Environmental Assessment
of the
Frostfire Prescribed Burn
BLM Northern Field Office
1150 University Avenue
Fairbanks, AK. 99709
BLM Alaska Fire Service
P.O. Box 35005
Ft. Wainwright, AK. 99703
No. AK-AFS-EA-99-AA03
April 5, 1999
2
I. Introduction
The Bureau of Land Management-Alaska Fire Service (BLM-AFS) proposes to assist in
conducting a prescribed burn to meet objectives of the Frostfire Project funded by the National
Science Foundation (NSF). BLM-AFS has prepared a Burn Plan (Wilmore, et. al., 1998) (See
Attachment A) for approval by the University of Alaska, Fairbanks (UAF) and the State of Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (ADNR). BLM-AFS would provide the Incident
Commander/Burn Boss and other key positions for burn operation, and provide all command and
safety functions during the operation.
The research watershed selected for the prescribed burn is the C-4 subwatershed of the CaribouPoker Creeks Research Watershed (CPCRW) (See Map A) which is part of the Bonanza Creek
Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) Site (See Map B) operated by UAF. BLM-AFS would
prepare the C-4 watershed for burning, including developing and constructing helispots, fuel
breaks and access trails. BLM-AFS would also provide personnel and equipment during preburn,
burn, and mopup operations.
The Frostfire Project is a cooperative effort between UAF, the USDA Forest Service Pacific
Northwest Research Station (PNW), ADNR, the Canadian Forestry Service, and BLM-AFS. A
Memorandum of Understanding (# PNW 98-5124-2-MOU) was signed by all parties in May and
June, 1998 to formalize Frostfire cooperative efforts.
The Frostfire Project would be a continuation of international fire research activities under the
International Boreal Forest Research Association Stand Replacement Fire Working Group, and as
part of the LTER program.
A. Purpose and Need
The primary purpose of the prescribed burn is to further research on the effects of fire relating to
climate change, carbon cycling, habitat changes, and increased understanding of fire behavior.
The C-4 watershed has been the site of on-going ecological research for approximately 20 years.
The prescribed fire within the watershed would permit a variety of research activities on the
effects of fire on catchment hydrologic response, permafrost thermal regimes, landscape stability,
water quality, stream biota, regeneration and succession of terrestrial and riparian vegetation, fire
dynamics, and fire emissions.
In addition, results from the Frostfire Project could aid land managers by improving predictions
on how wildfires will behave. The Frostfire Project could also enable land managers to minimize
some of the negative effects of wildfires, such as erosion and visual impacts. The Department of
Fish and Game should be able to improve their predictions on the effects of fire on wildlife habitat
and be better able to use prescribed burns to improve wildlife habitat.
B. Land Use Plan Conformance Statement
The Frostfire project proposed action is in compliance with the applicable land use plans listed
3
below:
1. The Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed Plan
2. Upper Yukon-Tanana Interagency Fire Management Plan. U.S. Department of the
Interior-Bureau of Land Management
3. Alaska Wildland Fire Management Plan, Amended October, 1998
4. Tanana Basin Area Plan for State Lands, Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
Adopted 1985, Updated 1991
In addition, the proposed action is consistent with federal, state, and local laws and regulations to
the maximum extent possible.
C. Land Status
The State of Alaska Division of Lands and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks own and manage
the land involved in the Frostfire Project. The burn area is located in sections 9, 10, 11, 14, 15,
16, 17, 22, and 23, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Fairbanks Meridian.
II. Proposed Action and Alternatives
The proposed action and alternatives were developed by incorporating input from the Alaska
Department of Natural Resources, the University of Alaska Fairbanks, BLM-AFS, and the public
through public scoping meetings.
A. Proposed Action - Alternative 1 - Implement Frostfire Project Prescribed Burn
BLM-AFS would assist UAF and other cooperators by writing a Burn Plan (completed) and by
planning and implementing the Frostfire Prescribed Burn. The Frostfire Project would consist of
a prescribed burn of approximately 2200 acres in the C-4 subwatershed of the CPCRW. The burn
would be implemented over a four to five-day continuous period, (if weather and prescription
conditions permit) between the dates of June 23 and August 1, 1999-2000. The perimeter of the
burn would be blacklined and ignited by hand, with mop-up crews working directly behind the
lighting crews. Most of the interior of the watershed would be ignited by aerial ignition, primarily
with a helitorch. Aerial ignition would not take place until the fireline perimeter had been secured.
A support helibase would be located at the Poker Flats Rocket Range on the Steese Highway in
section 35, T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Fairbanks Meridian. It would consist of two landing pads with ample
room for helitorch barrel exchanges. The fuel truck would be located there, as would the camp
for the air operations and aerial firing staff. The Helibase would be used 7 or more days by up to
20 people. A campsite/staging area for ground crews would be established in sections 25 and 36,
T. 4 N., R. 1 E., Fairbanks Meridian, on the south side of the bridge crossing the Chatanika River
leading to the burn area. The staging area would support 25 to 100 personnel for 7 or more days.
Approximately seven miles of ridgeline surrounding the C-4 watershed received a fuel break
treatment consisting of clearing a 40 to 80 foot area with chainsaws during September, 1997. The
4
conifer slash, consisting primarily of black spruce, was hand-piled and burned. This work was
completed under an approved ADNR land use permit. The permit specified that the purpose of
the fuel break was to augment wildland fire protection to Haystack Subdivision and full protection
areas to the south of the C-4 watershed. Fire protection of these areas was achieved regardless if
the experimental Frostfire Project prescribed burn occurs or not. Prior to burning the entire C-4
watershed, wet-line (water application) would be applied to areas immediately outside the
perimeter, with priority on the west side.
The prescribed burn would only be implemented under the approved Burn Plan. Close monitoring
of weather, fuel moisture, and regional fire danger conditions would begin 1-2 months prior to
proposed burn dates and continue until after the burn. This monitoring would provide input to
support the go/no-go decision as to whether the C-4 watershed is in prescription to address fire
effects (smoke impacts and safety concerns) and to meet the overall science objectives identified
in the Frostfire project proposal.
All preparation work would be done by BLM-AFS. A burn boss (overall supervisor of prescribed
burn implementation) would be appointed by BLM-AFS. The burn boss would be responsible for
timing, execution, and release of the burn until the Alaska Department of Natural Resources takes
over in the mop-up stage.
According to the Frostfire risk analysis in the Burn Plan, the prescribed burn represents a low to
moderate risk for escape, due to ignition methods used and the proximity to and resources
available to prevent or contain an escaped fire. Rapid response by firing and holding crews should
extinguish any slopover fires resulting from firing operations. In the event slopover fires are not
controlled by hand crews, dipsites for helicopter buckets have been identified in the Chatanika
River and in ponds located along the Steese Highway. In the event that holding resources are
inadequate for control, an emergency wildfire situation would be declared. Retardant tankers and
other emergency firefighting resources would be mobilized from the BLM-AFS base at Ft
Wainwright and be available for emergency response. Fire escapement and contingency plans are
detailed in the Frostfire Burn Plan.
Post-fire operations would include a 300 ft perimeter mop-up and daily foot and aerial perimeter
patrols until all fire danger is passed. Equipment would be removed and camps rehabbed and
policed for trash.
B. Alternative 2 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, BLM-AFS would not assist the State of Alaska in conducting
the Frostfire Project.
C. Alternative 3 - Wait for natural (lightning) or human-caused fires to burn the
proposed area.
The C-4 watershed falls under the modified protection option of the Upper-Yukon Tanana Fire
Alaska Interagency Fire Management Plan. Under this fire management strategy, a natural or
5
human-caused fire could be allowed to burn the C-4 watershed as long as the fire was monitored
and no special resources or improvements were threatened. However, under this strategy, the
area could not be guaranteed to burn under the desired conditions of fuel moisture and weather
conditions to meet science objectives.
Prescheduling of a research fire is necessary to allow monitoring personnel to prepare
instrumentation, be present during the fire, and make post-burn measurements immediately after
the fire. Therefore, because natural fire would be unlikely to achieve the stated scientific
objectives in a reasonable amount of time, this alternative is not considered further.
III. Affected Environment
A. General Setting
The CPCRW is located 25 miles north of Fairbanks, Alaska and is a relatively pristine, 104square kilometer basin reserved for meteorological, hydrologic, and ecological research.
Currently, there is no human influence on the basin other than scientific research. CPCRW has
continuous records of climate and hydrology since 1969 and atmospheric deposition records since
1992. CPCRW is the only research watershed in the United States in a zone of discontinuous
permafrost, where permafrost temperatures are close to 0 degrees centigrade. These
discontinuous permafrost areas may be subject to changes in depth to permafrost if they
experience changes in climate or surface energy exchange.
The CPCRW is located within the modified fire protection option of the Alaska Interagency Fire
Management Plan. Adjacent to the north of the project location are limited protection option
lands. To the south, are full protection option lands, including residential areas in the Haystack
Subdivision. The area is within the wildland fire protection area of ADNR. There is no historical
record of active fire suppression in the C-4 watershed.
There are private homes in the Haystack Subdivision 2.5 miles southwest of the burn, as well as
near the Chatanika Lodge 4.4 miles to the southeast and near the Steese Highway 4 miles south.
Several small placer mines are located within 15 miles southwest and southeast of the watershed,
and a campground is located 8.4 miles to the east. Fox, Alaska is located 16 miles southsouthwest and Fairbanks is located 26.4 miles southwest.
B. Affected Resources
1. Air Quality
Air quality has not been totally pristine in the CPCRW since increases in human population in the
Fairbanks area began the early 1900's. However, air quality is considered to be very good.
Charcoal layers in most areas on the landscape indicate the presence of natural fires and evidence
of fires set by Native Alaskans and miners. Since the early 1940's, levels of smoke may have
actually decreased upon settlement, as fire was, for the most part, excluded by organized fire
suppression from the 1940's to 1982. In the proposed Frostfire Project area, there are no Class I
6
airsheds, nonattainment areas, or special protection areas such as wilderness areas.
2. Soils
The proposed burn area is underlain by mica schist of the Birch Creek formation. A thin cap of
loess derived from windblown glaciated silt deposits on floodplains of the Tanana and Yukon
River Basins mantles the area, with little distinct boundary between it and the weathered schist
below. The soils are generally silt or gravelly silt loams in the Inceptisol and Entisol soil orders.
Organic horizons normally range from 2-3 inches. Soils are 4 to 40 inches thick, with the deeper
soils characterized by gravelly horizons at depths below 11 inches. Discontinuous permafrost
underlies the valley bottom, some ridgetops, and most north-facing slopes (Rieger et al., 1972).
3. Vegetation
Vegetative cover types are typical of the interior Alaska boreal forest. The south aspect slopes
are dominated by closed broadleaf stands of quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) and paper birch
(Betula papyrifera). These closed deciduous forests are the dominant cover type in the Little
Poker Creek drainage. The north slopes are dominated by closed and open needleleaf forests of
black spruce (Picea mariana). Smaller vegetation cover types include coniferous woodland and
closed tall shrub.
Common shrubs include willow (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus crispa), dwarf birch (Betula
glandulosa), blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum), lowbush cranberry (V. vitis-idaea), labrador tea
(Ledum groenlandicum) highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule), rose (Rosa acicularis), and
bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi). Common herbs include bluejoint (Calamagrostis spp.),
horsetail (Equisetum spp.), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus), cottongrass (Eriophorum
vaginatum), northern bedstraw (Galium boreale), twinflower (Linnaea borealis), and sedge
(Carex spp).
4. Floodplains and Water Quality
The CPCRW is a relatively pristine basin reserved for scientific research. Researchers from UAF
and the former Institute of Northern Forestry have been collecting hydrology data in the
watershed since 1969. The basin is representative of upland headwaters stream basins in subarctic
Alaska where permafrost is discontinuously distributed throughout the basin. The permafrost
regime exerts a powerful influence over hydrologic patterns within the watershed. Streamflow
consists of highly variable shallow subsurface storm runoff from permafrost-dominated areas and
consistent groundwater base flows from permafrost-free areas. These distinct flow regimes have
different influences on stream biogeochemistry, but essentially water quality is a function of
natural processes within the basin and is of high quality.
Little Poker Creek, a fourth-order stream approximately 5 miles long, runs through the center of
C-4 watershed and is a tributary to Caribou Creek. The C-4 watershed has a predominately SSE
aspect, ranges in elevation from 226 to 686 m, and encompasses a drainage area of 11.4 square
kilometers. Approximately 19% of the basin is underlain by permafrost (Lotspeich and Slaughter,
7
1981).
The Little Poker Creek floodplain is currently undisturbed and functions naturally, except for
minimal disturbance from research activities such as collection of streamflow and water chemistry
data. Floodplain vegetation consists of a variety of types, including tall shrub wetlands of willow
and alder, riparian forests with 60-90 year-old stands of birch and aspen, and riparian forests of
older, uneven black spruce stands up to 200 years old.
5. Fisheries
The Chatanika River and its tributaries support both anadromous and resident fish species. In the
vicinity of the proposed action, juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) use the
lower reaches of Poker Creek as rearing habitat. Downstream from Poker Creek, adult chinook
and chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) migrate and spawn. Little Poker Creek supports Arctic
Grayling (Thymallus arcticus) and slimy sculpin (Cottus cognatus). Other resident fish species
that use the Chatanika River and tributaries include least cisco (Coregonus sardinello), humpback
whitefish (Coregonus clupaformis), round whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum), and broad
whitefish (Coregonus nasus) (ADF&G, 1996). In addition, sheefish (Stenodus leucichthys),
Northern pike (Esox lucius) burbot (Lota lota) and longnose suckers (Catastomous catastomous)
have also been observed (D. Flemming, 1999).
6. Wetlands/Riparian Zones
According to the National Wetlands Inventory Maps, approximately 70% of the C-4 watershed is
considered to be uplands. Palustrine forested, emergent, and shrub-scrub wetlands are found along
Little Poker Creek. Most of the forested wetlands are composed of black spruce and/or broadleaf
stands of quaking aspen and paper birch. These wetlands form the riparian zone along Little Poker
Creek.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fairbanks Office has determined that the wetlands subject to
prescribed burning are exempt from wetlands permitting considerations, as long as established
best management practices are used during the burn, and no ground-disturbing activities
associated with the fire or related suppression activities are proposed (See Attachment B, Letter
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 31, 1999).
7. Recreation
The proposed project is in a research area and does not have a developed recreation system,
although several trails exist in the area and receive recreational use. The primary users of the
project area include local residents of the Haystack Subdivision and Chatanika area, with some
users coming from Fairbanks and other communities. The surrounding Chatanika River drainage
supports several year-round recreation opportunities, with most use centered around the Steese
Highway.
The summer recreation season typically lasts from Memorial Day Weekend until the end of
8
hunting season in late September. Recreation activities include camping, fishing, hunting, hiking,
river floating, gold panning, and riding ATVs. There are two public campgrounds along the
Steese Highway at mileposts 39 and 60. River floaters access the Chatanika River from several
points along the Steese Highway or at the mile 39 campground.
Winter recreation activities include snowmachining, skiing, dogmushing and trapping along
existing trails in the project area. Local businesses at milepost 28 include lodging, a restaurant,
snowmachine rentals and approximately 50 miles of maintained winter trails. Local residents and
tourists use this trail system for recreation activities.
The proposed burn area is adjacent to the White Mountains National Recreation Area, which is
managed by BLM for public recreation purposes. The WMNRA contains several public
recreation cabins, campgrounds and recreation trails which are used year-round. A BLMmanaged public recreation cabin and several trails are located within three miles north of the
proposed burn area. The Nome Creek Valley, located approximately 15 miles northeast of the
project area, has two campgrounds and the primary summer access road (via mile 57 Steese Hwy)
into the WMNRA.
8. Socio-Economic Conditions
There are private homes in the Haystack Subdivision 2.5 miles southwest of the burn area near the
Chatanika Lodge. In addition, homes are located near a local restaurant and bar 4.4 miles to the
southeast and near the Steese Highway 4 miles south. Several small placer mines are located
within 15 miles southwest and southeast of the burn area, and a campground is located 8.4 miles
to the east. Fox, Alaska is located 16 miles south-southwest and Fairbanks is located 26.4 miles
southwest. There are several recreational campgrounds in the area.
9. Subsistence Resources
No Federal land occurs in the burn area and so no Federally-regulated subsistence harvest occurs.
The location of the site within the Fairbanks Northstar Borough suggests that little subsistence use
of the site occurs by rural residents. Subsistence harvest of fish does not occur here, but harvest of
fish by rural residents, including residents of Minto, occurs downstream.
10. Wildlife Resources
Wildlife species present are typical of the interior Alaska boreal forest. The drainage is yearround moose habitat and is within the historical range of the Fortymile caribou herd. A trap cache
was found just outside of the Frostfire Project burn area, indicating that marten trapping occurs in
the area. Moose and bear hunting occurs in the drainage, although access is limited.
11. Cultural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources
9
The Alaska Heritage Resources Survey was consulted, and two sites are shown as being located
in the general vicinity of the proposed prescribed burn. These are LIV-00193, the remnants of a
wagon road running along the southern side of Poker Flats, and LIV-00207, the Davidson Ditch.
Neither are likely to be affected by the prescribed burn, assuming it can be confined to the planned
area.
A review of readily accessible sources regarding historic mining in the Fairbanks area revealed
almost no mention of Poker Creek. Annual reports of the United States Geological Society were
examined, and Poker Creek is not mentioned as a stream on which mining has occurred. In fact,
the only significant reference to the stream is the following quote:
"The power station in operation at the mouth of Poker Creek was designed as a hydro-electric
plant, but on account of the insufficient water supply it is being run part of the time by steam
power with wood fuel. Ten or twelve plants on Dome and Cleary creeks use power from this
station for driving pumps and lighting." (Prindle and Katz 1909:198-199).
Given the extent of mining activity in the general area, it is likely that at least some prospecting
took place on Poker Creek, but the absence of any mention of the stream in published reports can
be taken as a strong indication that no significant mining occurred there. Other activities, such as
trapping or logging may well have been carried out in the drainage.
Some level of inventory for cultural resources has been done in the CPCRW. In 1989, two
archaeologists from the Department of Anthropology were asked to evaluate two historic sites
located in the area now proposed to be burned for the Frostfire project. These sites were initially
identified by Marya Roddis, in 1989. To date, we have been unable to locate a report or even a
description of this survey, so it is not possible at this time to evaluate how thorough or
appropriate this survey is.
We were able to contact the individuals who attempted to visit the two known sites in the C-4
watershed. The attached report was furnished by them and describes the results of their efforts
(See Attachment G, Assessment of Archaeological and Historic Resources).
12. Visual Resource Management
The proposed burn area is visible from the Steese Highway and has a Class B Scenic Quality
Rating based on Illustration 2 in BLM Handbook H-8410-1. It has a Moderate Sensitivity Level
and would be in the Foreground/Middleground Distance Zone.
The area fits into Visual Resource Inventory Class III. Class III Objectives are to partially retain
existing characteristics of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape
should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the
view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant
natural features of the characteristic landscape.
13. Threatened and Endangered Species
10
Although American peregrine falcons occur in the region, they are not likely to occur in the fire
area due to the forested nature of the habitat and lack of cliff nesting and perching habitat. No
other threatened or endangered animal or plant species is known or suspected to occur in the
project area. Rare or sensitive plants are not likely to occur in this boreal forest habitat.
14. Wastes, Solid/Hazardous
Hazardous Materials:
The following hazardous materials will be used in the proposed burn during ignition and holding:
jet fuel-2500 gallons, drip torches-12, drip torch fuel-100 gallons, fusees-2 boxes, unleaded gas
fuel barrels-8 at 50 gallons each, MAPP gas-4 canisters, petrogel-16 gallons, helitorches-3, Premo
Mk III-1, aerial ignition spheres-10 cs, and premix fuel for chainsaws-100 gallons. An additional
100 gallons of premix fuel will be used during mop-up. Appropriate spill response equipment will
be available in storage areas and at fuel transfer sites and any hazardous materials will be handled
by trained personnel. No extremely hazardous substances as defined in 40 CFR 355 are associated
with the proposed action. Less than 10,000 pounds of chemicals subject to reporting under Title
III of SARA (40 CFR 370) are associated with this project.
Waste disposal:
Portable toilets will be delivered to the proposed camp sites if pit privies are not permitted. Fire
camps will be policed for trash after mop-up, and any cut brush will be placed over campsites. Fire
pits will be thoroughly extinguished and rehabbed. All equipment will be removed from the site.
C. Resources Not Affected
The following critical elements of the human environment are not present or are not affected by
the proposed action or alternatives and are dismissed from further discussion in this
Environmental Assessment:
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
Environmental Justice
Farmlands (Prime or Unique)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wilderness
IV. Environmental Consequences
A. Environmental Impacts
1. Air Quality
11
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
No urban or industrial air pollution sources exist near the proposed burn site. Particulate matter
could result from wildfire or prescribed burning in different regions of the State, in addition to
particulate matter formed during the proposed burn. Although smoke and fire are a natural part of
Alaska’s ecosystems and usually do not significantly affect boreal forest and rangeland
ecosystems, they can affect human health. However, studies indicate that prescribed fires, ignited
under fuel moisture conditions that reduce total fuel consumption and conducted when mixing
heights and winds are most favorable for smoke dispersal, produce lower levels of particulate
matter than wildfires. Therefore, while prescribed burning may have a temporary negative impact
on air quality, in the long term, acute impacts from wildfires should be reduced.
Visibility can also be affected by prescribed burning. Fine particulate matter, generally less than
2.5 microns in diameter, is the primary cause of visibility impairment. Prescribed burning
emissions, which stay suspended for many miles, are in the 0.1 to 2.5 micron size class, and can be
expected to reduce visibility. The Clean Air Act (1977 Amendment) requires the State to consider
strategies for reducing visibility impairment from prescribed burns. For the Frostfire Project
prescribed burn, winds will be monitored and burning conducted only under the prescription
identified in the Burn Plan to mitigate smoke impacts on human populated areas.
An Approval for Open Burning has been obtained from the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (See Attachment D).
Alternative 2- No Action
Air quality would remain unchanged for the short term. However, in the long term, there is
potential for naturally occurring wildfires to burn denser fuels accumulated over future years
which could produce higher particulate levels during a wildfire than during the prescribed burn.
2. Soils
Alternative 1-Proposed Action
Fire can affect soil characteristics, erosion rates, patterns of vegetation, and nutrient availability.
Extreme fire temperatures, as experienced during some severe wildlfire situations, can cause
volatization of essential nutrients like nitrogen and impact soil productivity by creating bare soil
and/or hydrophobic conditions. However, nutrients are also made available by fire, primarily by
converting woody debris on the forest floor into smaller, more easily decomposed materials.
The Frostfire prescribed burn is not anticipated to result in a severe fire which would negatively
impact the physical and chemical properties of the soils of the C-4 watershed. A patchy mosaic
should result with the forest floor moderately burned over most of the area on the north aspect
and through the saddle on the west side. The resulting moderately burned organics with partially
consumed, shallow, ash layers, should mediate vigorous regrowth of vegetation during succeeding
summers.
12
Alternative 2-No Action
In the short term, given that no fire would occur, there would be minimal environmental
consequences of not allowing the prescribed burn. However, in the absence of fire, forest floor
organic matter would continue to increase in the long term. This could set the stage for future
wildfires which could potentially burn more severely over larger areas of the watershed. This
could lead to creation of hydrophobic soil conditions and decreased soil infiltration rates which
would limit the water holding capacity of the soils. This could result in increased erosion and
sedimentation of streams in the watershed.
3. Floodplains and Water Quality
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
Potential burning of riparian trees, shrubs, and understory could result in increased total annual
runoff in Little Poker Creek during subsequent summer storms and during spring breakups.
Temporary rates of increased sedimentation could also occur, thus potentially impacting water
chemistry through increased turbidity, and nutrient and other trace element inputs. However, the
anticipated accelerated regrowth of burned areas during the next summer seasons should reduce
these future potential increased flow and sedimentation impacts.
Since fire is a natural occurrence in these floodplain habitats, these impacts do not necessarily
need to be construed as negative, since they could also occur after a naturally-caused wildfire.
Both the riparian and aquatic habitats are thus ecologically adapted to fire, and to resulting fire
impacts.
Water withdrawals from Little Poker and Poker Creeks would be used to fill 5 foldatanks to
supply water to wet the burn perimeter. Wetting of the perimeter would minimize fire escape
potential. The limited water withdrawals are not anticipated to cause negative impacts to the
aquatic environment of Little Poker Creek. Water will be drafted from the top of the creek and
withdrawals would not last long enough to decrease baseline flows or impact water quality.
In the event that the Frostfire burn escapes, adjacent watersheds to the C-4 watershed could also
burn. If significant areas of the stream drainages in these adjacent watersheds burn, the resulting
potential streamflow and sediment impacts on Caribou Creek and the Chatanika River could be
greater than if only the C-4 watershed burns. These escaped fire impacts should be short-term, as
revegetation occurs during subsequent summer seasons.
Alternative 2- No Action
The C-4 watershed should function naturally in the absence of the prescribed burn, at least in the
short run. A future wildfire could potentially burn more severely than the prescribed burn,
particularly if forest floor organic matter builds up during future years. A more severe burn could
increase stream flow and sedimentation, and potentially cause negative floodplain impacts, at least
in the short term.
13
4. Vegetation
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
The prescribed fire in birch and aspen stands on south aspects should remain a surface fire of low
intensity. Moderate intensity burning in these hardwood stands should occur on some south
aspects where the objective of the prescribed burn will be to have running head fires burning into
these stands. Fires in north aspect black spruce stands should cause most trees and plants to be
burned in varying degrees.
Burning of deciduous forest stands will prevent near-term replacement by spruce and restart
succession through moss-herb, tall shrub sapling, and dense tree stages. Burning of black spruce
stands will result in an increase in the depth of the active layer. Herbs and willow and other tall
shrubs will increase in the 5-30 year period following fire (Foote, 1983). The severity of the burn
will vary and some small areas may remain unburnt, creating a diversity of postfire recovery
sequences. Riparian areas are the most likely to remain unburned.
Alternative 2- No Action
In the absence of fire, spruce would increase in cover within deciduous forests stands, eventually
replacing them. Within spruce stands, moss and lichen cover may increase, resulting in greater
insulation of soil and decrease in depth of the active layer. However, the drainage will burn
eventually from lightning or human-caused fire.
5. Fisheries
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
Severe fires that burn much or most of the organic layer down to mineral soil or permafrost could
result in increased siltation and run-off into streams. Negative impacts to fisheries could occur
from these increases in flow, sediment, and debris. Additionally, water temperatures could rise as
a result of increased exposure of the stream surface to direct sunlight after riparian vegetation is
removed during a fire. Fire can also increase landslide potential up to 5 years after the event due
to the decay of anchoring root systems (Meehan, 1991). As a result, fish species that utilize Little
Poker Creek and Caribou Creek as summer feeding grounds could be temporarily displaced in the
case of a severe fire in the C-4 drainage.
However, the burn prescription for the Frostfire Project is not anticipated to result in severe fire
effects over the majority of the C-4 watershed. Severe fire is also not anticipated to occur in the
immediate vicinity of the riparian zone because lush vegetation and riparian micro-climate effects
would likely not support a severe fire. Therefore, negative impacts to fisheries from a severe fire
are not likely to result from the proposed action. Potential negative impacts from a more moderate
prescribed burn, such as temporary increases in stream temperature or turbidity, or increased
streamflow during subsequent storms are not likely to negatively impact fish populations in Little
Poker Creek or in Caribou Creek.
14
Water withdrawals from Little Poker or Poker Creeks could be used to wet the burn perimeter to
minimize fire escape potential and are not anticipated to cause negative impacts to fisheries
resources of these creeks. Water would be drafted from the top of the creek and withdrawals
would not last long enough to decrease baseline flows or impact water quality which could affect
fish. ADF&G has determined that a water removal permit is not necessary for the proposed water
withdrawals (see Attachment C).
If an escaped fire threatens homes or other features requiring protection outside of the C-4
watershed, there is a potential that retardant may be used for fire suppression. Although retardants
are generally composed of concentrated mixtures of soap and fertilizer, they have been shown to
cause toxic effects on aquatic organisms (Finger, 1995). Retardant drops that land in or close to
streams could thus have negative impacts on fish. However, the potential for such a fire situation
is considered to be low according to the Burn Plan.
Alternative 2- No Action
This action should not directly impact fisheries. However, if severe wildfires occur in the absence
of the prescribed burn, potentially increased erosion, streamflow, and water quality impacts could
negatively impact fish in Little Poker Creek and in downstream receiving waters.
6. Wetlands/Riparian Zones
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
One of the objectives of the prescribed burn, according to the Burn Plan, is to reduce forest floor
biomass by 15 to 30% of the total, averaging 23% reduction of forest floor in the black spruce
cover type. In addition, another objective is to achieve a mortality of 80 to 90% in all black spruce
stands within the drainage. If the prescribed burn is successful in achieving these objectives, the
fire would impact wetlands, particularly black spruce wetlands within the C-4 drainage. Whether
these impacts are considered to be negative depends on the timeframe considered. Immediately
after the fire, many wetland plants, including some black spruce, would be dead or dying which
could be construed as a negative impact. In addition, some of the wetland organic mat could burn,
which could impact wetland soils and surface and subsurface hydrology as well. However, since
fire is a natural part of these wetland environments, and since they are ecologically adapted to fire,
recovery of wetlands would be expected to occur. Whether these wetlands will eventually be
reestablished with the same form and function observed presently is not known. Since research
objectives of the prescribed burn include monitoring of the effects of the fire on these wetlands
(and therefore on the riparian zones as well), a predictive understanding of the effects of fire on
these habitats is likely to be gained by the prescribed burn. In the long run, the overall benefits to
human understanding of the effects of fires on these habitats could outweigh any temporary
negative acute impacts on wetland vegetation and soils immediately after the fire.
Alternative 2- No Action
15
No changes in wetlands or the riparian zone are anticipated to occur under the No Action
alternative, at least over the short term. Long-term buildup of organic material on the forest floor
could precipitate a more severe burn than the prescribed burn during a future wildfire.
7. Recreation
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
Within the project area, potential negative impacts include the creation of new trails with
firefighting equipment and the accumulation of downfall across existing trails from burned trees.
Some short-term negative impacts from smoke are anticipated to occur outside the project area
along the lower valley bottoms of the Chatanika Valley and the Nome Creek Valley in the White
Mountains NRA. Smokey conditions could occur in the evenings and mornings, clearing out
towards mid-day. In the White Mountains NRA, potential negative impacts could include clearing
trails of downfall and replacing cabins if the prescribed burn were to escape and burn north over
the ridge.
Alternative 2- No Action
Potential impacts to recreation from a wildfire in the area could be similar to those discussed for
the prescribed burn.
8. Socio-Economical Conditions
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
Because maximum smoldering is a research objective, residual smoke carried by downslope winds
could be present at night along the Steese Highway south of the burn. Chatanika and Chatanika
Lodge, as well as other business and recreation establishments in the area, could experience
residual smoke. It is not anticipated that the smoke impacts of the prescribed burn would be severe
or long lasting enough to negatively impact the economy of the area.
An escaped fire could endanger homes in the Haystack Subdivision, and potentially threaten those
even farther away. Loss of these homes could be economically catastrophic for the homeowners,
and was a major concern voiced during public meetings. However, the weather and fuel conditions
most likely to lead to an escaped fire would preclude the prescribed burn from taking place.
Residents of Haystack Subdivision have benefitted from fuel break treatments completed in 1997.
These breaks will decrease the likelihood of a future wildfire potentially damaging homes in the
subdivision, as well as providing protection during the prescribed burn.
Alternative 2- No Action
Socio-economic conditions would remain unchanged in the near term. Potentially more severely
burning wildfires could produce greater smoke impacts in the long term. Wildfires could also
16
threaten homes and businesses in the area.
9. Subsistence Resources
No impact to subsistence harvesting of terrestrial wildlife or vegetative resources is expected.
Impacts to subsistence fisheries resources are limited to potential impacts to downstream fisheries
resources, as noted in the fisheries section.
10. Wildlife Resources
Alternative 1- Proposed Action
In general, interior Alaska wildlife species and their habitats are adapted to periodic fires. Some
direct mortality of small birds and mammals (young of the year) may occur, but most wildlife
species would move away from the fire. Habitat would be converted to new types. This may be
beneficial for species dependent on younger seral stages, but not for others. Increases in willow
and hardwood saplings could benefit moose. Burning of this small drainage would increase the
diversity of plant community ages in the area.
Impacts of an escaped fire could conceivably affect a larger habitat area and potentially have a
greater impact on local wildlife populations. Since naturally ignited Alaska wildfires often burn
orders of magnitude larger acreage than the proposed prescribed burn, it is not known if the
impacts from an escaped fire on local wildlife would have any long term negative effects.
Alternative 2- No Action
Wildlife habitats will continue to change slowly as they age until the area eventually burns by
lighting or human-caused wildfire.
11. Cultural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources
Alternative 1-Proposed Action
Impacts can be anticipated from two sources: the fire itself, and from suppression activities that
may result in surface disturbance. Fire is most likely to impact historic sites, which may have
above-ground features that are susceptible to burning, and are likely to contain organic materials,
which might burn even if buried. Prehistoric sites, which are less likely to contain organic
materials, are much less likely to be affected by fire. Suppression activities that result in surface
disturbance, such as clearing of fire lines to mineral subsoil or grubbing to extinguish small fires
have a clear potential to disturb prehistoric sites located on the surface or below the surface.
After examining photographs of the historic site on Little Poker Creek, it is the opinion of BLM
fire management personnel that there is a good possibility that the site area may not burn at all.
Descriptions of the fire lines that have already been cut indicate that little or no surface disturbance
has occurred. Rather, lines have been established by cutting trees and burning the accumulated
17
wood.
Alternative 2- No Action
There would be no impacts to cultural resources located within the prescribed burn area.
12. Visual Resource Management
Alternative 1-Proposed Action
Ideally, the prescribed burn would create a mosaic effect with burned and unburned patches, with
vegetation regrowth occurring in the burned patches within a few years. The prescribed burn
would be visible from the Steese Highway and surrounding areas, but it should be a short-term
negative impact to visual resources. Impacts on this area should remain within the visual quality
objectives for the applicable VRM class and could improve visual diversity as a result of the
proposed action. The overall effect on visual resources is considered to be a minor negative
impact.
Alternative 2- No Action
A natural or human caused fire could have a higher visual impact over a larger burn area
depending on fire intensity and temperature. Scars from firefighting and earthmoving equipment
could be visible from wildfire firefighting. While the burn would be visible from the Steese
Highway and surrounding area, it would have a relatively short-term negative impact to visual
resources as vegetation regrowth occurred. Impacts on this area could alter the visual quality for
this VRM class and reassessment of the visual quality objectives would be needed.
13. Threatened and Endangered Species
Due to the apparent absence of endangered species, no impacts are anticipated from either the
proposed action or the no action alternative.
14. Wastes, Solid/Hazardous
Alternative 1-Proposed Action
Short-term negative impacts to the environment could result from spills or unplanned releases into
the environment of fuels and other chemicals used in igniting and suppressing the prescribed fire.
However, use of standard operating procedures to include insuring ready availability of spill
response equipment, should minimize the potential of, and quantity and duration of, any spill
impacts.
Alternative 2- No Action
18
Under this option, chemicals associated with ignition, holding, and suppression of the prescribed
burn would not be used. However, some of these compounds could be used to fight future
wildfires naturally occurring in the area which could result in negative impacts from potential
spills.
B. Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures that will be implemented to minimize potentially adverse impacts for the
Frostfire Project include:
Winds and other environmental factors will be closely monitored before the burn and burning will
only be conducted under the specific prescription requirements identified in the Burn Plan.
Following the Burn Plan prescription will insure that smoke impacts on populated areas will be
minimized to the greatest extent possible and will also serve to minimize the potential for escaped
fire.
Smoke impacts to the Steese Highway will be monitored, especially during evening hours. If
smoke concentrations are expected to impact visibility of vehicular traffic, signs, flag persons, and
pilot cars will be provided. Concurrence from Alaska State Troopers will be obtained.
Burn patterns would be designed to provide the maximum benefit to meet the scientific
objectives identified in the Frostfire Project. However, these burn patterns are planned
will be conducted without compromising the safety of the fire crews implementing
burn, nor compromising the surrounding containment fuel break.
Existing roads or constructed fuel breaks will be used whenever possible and at all times
the implementation of the Frostfire Project.
and
the
during
Trails will be cleared of downfall as soon as possible to minimize negative impacts on recreation
activities.
Negative impacts to visual resources will be reduced by minimizing use of earthmoving equipment
to emergency situations only and by not cutting firelines on continuous straight lines.
All prescribed burn activities would conform to “light-hand-on-the-land” techniques
whenever possible, and at all times in the Frostfire Project area.
Spill response equipment will be present onsite at fuel storage areas to minimize the potential from
accidental releases of fuels and other petroleum products. Adherence to standard operating
procedures will also minimize the potential for spills.
C. Residual Impacts
Impacts which will occur as a result of the proposed action after all mitigating measures have been
implemented are likely to include the following:
19
Burn scars on the landscape will be visible until revegetation occurs. The burned areas will visibly
contrast with the surrounding area for several years after revegetation occurs.
Smoke impacts should be short-term in nature, and should not exceed allowable levels.
The prescribed burn should increase herbaceous production and provide for a more diversified
habitat and edge effect. This positive residual impact should increase habitat diversity.
D. Cumulative Impacts
Since wildfire plays a natural role in the boreal forest ecosystem, the prescribed burn in and of
itself would not be anticipated to cause negative cumulative impacts on the resources analyzed in
this environmental assessment. However, there is a slight potential for one or more other
prescribed burns in the region to be ignited at approximately the same time as the proposed
Frostfire Prescribed Burn. In addition, there is also the potential for wildfires to burn in the region
at the same time as well. Any combination of these burns, natural or prescribed, could
cumulatively negatively impact air quality in the region, beyond what the Frostfire Burn is
predicted to impact on its own. However, the potential for multiple fires burning at the exact same
time is considered to be low. If wildfires are burning, the BLM-AFS firefighting resources would
be directed to monitor or suppress wildfires, in precedence over supplying firefighters to conduct
prescribed burns. Under emergency firefighting conditions, the prescribed burns would not likely
be ignited until the wildfire conditions were alleviated. So combined smoke impacts from several
fires within the region are not anticipated to be a likely potential negative cumulative impact.
Potential cumulative impacts could also result if the proposed Frostfire Burn escapes outside of the
C-4 drainage and burns adjacent subwatersheds within the CPCRW, or moves outside of CPCRW.
In this case, riparian forests could burn along Poker or Caribou Creeks, in addition to anticipated
riparian impacts on Little Poker Creek. Since all of these creeks ultimately drain into the Chatanika
River, water quality and fisheries impacts, arising from increased flows and sediment input during
subsequent summer storms, could have a larger cumulative impact on this river system. However,
since the Frostfire burn prescription requires adherence to favorable weather and site conditions to
achieve a controlled burn, the likelihood of an escaped fire should be minimized. In addition, some
of the riparian forests in adjacent watersheds are located in wet, boggy areas which may be
resistant to burning in the case of an escaped fire. It would therefore be unlikely that all riparian
areas in adjacent drainages would be impacted by an escaped fire. For those that were, riparian
regrowth is anticipated to be rapid during subsequent years which would minimize any long-term
impacts to water quality and fisheries.
Potential negative cumulative impacts on recreation opportunities and the visual setting of the area
could also result if the Frostfire Prescribed Burn escapes and burns a larger area as described
above. However, these impacts are considered to be short-term as vegetative regrowth occurs.
V. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
A. List of Preparers
20
Betsy Bonnell Realty Specialist, BLM
Marlene Braun
Hydrologist, BLM
Randy Goodwin
Outdoor Recreation Planner, BLM
Jim Herriges
Wildlife Biologist, BLM
Ingrid Kacher Fisheries Biologist, BLM
Jim Roessler
Fire Management Specialist, BLM
Howard Smith
Natural Resource Specialist, BLM
Ross Wilmore Fire Suppression Specialist, BLM-AFS
B. Persons Consulted
Doug Fleming Fisheries Biologist, AK Department of Fish and Game
Dale Haggstrom
Wildlife Biologist, AK Department of Fish and Game
Larry Hinzman
Research Assoc. Professor, Water and Environ. Research Center, UAF
Anne Lawton
Environmental Specialist, AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Fran Mann
Field Office Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Sue Mitchell
Public Information Officer, Water and Environ. Research Center, UAF
Al Ott
Regional Supervisor, AK Department of Fish and Game
Roger Petkoff Field Office Manager, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Gus Van Vliet Environmental Specialist, AK Dept. of Environmental Conservation
C. Public Notice and Availability
Public scoping meetings were held on March 7 and March 10, 1998 at the Fox Roadhouse and the
Chatanika Lodge, and on June 2 and June 15, 1998 at the UAF Wood Center Conference Room.
Concerns were expressed at these meetings over the potential for smoke impacts on children in the
Haystack Subdivision, tourism impacts in the Chatanika area, the cost of the prescribed burn,
consequences to residents if the fire escapes, noise impacts from frequent helicopter use, whether
all environmental permits were being applied for, what benefits would result for residents after the
burn, smoke impacts on solar collectors, and fisheries impacts on the Chatanika River. As a result
of these meetings, UAF has sent out a letter to all public meeting participants with a Statement of
Responsibility (Attachment E) explaining where to file a claim in the unlikely event of damage due
to escaped fire during the Frostfire Prescribed Burn. Copies of questions from the public meetings
and responses can be found in Attachment F.
A notice of availability of this EA will be published on the BLM-Alaska web page at:
http://aurora.ak.blm.gov/. The public comment period will run from April 5 to April 19, 1999.
D. References, Maps, and Attachments
References:
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
1996. An Atlas to the Catalog of Waters Important for Spawning, Rearing, or Migration of
Anadramous Fish. Interior Region Resource Management, Region VI. Fairbanks, AK,
21
Habitat Division.
Finger, S.E.
1995. Environmental Implications of Firefighting Chemicals. National Wildfire
Coordinating Group Publication, Vol. 7, No. 1.
Flemming, Doug
1999. Personal Communication. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Fairbanks, AK.
Foote, M. J.
1983. Classification, description, and dynamics of plant communities after fire in the taiga
of interior Alaska. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station. Research Paper PNW-307. 108 pp.
Lotspeich, F.B., and C. W. Slaughter
1981. Preliminary results of a study on the structure and functioning of a taiga research
watershed. University of Alaska, Institute of Water Resources.
Meehan, William R.
1991. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid fishes and their habitats.
USDA Forest Service. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD.
Prindle, L. M. and F. J. Katz
1909. The Fairbanks Gold Placer Region. In Mineral Resources of Alaska: Report on
Progress of Investigations in 1908, by A. H. Brooks et al., pp. 181-200. Unites Stated
Geological Survey Bulletin 379. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington.
Rieger, S., Furbush, C.E., Schoephorster, D.B., Summerfield, H.J., and Geiger, L.G.
1972. Soils of the Caribou-Poker Creeks Watershed, Technical Report 236. U.S. Army
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Wilmore, R., K. Slaughter and M.K. Thiesen
1998. Frostfire Prescribed Research Burn Plan. BLM-Alaska Fire Service.
Maps:
Map A: Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed. Base: USGS Livengood A-1 and A-2, 1975.
Map B: Alaska LTER regional map.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Frostfire Prescribed Research Burn Plan, BLM-AFS, June 22, 1998.
Attachment B: Wetlands Permitting Considerations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Letter dated
22
March 31, 1999.
Attachment C: Water Removal Permit Determination, Alaska Department of Fish and Game,
Letter dated March 8, 1999.
Attachment D: Renewal For Approval For Open Burning, Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, pending.
Attachment E: Statement of Responsibility, Water Research Center, UAF. Letter dated June 17,
1998.
Attachment F: Frostfire Questions and Comments from Public Meetings and Responses, Water
Research Center, UAF, Second Draft dated June 22, 1998.
Attachment G: Assessment of Archaeological and Historic Resources, BLM-Northern Field
Office, April 1, 1999.
Finding of No Significant Impact
And
Decision Record
Frostfire Prescribed Burn
AK-AFS-EA-99-AA03
Finding of No Significant Impact
I have reviewed this Environmental Assessment and have determined that the proposed action will
not have significant impacts on the human environment and that the preparation of an
23
Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The lands involved are not BLM- managed lands
and are owned by the State of Alaska and the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The BLM-Alaska
Fire Service decision is to assist in implementing the Frostfire Project prescribed burn.
Decision
It is my decision to authorize the BLM-AFS to implement the Frostfire Prescribed Burn as
described in the proposed action in AK-AFS-EA-99-AA03.
Rationale
The Frostfire Prescribed Burn would increase our knowledge of the effects of fire on the boreal
forest ecosystem. It should improve the ability of land managers to respond to wildfires and
improve predictions on how wildfire will effect wildlife habitat. The Frostfire Project should also
increase our understanding of how to minimize potentially negative fire effects such as erosion and
smoke impacts, and how prescribed fire can be used to effectively manage the landscape.
_____________________________
Manager
BLM-Alaska Fire Service
__________________
Date
24