling of
commercial material, slashing small trees, firewood removal,
biomass reduction such as chipping, pile burning, broadcast
burning, erosion control, rehabilitation of skid trails, landings and
temporary roads.
< Biomass less than 6” in diameter may be removed mechanically for
commercial purposes.
< An estimated 3.5-4.5 miles of temporary road would be needed to
facilitate log removal in commercial thin units. Temporary roads
would be used for implementation of the project, then closed.
Rehabilitation includes erosion control, scarification and seeding. If
needed, closure devices would be installed to eliminate future use
< Help reduce competition for sunlight and water and stimulate sprouting in aspen
forest.
< Where the existing condition is open and has a low risk of severe fire,
maintain as open areas.
< In all units, natural and activity related fuels, including boles, branches and tops
would be reduced to 10-15 tons of woody material. Some large woody material
would be left to meet the Forest Plan requirements for snags and downed woody
material. (GNF Plan, 1987, Amendment 15).
< Biomass material is a by product of fuels reduction treatments. At this time there
is not a market to facilitate biomass removal around West Yellowstone. The sale
of biomass would utilize fuels and lessen the amount of pile burning required to
achieve desired fuel conditions.
< The temporary roads would maintain skid distances of ¼ mile or less.
< Erosion control and revegetation protects site productivity and minimizes the
introduction and spread of undesirable species.
Aspen Management & Maintenance Aspen Management & Maintenance of Low Fire Risk Areasof Low Fire Risk Areas Desired OutcomesDesired Outcomes
Associated Implementation ActivitiesAssociated Implementation Activities
Temporary Road NeedsTemporary Road Needs
Unit PurposeAcres of
Commercial
Thin
Estimated Temporary Roads Needed to
Maintain Skid Distances to ¼ Mile or
Less
Acres of Small Tree Thinning
Acres of Under burn as a Primary
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
Clark Springs
WUI &
Evacuation Route
30 acres
25 acres
35 acres
220 acres
20* acres
120* acres
7
11
12
Evacuation Route &
Fuel Break
45 acres
60 acres
65 acres ¼ mile
8
9
Evacuation Route
15 acres
5 acres
10
13
16
Evacuation Route
Cozy Corner and other
private WUI
15 acres ¼ mile
25* acres
45 acres
14
15
WUI , Aspen &
Evacuation Route
210 acres ¼ mile
75 acres
17 Evacuation Route &
Part WUI
Fuel Break
195 acres 1 mile
Unit PurposeAcres of
Commercial
Thinning
Estimated Temporary Road Needed to
Maintain Skid Distances to ¼ Mile or Less
Acres of Small Tree Thinning
Acres of Prescribed Burn as a Primary
Treatment
18 Aspen 25 acres
19
20Evacuation Route
30 acres
35* acres
21 Evacuation Route
Rumbaugh WUI
& Fuel Break
65 acres ¼ mile
22
23
24
25
Rumbaugh WUI
Evacuation Route, & Aspen
30 acres ¼ mile
45* acres
15 acres
80 acres
26 Evacuation Route
Part Lonesomehurst/
Romset WUI
Part is Fuelbreak
425 acres ¾ mile
27 Evacuation Route 45* acres
29 WUI, Aspen &
Evacuation Route
105 acres 25* acres
30
31
32
WUI
Aspen
Forest Health
140 acres
190 acres3/10 mile
¼ mile
370 acres
Totals 1735 acres 4.0 miles 855 acres 450 acres
Project Implementation
< Proposed activities could be accomplished with Forest Service crews, service
contracts, timber sale contracts and/or stewardship contracting.
< Through stewardship contracting the value from the wood products removed and
sold could be re-invested into the project area.
< The District will continue communication with private land owners and recreation
residence owners of the importance of Firewise principles. Application of Firewise
principles will help owners maintain defensible space around their property and
reduce structure ignitability.
Full implementation of the project could take 5-10 years.
Wildland Urban Interface
The risk of sustained crown fire is high in and adjacent to much of the WUI in the project areas. Surface and ladder fuels are conducive to intense fire with torching that pushes a fire from the ground to the tree crowns. Crown canopy fuels are continuous and lend themselves to fire spread from crown to crown for long distances and are likely to produce lofting firebrands.
Treatment units proposed within the WUI extend approximately ½ mile from the
structures. The distance is based on fire behavior modeling. The model estimated that firebrands from expected crown fire
may be lofted and carried up to ½ mile away given the existing fuel conditions.
Private homes adjacent to NFS
land along Denny Creek Road
Lonesome Hurst Summer Homes
Continuity of surface, ladder and crown fuels would be reduced, resulting in elevated canopy base height and
reduced fuel continuity in all fuel strata or layers (surface, ladder and crown). The changed condition would lower
the fire intensities and result in a change to predicated fire type from crown fire to surface fire.
The Denny Creek Road provides the only
road access to the west shore of the lake
and is the primary evacuation route. The
route is narrow, with heavy forest fuel
accumulations immediately adjacent to
the road. Expected flame length and fire
intensity is high along the route. Additionally, intense crown fires
can generate very high winds, which may preclude evacuations by
water.
Access road near Clark
Springs Summer Homes
Denny Creek Road
Access road for Romset Summer Homes
Treatment units addressing evacuation routes are limited to
approximately 400 feet either side of the roadway. Fire intensity
and flame length would be reduced immediately adjacent to the
roadway to allow safe ingress or egress. The Incident Response
Pocket Guide and computer fire prediction models were used for
guidance to derive the proposed distance.
Evacuation Routes
Fuel Breaks
The thinning would improve the effectiveness of the hand treatments, while
providing some revenue to offset the cost of hand treatments. In these areas,
continuity of surface, ladder and crown fuels would be reduced, resulting in
elevated canopy base height and reduced fuel continuity in all fuel strata or
layers (surface, ladder and crown). The changed condition would lower fire
intensities and reduce the chance of crown fire.
Propose unit 7 just above Denny Creek Road
Similar stand conditions to fuel break area in proposed unit 26 above
the Denny Creek Rd.
Proposed fuel break area above in unit 17 upslope of 16.
To improve the effectiveness of fuel treatment in
the WUI and evacuation routes, strategic fuel
breaks would be created.
Within the project area, there are extensive areas of
difficult terrain with dense forest. These are important to treat,
however the treatments, consisting of hand-sawing and piling,
would be expensive. To offset the cost of this work, some adjacent
areas on gentler ground, that have larger trees (over 6 inches in
diameter), would be thinned.
Aspen Management & Maintenance Aspen Management & Maintenance of Low Fire Risk Areasof Low Fire Risk Areas
Aspen stands are being encroached by conifers
of various age classes leading to a decline in aspen
populations across the west. Aspen is also a valued
wildlife habitat component, and a fire-resistant forest
type.
Conifer encroachment in proposed unit 31.
Aspen regeneration surrounded by conifers in
proposed unit 29
Maintain a low risk fire area and stimulate aspen in
proposed unit 18.
Conifer removal and/or prescribed burning is Conifer removal and/or prescribed burning is
intended to reinvigorate aspen clones in the intended to reinvigorate aspen clones in the
project area. project area.
Forest Health
Douglas Fir beetle mortality just north of proposed units 31 and 32.
When treating this stand for ladder fuels we propose to also remove the severely dwarf
mistletoe infected trees to improve the forest health of regeneration.
When thinning this fuel break we propose to also reduce the
susceptibility of this stand to mountain pine beetle. The white
spots on the tree trunk show active beetle hits.
In areas where there are compelling reasons to manage fuels or
aspen, prescriptions would be designed to help prevent mortality
from insects or disease, while meeting fuels and aspen objectives.
In recent years Douglas fir bark beetle have killed a large percentage of the mature
Douglas fir trees in many of the drainages along the shores of Hebgen Lake.
Opening the forest canopy through thinning has been shown to reduce susceptibility of Douglas Fir trees to bark beetle mortality. A similar strategy is proposed in lodge pole pine forest areas with recent mountain pine beetle attacks. In stands with dwarf mistletoe infection, removal of severely infected trees would improve the health of the small trees and future regeneration.
Desired Outcomes
This Douglas Fir forest was thinned to a similar spacing as proposed in this project.
Prescribed burning in aspen clones can be used to promote this type of aspen re-growth.
These fuel treatments in lodgepole pine are similar to what we are proposing in this project.
Camp 32 Fire – Kootenai National Forest
This area was thinned to
reduce fuels – low and mixed
severity SURFACE FIRE burned through
the area.
No fuel treatment was implemented here.
CROWN FIRE burned severely and replaced
the stand. Desired Outcome
Existing Condition in Existing Condition in Proposed Units 1 - Proposed Units 1 -
1212
Heavy Fuels Along Evacuation Route
Steep ground with dense fuels in WUI near Clark
Springs.
The evacuation route near Clark Springs.
Heavy fuels along the Denny Creek Road evacuation route in units 6 -12
Heavy fuel loading next to evacuation route and proposed fuel break near units 7-12.
Forest area shows the very north and west end of unit 17 from
private land.
Existing Condition in Proposed Units 17-23
Unit 17 in proposed Fuel Break
Unit 17 in proposed Evacuation Route area
Unit 21 looking into proposed Evacuation Route
treatment area
Unit 21 looking into proposed Evacuation Route treatment area
Unit 23 WUI area adjacent to Rumbaugh Homes
Existing Condition in Proposed Units 26-32
Ladder Fuels and Suppressed Aspen Adjacent to
Lonesomehurst Homes in Unit 29.
Looking Out From Romset Homes to Proposed Unit 26. Denny Creek Rd. Crosses Through the Area Just Above
the Lower Trees.
Unit 31 – Conifer Encroachment in
Aspen and Douglas-fir Forest that is Susceptible to
Douglas Fir Bark Beetle Mortality due to Adjacent Infestation.
Along the Evacuation Route in Proposed Unit 26.
Dense Vegetation Along the Proposed Evacuation Route Area in Proposed Unit 26.
Include but are not limited to:
Moose Winter Range – the lakeshore provides key habitat.
Portions of units 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 are within the Inventoried Roadless boundary. However, the area in and around units 13, 14, and 15 is heavily impacted from roads and past management.
Scenery
Bill Queen, District Ranger
(406)-823-6961 or
Teri Seth, NEPA Team Leader (406)-522-2520.
Gallatin Forest Webpage http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=projects
Check the website for more details on the scoping process
and for additional maps.
Thank you for taking an interest in your national forest.
Preliminary Preliminary Issues/ConcernsIssues/Concerns For more informationFor more information