Lonesome Wood Lonesome Wood Vegetation Vegetation

Management Management Proposal OverviewProposal Overview

Gallatin National ForestGallatin National ForestHebgen Lake Ranger DistrictHebgen Lake Ranger District

To avoid these situations avoid these situations..

PRIMARY FOCUS--To improve firefighter and public safety by reducing fuels on public lands around the wildland urban interface (WUI), evacuation routes, and in strategic fuel breaks.

To enhance aspen habitat

To reduce insect and disease susceptibility in treated areas.

Why is the project proposed?

OTHER OBJECTIVES

Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management proposal is an outcome of the Hebgen Watershed Risk Assessment, completed in November 2005. The Risk

Assessment was a landscape level coarse assessment of the danger of wildfire to a variety of resources in this area, if no management actions are taken.

The watershed assessment evaluated approximately 68,000

acres north, west and southwest of Hebgen Lake. The interdisciplinary team that conducted the analysis considered existing, historical, and projected

future landscape conditions, and weighed these considerations with current Forest Plan management direction and the current and projected social setting.

Within the project area there are private residences with business operations. The project area also includes 34 recreation residences in four summer

home groups including Lonesomehurst, Romset, Rumbaugh, and Clark Springs. There are more than a dozen dispersed recreation areas, four developed

recreation sites, access for 8 trail systems and 15 forest road systems. Several hundred people may be recreating or conducting business in the vicinity on

a typical summer day.

Direction in the GNF Forest Plan (1987) as amended, and the National Fire Plan (2000) was incorporated in the design of this proposal. The proposal

meets the intent of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act.

Gallatin County has a draft Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), which is scheduled to be published in Spring 2007. The entire Lonesome Wood

Vegetation Management project area is identified in the draft CWPP as a WUI area at risk from wildfires. A CWPP identifies areas for hazardous fuel

reduction treatments, sets priorities for treating them, and recommends the types and methods of treatment on Federal and non-Federal land that will help

protect one or more at risk communities and their essential infrastructure. (HFRA Website)

BackgroundBackground

Where is the proposal ?Where is the proposal ?

The project area is located on National Forest System

(NFS) lands on the west side of Hebgen Lake near the

community of West Yellowstone, MT.

The Lonesome Wood Vegetation Management project area extends from Highway 20 on the south, Hebgen Lake on the east

and north.

What is proposed?What is proposed?

< Vegetation treatments that reduce wildland fuels are the primary focus of the project around the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and evacuation routes. In addition, treatments on areas in and adjacent to WUI are designed to meet fuel and other resource objectives.

< Thinning and/or prescribed burning is proposed on about 3,200 acres within the 24,000 acre project area. The primary treatment activity is described and is identified in the table and on the Proposed Action maps in this program. Treatments within the individual units vary, and as a result, inclusions of multiple treatments are often incorporated.

Activities and Desired Outcome

Reduce Stand Density by Thinning.

< Units identified for commercial thin may have any size class

of tree removed. A ground based logging system would be the

primary method of tree removal. Trees over six inches in diameter

would most likely be skidded to landings and hauled offsite for use

as a commercial product. Trees less than 6 inches in diameter

may also need to be removed in conjunction with commercial

logging, as described in the next paragraph.

< Units identified for small tree removal either have trees with

mixed ages or are primarily small trees. Treatment would be

limited to trees smaller than 6 inches in diameter. The

treatment may be implemented by hand or with tracked equipment

that would facilitate removal of the biomass from the landscape.

Skid or access trails may be needed in these units to facilitate

removal of biomass. On slopes greater than 35%, the thinning and

associated treatments would be implemented by hand.

Desired Outcome

< The desired tree spacing along the road and in the WUI is 20-

30 feet between trees. Beyond the 400’ in the evacuation

routes in fuel breaks, trees would be denser at about 15-20’

between trees. An estimated 40-50% of the total trees in a

stand would be removed. In units with bark beetle concerns

spacing would be about 30-40 feet between trees.

< The desired tree spacing for this treatment is the same as

described above. In addition, in some units the current stand

condition is not suitable for thinning. In these units the overall

stand density would be reduced by about 40% by creating

small openings between 1/3 to 5 acres. This prescription

would be implemented primarily in units where trees less than

6 inches in diameter are the target for removal.

Activities and Desired Outcome

< Prescribed burning –Remove conifers within and about 1 ½ tree

lengths out from the clone. Monitor aspen sprouting response, and

implement a broadcast burn to further stimulate sprouting if

needed. In some other areas with relatively few trees, broadcast

burn to maintain open areas.

< Activities may include but are not limited to thinning through

logging, yarding unmerchantable material, piling, hauling of

commercial material, slashing small trees, firewood removal,

biomass reduction such as chipping, pile burning, broadcast

burning, erosion control, rehabilitation of skid trails, landings and

temporary roads.

< Biomass less than 6” in diameter may be removed mechanically for

commercial purposes.

< An estimated 3.5-4.5 miles of temporary road would be needed to

facilitate log removal in commercial thin units. Temporary roads

would be used for implementation of the project, then closed.

Rehabilitation includes erosion control, scarification and seeding. If

needed, closure devices would be installed to eliminate future use

< Help reduce competition for sunlight and water and stimulate sprouting in aspen

forest.

< Where the existing condition is open and has a low risk of severe fire,

maintain as open areas.

< In all units, natural and activity related fuels, including boles, branches and tops

would be reduced to 10-15 tons of woody material. Some large woody material

would be left to meet the Forest Plan requirements for snags and downed woody

material. (GNF Plan, 1987, Amendment 15).

< Biomass material is a by product of fuels reduction treatments. At this time there

is not a market to facilitate biomass removal around West Yellowstone. The sale

of biomass would utilize fuels and lessen the amount of pile burning required to

achieve desired fuel conditions.

< The temporary roads would maintain skid distances of ¼ mile or less.

< Erosion control and revegetation protects site productivity and minimizes the

introduction and spread of undesirable species.

Aspen Management & Maintenance Aspen Management & Maintenance of Low Fire Risk Areasof Low Fire Risk Areas Desired OutcomesDesired Outcomes

Associated Implementation ActivitiesAssociated Implementation Activities

Temporary Road NeedsTemporary Road Needs

Unit PurposeAcres of

Commercial

Thin

Estimated Temporary Roads Needed to

Maintain Skid Distances to ¼ Mile or

Less

Acres of Small Tree Thinning

Acres of Under burn as a Primary

Treatment

1

2

3

4

5

6

Clark Springs

WUI &

Evacuation Route

30 acres

25 acres

35 acres

220 acres

20* acres

120* acres

7

11

12

Evacuation Route &

Fuel Break

45 acres

60 acres

65 acres ¼ mile

8

9

Evacuation Route

15 acres

5 acres

10

13

16

Evacuation Route

Cozy Corner and other

private WUI

15 acres ¼ mile

25* acres

45 acres

14

15

WUI , Aspen &

Evacuation Route

210 acres ¼ mile

75 acres

17 Evacuation Route &

Part WUI

Fuel Break

195 acres 1 mile

Unit PurposeAcres of

Commercial

Thinning

Estimated Temporary Road Needed to

Maintain Skid Distances to ¼ Mile or Less

Acres of Small Tree Thinning

Acres of Prescribed Burn as a Primary

Treatment

18 Aspen 25 acres

19

20Evacuation Route

30 acres

35* acres

21 Evacuation Route

Rumbaugh WUI

& Fuel Break

65 acres ¼ mile

22

23

24

25

Rumbaugh WUI

Evacuation Route, & Aspen

30 acres ¼ mile

45* acres

15 acres

80 acres

26 Evacuation Route

Part Lonesomehurst/

Romset WUI

Part is Fuelbreak

425 acres ¾ mile

27 Evacuation Route 45* acres

29 WUI, Aspen &

Evacuation Route

105 acres 25* acres

30

31

32

WUI

Aspen

Forest Health

140 acres

190 acres3/10 mile

¼ mile

370 acres

Totals 1735 acres 4.0 miles 855 acres 450 acres

Project Implementation

< Proposed activities could be accomplished with Forest Service crews, service

contracts, timber sale contracts and/or stewardship contracting.

< Through stewardship contracting the value from the wood products removed and

sold could be re-invested into the project area.

< The District will continue communication with private land owners and recreation

residence owners of the importance of Firewise principles. Application of Firewise

principles will help owners maintain defensible space around their property and

reduce structure ignitability.

Full implementation of the project could take 5-10 years.

Wildland Urban Interface

The risk of sustained crown fire is high in and adjacent to much of the WUI in the project areas. Surface and ladder fuels are conducive to intense fire with torching that pushes a fire from the ground to the tree crowns. Crown canopy fuels are continuous and lend themselves to fire spread from crown to crown for long distances and are likely to produce lofting firebrands.

Treatment units proposed within the WUI extend approximately ½ mile from the

structures. The distance is based on fire behavior modeling. The model estimated that firebrands from expected crown fire

may be lofted and carried up to ½ mile away given the existing fuel conditions.

Private homes adjacent to NFS

land along Denny Creek Road

Lonesome Hurst Summer Homes

Continuity of surface, ladder and crown fuels would be reduced, resulting in elevated canopy base height and

reduced fuel continuity in all fuel strata or layers (surface, ladder and crown). The changed condition would lower

the fire intensities and result in a change to predicated fire type from crown fire to surface fire.

The Denny Creek Road provides the only

road access to the west shore of the lake

and is the primary evacuation route. The

route is narrow, with heavy forest fuel

accumulations immediately adjacent to

the road. Expected flame length and fire

intensity is high along the route. Additionally, intense crown fires

can generate very high winds, which may preclude evacuations by

water.

Access road near Clark

Springs Summer Homes

Denny Creek Road

Access road for Romset Summer Homes

Treatment units addressing evacuation routes are limited to

approximately 400 feet either side of the roadway. Fire intensity

and flame length would be reduced immediately adjacent to the

roadway to allow safe ingress or egress. The Incident Response

Pocket Guide and computer fire prediction models were used for

guidance to derive the proposed distance.

Evacuation Routes

Fuel Breaks

The thinning would improve the effectiveness of the hand treatments, while

providing some revenue to offset the cost of hand treatments. In these areas,

continuity of surface, ladder and crown fuels would be reduced, resulting in

elevated canopy base height and reduced fuel continuity in all fuel strata or

layers (surface, ladder and crown). The changed condition would lower fire

intensities and reduce the chance of crown fire.

Propose unit 7 just above Denny Creek Road

Similar stand conditions to fuel break area in proposed unit 26 above

the Denny Creek Rd.

Proposed fuel break area above in unit 17 upslope of 16.

To improve the effectiveness of fuel treatment in

the WUI and evacuation routes, strategic fuel

breaks would be created.

Within the project area, there are extensive areas of

difficult terrain with dense forest. These are important to treat,

however the treatments, consisting of hand-sawing and piling,

would be expensive. To offset the cost of this work, some adjacent

areas on gentler ground, that have larger trees (over 6 inches in

diameter), would be thinned.

Aspen Management & Maintenance Aspen Management & Maintenance of Low Fire Risk Areasof Low Fire Risk Areas

Aspen stands are being encroached by conifers

of various age classes leading to a decline in aspen

populations across the west. Aspen is also a valued

wildlife habitat component, and a fire-resistant forest

type.

Conifer encroachment in proposed unit 31.

Aspen regeneration surrounded by conifers in

proposed unit 29

Maintain a low risk fire area and stimulate aspen in

proposed unit 18.

Conifer removal and/or prescribed burning is Conifer removal and/or prescribed burning is

intended to reinvigorate aspen clones in the intended to reinvigorate aspen clones in the

project area. project area.

Forest Health

Douglas Fir beetle mortality just north of proposed units 31 and 32.

When treating this stand for ladder fuels we propose to also remove the severely dwarf

mistletoe infected trees to improve the forest health of regeneration.

When thinning this fuel break we propose to also reduce the

susceptibility of this stand to mountain pine beetle. The white

spots on the tree trunk show active beetle hits.

In areas where there are compelling reasons to manage fuels or

aspen, prescriptions would be designed to help prevent mortality

from insects or disease, while meeting fuels and aspen objectives.

In recent years Douglas fir bark beetle have killed a large percentage of the mature

Douglas fir trees in many of the drainages along the shores of Hebgen Lake.

Opening the forest canopy through thinning has been shown to reduce susceptibility of Douglas Fir trees to bark beetle mortality. A similar strategy is proposed in lodge pole pine forest areas with recent mountain pine beetle attacks. In stands with dwarf mistletoe infection, removal of severely infected trees would improve the health of the small trees and future regeneration.

Desired Outcomes

This Douglas Fir forest was thinned to a similar spacing as proposed in this project.

Prescribed burning in aspen clones can be used to promote this type of aspen re-growth.

These fuel treatments in lodgepole pine are similar to what we are proposing in this project.

Camp 32 Fire – Kootenai National Forest

This area was thinned to

reduce fuels – low and mixed

severity SURFACE FIRE burned through

the area.

No fuel treatment was implemented here.

CROWN FIRE burned severely and replaced

the stand. Desired Outcome

Existing Condition in Existing Condition in Proposed Units 1 - Proposed Units 1 -

1212

Heavy Fuels Along Evacuation Route

Steep ground with dense fuels in WUI near Clark

Springs.

The evacuation route near Clark Springs.

Heavy fuels along the Denny Creek Road evacuation route in units 6 -12

Heavy fuel loading next to evacuation route and proposed fuel break near units 7-12.

Forest area shows the very north and west end of unit 17 from

private land.

Existing Condition in Proposed Units 17-23

Unit 17 in proposed Fuel Break

Unit 17 in proposed Evacuation Route area

Unit 21 looking into proposed Evacuation Route

treatment area

Unit 21 looking into proposed Evacuation Route treatment area

Unit 23 WUI area adjacent to Rumbaugh Homes

Existing Condition in Proposed Units 26-32

Ladder Fuels and Suppressed Aspen Adjacent to

Lonesomehurst Homes in Unit 29.

Looking Out From Romset Homes to Proposed Unit 26. Denny Creek Rd. Crosses Through the Area Just Above

the Lower Trees.

Unit 31 – Conifer Encroachment in

Aspen and Douglas-fir Forest that is Susceptible to

Douglas Fir Bark Beetle Mortality due to Adjacent Infestation.

Along the Evacuation Route in Proposed Unit 26.

Dense Vegetation Along the Proposed Evacuation Route Area in Proposed Unit 26.

Include but are not limited to:

Moose Winter Range – the lakeshore provides key habitat.

Portions of units 1, 2, 13, 14 and 15 are within the Inventoried Roadless boundary. However, the area in and around units 13, 14, and 15 is heavily impacted from roads and past management.

Scenery

Bill Queen, District Ranger

(406)-823-6961 or

Teri Seth, NEPA Team Leader (406)-522-2520.

Gallatin Forest Webpage http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/?page=projects

Check the website for more details on the scoping process

and for additional maps.

Thank you for taking an interest in your national forest.

Preliminary Preliminary Issues/ConcernsIssues/Concerns For more informationFor more information