Environmental Assessment Page 1 of 5 August 2011 High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project USDA Forest Service

Section 3.1

Fire and Fuels

Introduction

The Beal, Vincent, Burrough and Shaver Springs fuelbreaks have had various maintenance treatments in the last few years where as the Lerona and Upper Sycamore have not been treated in several years. Without continual maintenance, encroaching hard chaparral (brush) reinvades the fuelbreaks, reducing their effectiveness. Several species of brush are common and fast growing; height growth ranges from 3 to 10 feet tall and is re-growth is moderate to dense on some portions of all the existing fuelbreaks. The low growing, light canopy 1-3 feet tall brush conditions that exist on some sections of the fuelbreaks are still treatable by hand or herbicides. All fuelbreaks are at levels where some of the brush is past the condition were hand cutting and herbicide spraying is effective and these portions are in need of mechanical treatment, preferably mastication. Herbicides treatments have been applied to the Beal and Vincent (Beal/Vincent EA, 1999) fuelbreaks where low-growing brush and yellow-star thistle has invaded openings. The Fire/Fuels Report for the High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project is incorporated by reference.

Modeling Used in Analysis

FireFamily Plus is a software system for summarizing and analyzing historical daily fire weather observations and computing fire danger indices based on the National Fire Danger Rating System (NFDRS) or the Canadian Fire Danger Rating System (CAN). Fire occurrence data can also be analyzed and cross referenced with weather data to help determine critical levels for staffing and fire danger for an area. BehavePlus 4 was used to model fire behavior to estimate potential fire behavior in untreated stands at the 90th. The model outputs include fire flame lengths, rates of fire spread and fireline intensity in a single fuel model that best represents the fuelbreaks. 90th percentile weather is weather data; temperature, relative humidity and wind averages for a 20 year period, where only 10 percent of the days are hotter and drier. 90th percentile is considered severe fire weather. Affected Environment

Existing Conditions: Portions of the Vincent, Beal and Burrough fuelbreaks that were treated in the last five years with hand, fire and herbicide treatments are low growing, light canopy grassy/brush conditions and are treatable by hand or herbicides. All fuelbreaks are at levels where some of the brush is past the size where hand treatments and herbicide spraying are effective and in need of mechanical treatment; preferably mastication. Herbicides treatments have been applied to portions of the Beal and Vincent fuelbreaks (1999 Beal Vincent Fuelbreak EA) after hand and dozer piling, and prescribed fire treatments to control brush re-growth and where yellow-star thistle has invaded openings. Older projects have nearly continuous fields of brush that are 6-10 feet tall and are not currently effective as a fuelbreak. Fire Behavior

Fire behavior modeling is used to determine expected wildfire behavior of the existing condition The portions of the fuelbreaks that are proposed for mechanical and herbicide treatments are

Environmental Assessment Page 2 of 5 August 2011 High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project USDA Forest Service

best represented by a Fuel Model 5 (Anderson, 1982). This fuel model classifies the main carrier of fire as dominated by green chaparral 3 to 10 feet high. It was determined the Mountain Rest Weather Station best represents on-site weather for the majority of the project area. Historical weather data was analyzed for the months of May to October for a 20-year period (1988 –2008) and is displayed in Table 3.1-1. Table 3.1-1. Historical weather data.

The modeled fire behavior using the environmental conditions from Table 3.1-1 above are shown in Table 3.1-2 below. Table 3.1-2. Expected Fire Behavior

The fuelbreaks proposed for maintenance treatments are currently re-growing large brush to

such an extent that they are becoming indefensible and will become ineffective for fire control

actions. If the vegetation on existing fuelbreaks is left untreated, the fuelbreaks would return to

typical combination of dense oak and large brush common in the Sierra Nevada foothills.

Alternative 1 Proposed Action

The variety of treatments proposed to treat these fuelbreaks are essential in order to maintain

their effectiveness for protecting local communities from wildfire and will provide firefighting

forces a safe anchor point to make a direct attack on wildland fires.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

The combination of treatments would convert the dense brush fields (fuel model 5) to a more

open shrub lands (fuel model 2) where the primary carrier of the fire would be grass instead of

dense brush that is hard to walk through and fire is difficult to suppress. Surface rate of fire

spread would increase from 40 chains an hour to 68 chains an hour due to the change in fuel

type and open space. However, with the reduction of the brush component and the repairs to

Weather Variable 90 % reading

Dry Bulb Temperature 90 F

Relative Humidity 19 %

Wind Speed 6 mph

1 Hour Fuel Moisture 3

10 Hour Fuel Moisture 4

FIRE VARIABLE FIRE OUTPUT

Rate of spread 40 ch/hr*

Flame length 8 ft

Area 53 acres after 1 hr.

Perimeter 97 chains after 1 hr.

Scorch height 72 ft.

Environmental Assessment Page 3 of 5 August 2011 High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project USDA Forest Service

the fuelbreak road system, ground forces will be able to attack wild fires more quickly and

tactical operations such as applying water and fire retardant will be more effective in grass fuels.

Treated fuelbreaks would only require minimal work to maintain effectiveness. Occasional spot

treatments such as spraying or hand cutting and pile burning would maintain the desired

condition. Herbicides applied directly to target plants can effectively eliminate the plants while

they are still small and few in numbers, minimizing the need for a more invasive and expensive

method of removal. The removal of plants over time removes the seed source and volume of

brush species would be reduced creating a more open defensible space.

Smoke and emissions from hand and dozer pile burning treatments would produce 40.68 tons

of particulate matter (PM10), and 23.30 tons of Nitrous oxide (NOx) under dry burn conditions if

they were all burned in one year. The California State Implementation Plan (SIP) restricts

emissions to a maximum of 100 tons per project per year of PM10 and 25 tons of NOx for

severe non-attainment areas (San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District [SJVUAPCD],

2003). This project is broken into 9 different fuelbreaks and it is anticipated it will take 3 to 4

years before all the piles would be constructed (though mastication is the preferred method of

treatment except on the Powerhouse Fuelbreak) and that burning will occur over that 3-4 year

time frame. Based on emissions outputs (see the High Sierra Fuelbreak Air Quality Specialist

Report for full Determination), this project will not violate the SIP or regulations set by

SJVUAPCD.

Cumulative Effects:

The cumulative effect of this alternative is that communities adjacent to the project area benefit

from the reduction of hazardous brush levels. The persistence of light grassy fuelbreaks allow

for better application of firefighting resources. Aerial applications of water and retardant are

more effective allowing for engine companies to focus on public safety and structure protection.

The proposed action combined with the effects of recent past and proposed treatments on both

private and federal lands provide for better community protection and ease in firefighting efforts

then just the proposed action alone. The more land that is in a desired condition as a defensible

space adds to the defensibility of the Wildland Urban Intermix as a whole, and increases public

and fire fighter safety during wildfires.

Once desired conditions have been met, light spraying or hand cutting and piling treatments

would only need to occur one or two times in a ten year period to maintain a more open grassy

fuelbreak. Treatments would only occur where brush re-growth is persistent. Maintenance of a

more permanent fuelbreak would require less heavy equipment use and provide for more

resource protection then continually re-bulldozing the fire line during a wildfire, as has occurred

in the past decade.

Exposure to organic hydrocarbons (precursors to smog under high daytime temperatures), large

particulate matter, and PM10 produced from prescribed burning are easily inhaled and can

cause respiratory and pulmonary distress. The use of mastication followed by herbicide would

reduce the amount of particulates produced by both burning of treated fuels and those created

Environmental Assessment Page 4 of 5 August 2011 High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project USDA Forest Service

from wildfires. The communities of Auberry, Meadow Lakes, Bald Mountain, Shaver Springs and

Sycamore are considered smoke sensitive areas. These areas could be affected if weather

patterns produced a stable air mass and smoke from wildfire is unable to vent into the upper

atmosphere.

Alternative 2 No Action

In choosing the no action alternative, the fuelbreaks would remain in their current state of

vegetation re-growth and eventually all would become ineffective as fuelbreaks. The forest

would be accepting the extreme risk and effects of severe wildfires that threaten the adjacent

wildland urban intermix communities.

Direct and Indirect Effects

If the no action alternative is selected, vegetation on existing fuelbreaks would be left untreated

and the fuelbreaks would return to typical combination of dense oak and large brush common in

the Sierra Nevada foothills. The ability of fire crews to contain a wildfire in its initial stages would

be severely limited and would require extensive efforts to be stopped. The invasive species

yellow star thistle would continue to grow and spread in populations where it currently exists.

Choosing this alternative would not effectively meet fuels management or firefighter objectives.

Doing nothing under the no action alternative would be far more costly and generally less

effective in controlling wildfires.

If no action is taken to maintain the fuelbreaks significant ground disturbance and vegetation

modification are likely to continue every time a wildfire threatens the communities they are

designed to protect. Road conditions would continue to deteriorate and access would become

limited.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of this alternative are that communities adjacent to the project area

would not benefit from the reduction of hazardous brush levels and would continue to be at risk

from wildfires. Treatments that would not only better protect communities but also protect

firefighters and the general public from the effects of extreme fire behavior in the event of a

wildfire would be foregone.

If no action is taken to maintain the fuelbreaks, extensive ground disturbance and vegetation

modification are likely to continue every time a wildfire threatens the communities they are

designed to protect. Road conditions would continue to deteriorate and access would become

limited. Fuels reduction treatments that are proposed or are currently or recently undertaken on

private lands as part of a community wildfire protection plan are not as effective in community

protection since a majority portion (federal lands) of the inter-mingled fuelbreaks would not be

treated.

Air quality and smoke from a wild fire would produce a significantly longer impact on the

surrounding communities then that of a short term pile burning occurrence. Pile burning is

generally ignited, consumed and extinguished in less than one eight hour burning period, where

as a wild fire burning in untreated brush could burn for days producing significant amounts of

Environmental Assessment Page 5 of 5 August 2011 High Sierra Fuelbreak Maintenance Project USDA Forest Service

smoke and impacting air quality of not only the local communities but also the San Joaquin

Valley for days.

Alternative 3 No Herbicide Use

Alternative 3 of this project is the same as alternative 1, (the proposed action) but eliminates the

use of herbicides for vegetation or invasive species control. Use of this alternative would mean

that treatments would be less effective.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects are similar to those described under Alternative 1 with the following exceptions.

Without the use of herbicides, hand or mechanical treatments to maintain brush growth would

need to occur every 2-3 years to maintain desired condition, thus maintenance costs would

increase dramatically. The indirect effect of not having the ability of using herbicide as a follow-

up treatment to mastication means that brush species will continue to reinvade the fuelbreaks

and conversion to the desired conditions is more difficult and more costly with perpetually

recurring removal by heavy equipment.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of this alternative is that communities adjacent to the project area benefit

from the reduction of hazardous brush levels but the conversion of brush fuelbreaks to grass is

unlikely. Aerial applications of water and retardant are less effective as brush re-growth requires

more commitment of fire resources to stop the forward spread of the fire as it advances toward

the communities. More firefighting resources would be necessary to stop the forward spread of

fire and to focus on public safety and structure protection. Alternative 3 combined with the

effects of recent past and proposed treatments on both private and federal lands provide for

better community protection and ease in firefighting efforts then just Alternative 3 alone. The

more land that is in a desired condition as a defensible space adds to the defensibility of the

Wildland Urban Intermix as a whole, and increases public and fire fighter safety during wildfires.

The alternative is better than the no action alternative of meeting the purpose and need but will

require more heavy equipment use and more money over time to maintain that desired

condition than alternative 1