1.1 Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) on the potential effects of fuels reduction in the Story Fuels project area (see Figure 1-1) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. The fuels reduction project area is located near the town of Story Wyoming on the lower portion of South Piney Creek. The treatment area is dominated by ponderosa pine on the south slopes with Douglas-fir more present on the north slopes. In elevations above 7000ft. lodgepole pine is the dominant species. The proposed treatment area is within the Tongue Ranger District on the Bighorn National Forest in Wyoming. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment (chapter 3 section 3.11) of resources that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

This EA is prepared according to the format established by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). Chapter 1, in addition to explaining the purpose and need for the proposed action, discusses how Story Fuels relates to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Bighorn National Forest (Forest Plan) and identifies the key issues driving the EA analysis. Chapter 2 describes and compares the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, a no-action alternative and summarizes the significant environmental consequences by issue. Chapter 3 describes the natural and human environments potentially affected by the proposed action and discloses what potential effects are anticipated. The document concludes with the list of preparers, the EA, literature cited, and an index. Appendices provide additional information on specific aspects of the proposed project. This EA incorporates documented analyses by summarization and reference where appropriate.

The Interdisciplinary Team used a systematic approach for analyzing the proposed project and alternatives to it, estimating the environmental effects and preparing this EA. The planning process complies with NEPA and the CEQ regulations. Planning was conducted with the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, along with local federally recognized tribes. Public comment began in December of 2001. Public notice appeared in the Sheridan Press on December 27^th of 2001.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record, located at the Tongue River Ranger District Office in Sheridan Wyoming, at 2013 Eastside 2^nd Street. These records are available for public review.

1.1.1 Story and the National Fire Plan

The following background information is from the Forest Service publication Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy, October 2000.

“The 2000 fire season was undoubtedly one of the most challenging on record. As of early October, more than 6.8 million acres of public and private lands burned more than twice the 10-year national average. The magnitude of these fires is the result of two primary factors: a severe drought, accompanied by a series of storms that produced thousands of lightening strikes followed by windy conditions; and the long-term effects of almost a century of aggressively suppressing all wildfires. The result has led to an unnatural buildup of brush and small trees in our forests and rangelands.”

On August 8, 2000, President Clinton asked Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman to prepare a report that recommends how best to respond to this year’s severe fires, reduce the impacts of those fires on rural communities and insure sufficient firefighting resources in the future. On September 8, 2000, President Clinton accepted their report Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment. This report prompted the creation of the National Fire Plan and its “operating principles”.

“Operating principles directed by the Chief of the Forest Service in implementing this report include: firefighting readiness, prevention through education, rehabilitation, hazardous fuel reduction, restoration, collaborative stewardship, monitoring, jobs, and applied research and technology” (from Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A Cohesive Strategy, p.11-12).

The hazardous fuel reduction portion of this strategy called for; “Assigning 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 wildfires.” (ibid, p.12) Story is listed as a community at risk, in the Federal Register Vol. 66, No. 3 Jan 4^th 2001. The Moncreiffe and Stockwell fires in 1996, above Story, Wyoming, burned with high intensity and were a factor in prompting an action plan by the town of Story to create its Wildfire Assessment and Mitigation Plan (see Appendix A). Story Fuels responds to the fuels reduction element of the Cohesive Strategy.

1.1.2 Location Area

Story Fuels is adjacent to the town of Story, Wyoming T. 53N., R. 84 W., Sections 15-16, 22-23, and 26, in Sheridan and Johnson counties. Access into the treatment areas would be by foot and ATV along the Story Penrose Trail and other available walk in areas. The area is used by recreationist in and around the communities of Buffalo and Sheridan as well as some out of state use. The project area includes key winter habitat for deer and may include some sensitive plants occurring in the spring and summer months. Areas of interest include the Story Penrose Trail, South Piney Creek, and the Story State Fish Hatchery.

Figure 1 - Reference map; treatment area is approximately 690 acres.

1.2 Forest Plan Management Areas

The Story Fuels project responds to the National Fire Plan. In addition, this project will meet the goals and objectives of the Bighorn National Forest Plan, and management area prescriptions in 6B, 4B, 7E, 4D, and 9A summarized as follows:

Management Prescription 4B (189 acres, 14.7% of total)
Emphasis on habitat for management indicator species; Forest Plan 111-127

Management Prescription 4D (85 acres 6.6% of total)
Emphasis on aspen management; Forest Plan 111-135

Management Prescription 6B (894 acres 6.9.7% of total)
Emphasis on livestock grazing; Forest Plan 111-161

Management Prescription 7E (43 acres 3.4% of total)
Emphasis on wood-fiber production and utilization; Forest Plan 111-166

Management Prescription 9A
Emphasis on Riparian Management (no acreage or percentage available with 100 foot corridor too many variables; Forest Plan 111-198

1.3 Purpose and Need

Analysis indicates an unnatural density of small conifers, and brush, resulting in fuel ladders in ponderosa pine stands adjacent to the community of Story. This primarily results from decades of fire suppression in ponderosa pine that normally has a fire frequency of about 20 to 30 years. This increase of fuel along with an increase of mountain pine beetle has increased the chance for a high intensity wildland fire in and around the town of Story. The desired condition for these adjacent National Forest lands is to return them to predominantly open ponderosa pine stands. This would achieve multiple goals of The National Fire Plan and compliment the activities of the Story Fire District with their “Story Wildfire Assessment and Mitigation Plan.”

National Fire Plan goals and objectives include:

Reduce the number of small fires that become large
Restore natural ecological systems to minimize uncharacteristically intense fires
Create new jobs in both the private and public sectors
Improve capabilities for state and volunteer fire organizations
Reduce the threat to life and property from catastrophic wildfire

The objective specific to this project is to reduce the accumulation of unnatural fuel buildup on Forest Service lands adjacent to Story by chain saw thinning and using prescribed fire. The Forest Service looks to improve the overall health of the forest by returning fire back into a fire dependent ecosystem. Ponderosa pine, a fire adapted species with its thick bark as an insulating protective layer and self-pruning capabilities, has evolved with fire. With the reintroduction of fire and thinning, the Forest Service intends to increase (Mountain Pine Beetle) MPB resistance in ponderosa pine and create more open ponderosa pine stands.

1.4 Proposed Action

A "proposed action" is defined early in the project-level planning process. This serves as a starting point for the interdisciplinary team, and gives the public and other agencies specific information on which to focus comments. Using these comments, key issues, and other information from preliminary analysis, the interdisciplinary team then develops alternatives to the proposed action. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

The proposed action for the Story Fuels project is to reduce fuel loading on approximately 690 acres within an area of 1500 acres of National Forest System lands. The methods used to treat the area are a combination of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to thin the understory of brush along with removal of some small diameter conifers. There will be no new roads built and no commercial timber harvest for this project.

1.4.1 Private and State Lands

In addition to the fuels treatment proposed by the Forest Service, there are private and state Wyoming Game and Fish Department lands (Story Fish Hatchery), immediately adjacent to the Bighorn National Forestry boundary. The communities proposed treatments include commercial timber harvest and working with the Story Fire District to create a shaded fuel break and prescribe burning. The effects of these treatments on National Forest System Lands will be described in this EA in chapter 3 under the cumulative effects section 3.10.

Back to Top

1.5 Public Involvement

Story Fuels has been listed on the Bighorn National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since December 4, 2001. To date, the public has been invited to participate in the project in the following ways.

Public Mailing
A scoping letter providing information and seeking public comment was mailed to several individuals and groups. This included Federal, State, and local agencies, Native American tribes, cities, towns, and businesses, as well as interest groups and individuals. We received a total of 31 responses to this initial mailing.

Local News Media
Announcements about the project were printed in the Public Meetings list at the library, local stores and post office. There were newspaper articles about the proposed project with dates of meetings and encouragement of attendance and public comment.

Public Meetings
Meetings were held at the Story Women’s Club in Story, Wyoming on January 3, 2002 and January 27, 2002. Discussion topics included providing project area information, presenting the proposed action, and discussing related local concerns and interests. Fifty-two attended the first meeting and 30-35 attended the second meeting. There was also a hazardous fuel meeting at the Ladore restaurant in Story on December 13, 2001.

1.6 Issues

Key Issues

Key issues for the Story project were identified through public and internal scoping. Similar issues were combined into one statement where appropriate. The following were determined to be the key issues and within the scope of the project decision. These issues are addressed through the proposed action and alternatives. Additional concerns, discussed separately below, were considered but determined not to be significant for the project decisions to be made.

Forest Health

Preliminary analysis indicates an increase in fuel loading in the urban interface in and around Story, Wyoming. The increase in fuel loading combined with the suppression of wildfire in a fire adapted ecosystem has also decreased the resilience of ponderosa pine to MPB.

Recreation and Visuals

The aesthetic beauty of the forest is important to people who visit the Bighorn National Forest as well as the local population. The main issue was a concern over what negative impact would the thinning and prescribed burning have on the South Piney Creek and Penrose Trail area as well as the impacts the project might have on the visual appearance of the forest above Story.

Road Development Concerns

All of the Story Fuels Project is located within an established roadless area. Roadless management policy (FSM 1925.33) states; “Inventoried roadless areas contain important environmental values that warrant protection and will be managed to preserve their roadless characteristics.” The concern was that any new road construction would alter the roadless character.

Wildlife Concerns

The Story fuels project area has a variety of different ecosystems providing a wide range of wildlife habitat. Four important issues were identified through scoping: 1) Hiding cover for big game; 2) Snag retention; 3) Forest diversity including old growth, and; 4) Potential effects on terrestrial threatened and endangered species.

Aquatic Concerns

The following were considered key issues concerning aquatics and soils in the Story Project area. 1) Will the prescribed burns increase soil movement due to the watershed and erosion, and will this also result in poorer water quality? 2) What effect will the treatments have on aquatic wildlife and will there be effects on the Story Fish Hatchery?

Sensitive Plants

There are a number of plants in the treatment area that were at one time listed as Senstive or as species of concern. The analysis indicates that plants like the mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum) were removed from the Region 2 Sensitive Species list in 1994, but mitigation plans will be put into place to reduce effects on these plants.

1.6.1 Other Concerns

The following public concerns and resource areas are important and were considered in the analysis of key issues, however they were determined not to be key issues because they did not drive alternatives. Some are already addressed through other processes addressed in the Forest Plan (see "Items Common to All Alternatives" in Chapter 2), or their resolution is beyond the scope of this project.

There was a concern about commercial logging and new road construction. This was a non-issue because there will be no logging and no new road development as most of the area exceeds the 40% slope limitation for timber harvest (Forest Plan 111-78).
There was an issue of smoke settling in the town of Story, however burning will only be conducted when smoke dispersal is favorable.
There was a concern about community safety but spring and fall burning with high moisture content helps alleviate this issue. A “go, no go” safety check will be used prior to ignition.
There was a concern over elk winter range and cover. This area is not primary elk winter range.
There was a concern over threatened and endangered species and the effects of the burn on their habitat. This did not drive the development of alternatives due to the limited extent of the project.
There was a concern over cost of the project. Preliminary analysis indicates the project to be cost effective. Estimated cost. 186,000 thousand dollars.

1.7 Federal and State Permits, Licenses, and Certifications

To proceed with the proposed project, various permits must be obtained from federal and state agencies.

· An approved Burn Plan will be completed and approved by the Bighorn National Forest.

· A smoke emission permit will be obtained from the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) before the prescribed burn is implemented.

· The Wyoming State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) has been consulted. They are in agreement with the finding that this project will have no effect on cultural resources.

1.8 Decision To Be Made

An EA is not a decision document. The purpose of this document is to disclose the effects and consequences of the proposed action and alternatives and to solicit public input. The responsible line officer will make a decision based on consideration of the purpose and need for the project, the effects of the alternatives, and public involvement.

For this project the responsible official, the Forest Supervisor, will decide:

Whether to implement the proposed action, alternatives to the proposed action, or the no action alternative. The decision will be documented in a Decision Notice that will be issued no sooner than 30 days after the EA is distributed for public review and comment.
Whether to prepare an environmental impact statement. If the environmental analysis indicates to the decision maker that impacts associated with the alternatives are not significant, then he will make a finding of no significant impact (FONSI, 40 CFR 1508.13) that allows the action to proceed without performing an environmental impact statement.

Chapter 2 Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives for the Story Fuels project. It includes a discussion of how alternatives were developed, an overview of mitigation measures, monitoring and other features common to all alternatives, a description of each alternative considered in detail, and a comparison of these alternatives focusing on key issues. Alternative Two is identified as the preferred alternative. Chapter 2 is intended to present the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public (40 CFR 1502.14).

Some of the information used to compare alternatives at the end of Chapter 2 is summarized from Chapter 3, "Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences." Chapter 3 contains the detailed scientific basis for establishing baselines and measuring the potential environmental consequences of each of the alternatives. For a better understanding of the effects of the alternatives, readers will need to consult Chapter 3.

Wildland Urban Interface Areas

The following definition of Wildland Urban Interface has been adopted by the Council of Western State Foresters and the Forest Service: “Wildland/Urban Interface is where humans and their development meet or are intermixed with wildland fuels” (Teie and Weatherford, 1998: 11-12).

There are four different wildland/urban conditions:

1. Interface Condition--is a situation where structures abut wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences. Wildland fuels do not continue into the developed area.

2. Intermix Condition-- is a condition where structures are scattered throughout a wildland area. There is no clear line of demarcation; the wildland fuels are continuous outside of and within the developed area.

3. Occluded Condition-- is a situation normally within a city, where structures abut an island of wildland fuels. There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland fuels along roads or back fences.

4. Rural condition-- is a situation where scattered small clusters of structures are exposed to wildland fuels. There may be miles between these clusters.

Story is located within a continuously forested environment and is of the Intermix Condition. The timber stands and brush serving as ladder fuels are scattered throughout most subdivisions. Within the main part of town there are very few fuel breaks with an abundance of forest vegetation. This condition, if ignited, can provide for a high intensity crown fire amongst the wildland fuels in and around the town of Story.

2.2 Prioritization

“Story has a reputation within the Wyoming Wildfire community as a disaster waiting to happen” (Story Wildfire Assessment and Mitigation Plan pg. 5) The heavy fuel loading with inadequate access for suppression of fire, and no fire fuel break near the community increases the chance for a urban interface fire. Fire has been a past visitor to the Story area. Fire scars on a ponderosa pine near the Wagon Box Inn record a major fire in 1868 and another in 1876. Historic photographs of the area show this to be an open savannah area with widely spaced trees and fire playing its natural role in the cleanup of this forested area. (See Story Photo 1910, Chapter 1).

Upon the recognition of the above factors, this fuels reduction project was made a priority by the Bighorn National Forest. In addition the area in and around the community of Story was proposed for fuels reduction treatment by the Story Fire Board (Story Wildfire Assessment and Mitigation Plan).

2.3 Development of Alternatives

The ID team used information from public scoping, including the key issues identified for the project (see Chapter 1), in conjunction with field related resource information, to formulate different alternatives. Based on these alternatives, the ID team then assigned potential treatment prescriptions to different land units to create the two alternatives. The proposed action and the no action alternative presented in this EA provide a different response to the key issues; one alternative may respond to more than one issue. The action alternative is also designed to meet the stated purpose and need for the Story Fuels project and the project-specific desired future conditions.

The action alternative represents a site-specific proposal developed through interdisciplinary evaluation of current and desired conditions. Through the use of field data, past , present and current topographic maps, the analysis and site-specific treatment areas have been identified.

2.4 Alternative Considered but Not In Detail

Commercial timber harvest was considered but eliminated from detailed analysis for two reasons.

1. Most of the treatment area exceeds 40 % slope which is the maximum allowable for ground based logging systems (Forest Plan, III-78).

2. The maximum tree diameter being cut for prescribed burning is 8 inches which is at the minimum size for merchantable saw timber products.

2.4.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative One - No Action

The emphasis of this alternative is to propose no fuels reduction in the Story Fuels area at this time. It does not preclude activities in other areas, or from the Story fuels reduction area at some time in the future. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) require that a "no action" alternative be analyzed in detail. This alternative represents the existing condition against which other alternatives are compared.

Alternative Two - Proposed Action

The emphasis of Alternative Two is to reduce the potential effects of a catastrophic wildfire entering the town of Story. This is responsive to the National Fire Plan identifying concerns of urban interface and the potential for wildland fire.

The fuels reduction proposed in Alternative Two will meet the standards and guidelines of the National Fire plan, reducing unnatural fuels buildup through thinning, pruning, girdling, brush cutting, and the use of prescribed fire to reduce fuels and increase resistance to the present MPB infestations in ponderosa pine. There will be no new or improved road construction for this project. The project cost is estimated to be approximately $185,000 dollars.

Three treatment areas have been identified with different objectives and treatment types. (Refer to map pg .6). They are as follows;

Treatment Area #1 – Thin, Limb up, Pile & Burn

The objective is to create a fifty foot wide fuel break, to ensure prescribed fire does not cross the forest boundary on to non-Forest Service lands. This treatment area is not designated or intended to create a wildfire fuel break, it is intended to create a tactical anchor point for prescribed burning.

The treatment area includes the fuel break, inside the Forest Boundary from the middle of the East line of Section 23, T53N, R84W, to the north to the northeast comer of Section 14, T53N, R84W, then west to Grandma’s Mountain. Treatment specifications are to thin trees to an average of thirty foot spacing and cut brush where it could serve as a ladder fuel, and remove tree limbs to a height of six feet. Hand pile all slash up to three inches in diameter and than burn hand piles in the spring or fall when the ground is covered with snow. The treatment area is nine acres.

Treatment Area #2 – Thin, Broadcast burn.

The primary objective in treatment area two is to reduce fuels. In addition, there is a secondary objective to reduce the stocking rate to increase resistance of ponderosa pine to attack from mountain pine beetles.

Representative of existing fuels in treatment area two

The treatment area includes the south to southeast facing slopes in Section 14 and the north one third of Section 23, T53N, R84W. These areas are occupied by closed stands of mature ponderosa pine with grass openings, scattered pockets of pole sized mixed conifers, aspen, and patches of brush. This treatment area is approximately 600 acres.

Prior to 1900, fire frequency in this area is estimated to be 12-50 years (see Table 1, chapter 3, 3.1). These short fire intervals kept the ponderosa pine stands open with only an occasional seedling surviving the low intensity fires for eventual recruitment/replacements. Since the Story area was settled in the early 1880's, fire has not been allowed to play a significant roll as it had prior to settlement. This has resulted in an increase of trees and vegetation becoming ladder fuels. Without treatment this area would convert to a dense, mixed conifer stand, which would be an unnatural condition. The objective is to eliminate ladder fuels that are known to cause detrimental crown fires.

This treatment uses a combination of mechanical techniques and prescribed fire to reduce ladder fuels and increase crown spacing. The low-intensity fire planned to reduce fuels, will not kill all of the targeted vegetation. To ensure all targeted vegetation is removed, some trees will be cut prior to the prescribed fire. The target vegetation for cutting is 90% of the conifers that are eight inches or less in diameter. Prescribed fire would follow the cutting, burning the cut trees and the uncut target vegetation. Primarily, these conditions occur in the spring, but there may also be a narrow “window of opportunity” to meet objectives in the fall. This allows the prescribed burning to be done without having to construct fire lines, reducing costs and ground disturbance. This method ensures greater control of the prescribed fire as opposed to straight broadcast burning.

Treatment Area #3 – Thin, Hand Pile & Burn.

The primary objective is to reduce fuels by breaking up the continuity of conifer overstory to complement the fuels treatment occurring in the Story area (See map private lands). The secondary objective is to improve the resistance of the ponderosa pine stands to the MPB.

Existing Douglas Fir Understory (Note Tree Spacing and Ladder Fuels)

The treatment area includes the north and northeast facing slopes in the east one third of section 14 and the northeast quarter of section 23, T53N, R84W. This treatment area is estimated to be approximately 80 acres.

The treatment is thinning the ponderosa pine and Douglas fir to spacing that ranges from 12 feet to 17 feet, depending on the average diameter of the leave trees. Thinning will have an 8” dbh limit, unless larger trees have active beetle hits. This treatment also includes hand piling all slash up to three inches in diameter and burning the hand piles in the fall when the ground is covered with snow. There would be no broadcast burning in these areas. Some trees may be girdled (killed by interrupting the circulation of water and nutrients – Removal of cambium layer by a chainsaw) and left standing to reduce the amount of potential slash greater than three inches. Fuels will also be used for erosion control and serve as cover for some wildlife species.

2.5 Mitigations

The mitigations in this next section are integrated into Alternative Two for assessing the environmental consequences.

Watershed Mitigations

Ignition will be precluded for at least 100 feet on each side of streams within the burn area. The purpose of this buffer strip is to minimize loss of fish habitat associated with stream bank vegetation and to reduce the possibility of increased sedimentation to aquatic habitats. Fire may back through riparian zones at very low intensity with a low percentage of crown removal. This would reduce the chance of sediment delivery and reduce the chance of dry ravel failures or debris torrents in the ephemeral draws.

Spring burning is recommended as mitigation in this watershed to lower the risk of high intensity fire that could expose bare soil that can be routed as sediment and reach the stream. Re-growth is also much faster in the spring.

Construction of water bars where needed, contour falling of trees, strategic location of slash/debris piles and other similar techniques would help control soil erosion.

Re-vegetate areas by seeding with native grass species where high intensity fires have occurred to minimize soil erosion and related aquatic impacts.

Buffer zones of uncut vegetation should be left along each side of standing waters and water courses to minimize sedimentation and direct fish habitat impacts. Factors such as slope, stream channel stability and fish habitat should be considered when determining appropriate buffer zone width. As a general rule, the following slopes and corresponding buffer zone widths should be maintained.

Percent Slope Range	Buffer Width (ft)
0-20	100
20-30	180
30-40	280
40-50	400
50-60	520

Wildlife Mitigations

Attempt to create a mosaic of fire effects. This means that most areas of large diameter (>8” dbh) trees should remain unburned. It is recognized that a few patches of mature trees may be killed. The trees killed by burning should be left standing to provide snags to meet the requirements of snag-dependant wildlife species in the short term and the patches of unburned trees will provide future snags over the long-term.

Assure that enough area is burned at one time to prevent concentrations of big game animals from damaging the vegetation that will re-sprout on the burned areas. It is recommended that at least 200 acres be burned at one time to prevent creating wildlife “magnets.”

If any raptor nest is found after the Decision Notice has been signed, restrict activities in the vicinity of the nest site during the nesting season until the young have fledged and left the area. This “no activity” area will normally be approximately 2,000 feet radius from the nest site (roughly 300 acres), and all activities should be curtailed from May 1, through August 15.

Increase the amount of coarse woody debris for wildlife habitat. This can be accomplished mainly through slash treatment and prescribed fire management. Avoid creating big game movement barriers with slash, but assure that Forest Plan minimums are met for down, dead woody material; 12-inch diameter, and at least 50 linear feet per acre.

Sensitive Plants and Species of Concern Mitigations

Mountain lady’s slipper (Cypripedium montanum), a Wyoming Natural Diversity Database (WYNDD) species of concern (ie, it is not a Threatened, Endangered or Proposed for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor is it on the Region 2 Sensitive Species list), is known to exist within the proposed treatment units. In Wyoming, it is found along the east-central edge of the Big Horn Mountains. There is no known peer reviewed published fire effects information on this species as most of what is presumed about the life cycle of mountain lady’s slipper has been from research on other Cypripedium species (Seevers and Lange 1998). Since this species exists in a landscape where fire was an important influence, it is assumed that it is adapted to fire.

To better understand fire effects upon this species, monitoring plots will be established for mountain lady’s slipper within the project area. Monitoring will include quantitative inventories and qualitative information, such as photo series. The objective of the monitoring will be to measure population numbers in response to fire.

One noxious weed population is known to exist in the proposed treatment units, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). This population will continue to be monitored as well as the rest of the burned units and will be spot treated if necessary to control the spread of this species and any other noxious weeds.

To help mitigate the effects of the treatments to potentially occurring R2 Sensitive plant species and mountain lady’s slipper, the following will apply:

· See items 1 and 5 under Watershed Mitigations. The purpose of this buffer strip is to minimize the loss of riparian plant habitat.

· Do not completely burn up the duff layer where it is present.

· Do not drop slash or hand pile slash on top of marked mountain lady’s-slipper sites and Region 2, Forest Service (R2) Sensitive plant species sites if plants are found prior to implementation.

· During treatment operations, avoid trampling marked mountain lady’s slipper sites and R2 Sensitive plant species sites if plants are found prior to implementation.

· Retain sufficient shrub and/or tree canopy cover so that marked mountain lady’s slipper sites are not exposed to more than intermittent direct solar radiation.

· Conduct prescribed burns at a time of year when completely burning the duff layer is unlikely so that mountain lady’s slipper rhizomes will not be damaged.

· A specialist will locate several patches of mountain lady’s slipper to be excluded from prescribed burning within the treatment units to provide a seed source within the treatment units.

Recreation, Roadless and Visual Mitigations

During implementation, leave tree spacing recommendations should take some randomness into consideration, so that the overall sense is one that has been naturally rather than mechanically created. Hand piling in close proximity of the trails should be minimized.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This chapter provides information concerning the environment affected by the Story Fuels project and potential consequences to that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the physical, biological, social and economic environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulates implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and includes a number of specific categories to use for the analysis of environmental consequences. Several are applicable to the analysis of this proposed project and its alternatives. These categories form the basis of much of the analysis that follows. They are explained briefly below.

3.1.1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed from the activity, but could be important in the foreseeable future. Cumulative effects result from incremental effects of actions, when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively important, actions taking place over a period of time. The Cumulative effects section for all resources starts at 3.10 of this chapter.

3.2 Fire and Fuels

Fire Regime/Fire History/Fire Occurrence
Historic fire regimes within the analysis area vary depending upon the vegetation type. The predominant vegetation type is ponderosa pine forest intermixed with grass, Douglas fir, aspen and shrub-land communities.

Fire is widely considered to be the dominant disturbance influencing the composition and structure of Rocky Mountain forests (Clements 1910; Romme and Knight 1981; Peet 1988). The fire regime found in ponderosa pine is commonly believed to be one of high frequency and low intensity (Spurr and Barnes 1980). Listed in Table 1 are mean fire return intervals, estimated from fire scar analysis, from a variety of research papers for the Rocky Mountains.

Author Froest Type/Location Fire Return Interval Estimated (years) Type of Fire Event

Brown et al., in review ponderosa pine/Laramie Range, WY pre-settlement median intervals= 26 to 33.5;
range 8 to 82 surface

Fisher et al. 1987 ponderosa pine/Devils Tower National Monument, WY 1600-1770: 27
1770-1900: 14
(Overall pre-settlement: 19)
since 1900: 42 surface

Laven et al. 1980 ponderosa pine/Roosevelt N.F., CO (3-161) mean 45.8 surface

Goldblum and Velben 1992 ponderosa pine-Douglar-fir/Boulder, CO 3-49
means for pre-1859:31.8
1859 - 1920: 8.1
since 1920: 28 surface

Brown 1994; Brown & Sieg 1996 ponderosa pine;Jewel Cave N.M., SD 9-79 surface

Dieterich 1980 ponderosa pine/northern AZ pre-settlement 2-12 surface

Even though there are variations in estimates of mean fire return intervals, the literature suggests overwhelmingly that reoccurring surface fires shaped the structure of ponderosa pine stands. It has been widely held that the open, savanna nature of low elevation conifer woodlands was perpetuated prior to European-American settlement by relatively frequent, low-intensity fires that killed many seedlings and saplings but not mature, thick-barked trees, especially ponderosa pine (Covington and Moore 1994; Knight 1994),. Surface fires at regular intervals maintained the clumped pattern of all-aged stands in even-aged groups and reduced excess fuel. Fires set naturally by lightning and by Native Americans thinned out young pine reproduction (Spurr and Barnes 1980). Historic accounts describing "open and park-like" stands with understories rich in grasses were common in the American Southwest (Cooper 1960) and in the Rock Mountains (Velben and Lorenz 1991).

As the inclusion of fire as a natural part of the ponderosa pine ecosystem defines its structure, so does the exclusion of fire. The most important changes brought by European Americans were the attempted exclusion of fire, which was accomplished by an intense fire prevention program and the introduction of livestock that reduced the flammable grasses. With few fires, dense poine thickets developed and with them the accompanying problems of slow growth and stagnation (Spurr and Barnes 1980) and stand replacing (emphasis added) wildfires (Agee 1997).

Vegetation management in the analysis area has been limited to selective logging near the turn of the century and more recently grazing. The phenomenon of over-stocked stands with tree densities and fuel loadings well in excess of the RNV (Range of Natural Variation) are found throughout the analysis area. This is especially obvious where topography limited vegetative management activities other than fire suppression.

3.2.1 Fire History

The Bighorn National Forest averages 22 fires per year. Even though this occurrence is quite low, average burned acres is high at 1,206 acres per year. Ninety-three percent of these fires never exceed 10 acres but the balance accounts for 99% of the total acres burned. Recorded large fires in the Piney/Rock geographic area are:

Fire Name	Year	Acres
Stockwell	1996	2,594
Rock Creek	1919	930
Unnamed fire reported by R. E. Town	1989	30,000

Alternative 1: No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative, fuel treatments would not be implemented in the analysis area. Fire behavior, especially as it relates to surface to crown fire transition in the conifer stands has the potential to occur.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects

There is general consensus from more than ninety years of fire experience and research that a fire burns hotter, spreads faster, and pumps more harmful smoke into the atmosphere, when there is more fuel available to feed it.

A long standing program of fire behavior research and decades of empirical observation by both managers and researchers indicate that appropriate stand structure changes do reduce the intensity of fires and the effects of fire on the ecological process (Graham et al, 1999).

The problem of uncharacteristically intense and volatile fire behavior in certain ecosystems is getting worse. Resource damage from these intense fires is exceeding that of fires that burned pre Euro-American settlement.

The action alternative (Alternative 2) proposes treatments that move in the direction of more open, large-tree dominated, low-fuel forest condition.

Treatment Areas #1 and #3 have slightly different specifications but both are essentially thinning from below and treating the slash. The basic objective of this thinning is to remove fuels, specifically smaller understory trees that provide ladder fuels for a surface fire to move into the forest canopy and become a highly destructive crown fire. Removal or treatment of slash produced by the thinning operation, either mechanically and/or with prescribed fire, is an integral part of the thinning prescription. Otherwise, fire hazard could be exacerbated. Quoting from Brown (2000): "Neither thinning nor fire will be a panacea: both must be used, but used thoughtfully. Nothing will make forests fireproof, but it appears feasible to make some forest more "fire safe". in that they will have species composition, age structure and fuel levels such that crown fires are unlikely to begin or spread (Agee 1996).

In most established forest ecosystems, thinning preferentially removes the more fire-susceptible small trees, tends to leave the more fire-resistant large trees and accelerates the growth of residual trees into larger more fire resistant size classes. For reducing fire risk, the priorities are to reduce surface and ladder fuels and raise the bottom of the live canopy (Agee et al 2000, van Wagtendonk 1996). Reducing the probably of violent crown fires that also increase the likelihood of fire spotting is a key objective of this thinning.

There is peer-reviewed science and general consensus in the science community that properly implemented and maintained fuel treatments that include prescribed burning will result in reduced fire severity within treated areas (Graham et al 1999). Depending on how the treatments are placed on the landscape, there may be fire reduction benefits outside the treated area on the subsequent spread rate, size and severity of wildfires and on the ease of suppression.

Treat Area #2 reduces fuels by mea

Lead Agency:	USDA Forest Service
Responsible Official:	William T. Bass, Forest Supervisor Bighorn National Forest 2013 Eastside 2nd Street Sheridan, WY 82801 Phone: 307-684-2600
For Further Information or to Submit Comments:	Craig Yancey, District Ranger Tongue Ranger District Bighorn National Forest 2013 Eastside 2nd Street Sheridan, WY 82801 Phone: 307-674-2600