SECTIONS
Alternatives Considered
Preferred AlternativeAlternative I - No-Action (Aggressive fire suppression only)
The park currently has no fire management plan (FMP). Since the park is mandated by DO-18 to prepare an FMP by December 2004, the fire management plan would be prepared so that it incorporates preparedness actions, program requirements, and formats as outlined in DO-18. The sole fire management strategy under this alternative would be to continue to suppress all wildland fire ignitions using the most expeditious means necessary (aggressive fire suppression). Under the no action alternative, the fire management plan would not address any actions for the reduction of the accumulation of hazardous fuels, nor would it permit prescribed fire for resource management purposes. Under the guidance of an already approved plan for management of invasive vegetation, chemical treatments may be used to meet management objectives.
Alternative II - Appropriate Management Response and Integrated Fuels Management (Preferred Alternative)
This alternative would allow for the preparation of a fire management plan that includes wildland fire management preparedness actions as well as detailed procedural actions during wildland fire events. In this alternative, the suppression of all wildland fire ignitions would utilize an appropriate management response. It would also provide a detailed action plan for preparedness and suppression of wildland fires including the mitigation of impacts, safety, and resource protection. The use of prescribed fire, either individually or as a part of an integrated management approach, would be utilized to accomplish the full range of natural and cultural resource management and hazardous fuel reduction goals. All prescribed fires would be planned and approved consistent with the method and format required by RM-18. Wildland fire use would not be permitted.
This alternative would include the use of prescribed fire for the purpose of hazardous fuel reduction. The use of prescribed fire would reduce hazardous fuel loads that have accumulated in the absence of naturally occurring fires and decrease the likelihood of a catastrophic wildland fire that presents a potential danger to human life as well as park/private resources. In those years when drought is present, the likelihood of a human - caused wildland fire is increased significantly. In those areas where fuel loads are outside the normal range of conditions (14 - 25 tons/acre for deciduous and mixed deciduous forest fuels), but manageable through the use of prescribed fire, a return interval of 5 -10 years is recommended for the treatment interval. Prescribed fire will be implemented in such a manner that only ground fuels will be consumed, with little or no ignition occurring in the crown structure of the forest.
In those areas where fuel loading is heavier (26+ tons/acre), particularly near structures, manual reduction methods will be utilized to reduce fuel loading. Where access is available, fuels will be removed and disposed of by removing them from the site. In those areas where access is limited, piles of cut debris will be constructed for burning at an opportune time. Generally this occurs during the winter months when the ground is snow covered or wet from winter precipitation, temperatures are low, and winds are minimal.
The use of prescribed fire to achieve resource benefits and cultural scene preservation will be confined to the restoration and maintenance of native warm-season grasses and park forests. It may also be used to reduce invasive species in those areas where treatment is indicated.
The presence of warm season native grasses is an important component of the historic scene and also serves as nesting habitat for birds and insects. Treatments with prescribed fire in the early spring on a 1-3 year rotation have been shown to be effective to propagating these species and increasing the density of existing populations.
Forests comprised an important part of the cultural scene of the Battlefield during the period of the Civil War. For this reason they are an important historical and natural resource component of the park. Promoting the rehabilitation and reproductive success of these remnant oak-hickory forests as well as maintaining productive Loblolly pine forests is a goal identified in the park resource management plan. In addition, the promotion of oak-hickory forest/ woodland and healthy Loblolly forest would achieve the broad National Park Service goal of natural resource protection and preservation by providing improved wildlife habitat through the propagation of native vegetation species and promotion of natural ecological processes. The use of prescribed fire would help achieve these goals in a cost-effective, expeditious, and safe manner.
A map of proposed prescribed burn/ non-fire hazard fuel reduction units proposed under this alternative is located in Appendix B of this document.
In accordance with Chapter 12 of RM-18, a monitoring plan will be developed and implemented to monitor the vegetation associated with each treatment area, regardless of the treatment method used. This monitoring will allow managers to determine if project objectives have been met and, if not, how the treatment can be altered to meet stated objectives.
Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management
The fire management program under this alternative would, as in Alternative II, suppress all wildland fire ignitions using the appropriate management response. It also allows for the use of non-fire fuel reduction such as mechanical methods and the use of chemical herbicides, either individually or in combination, to achieve park cultural landscape, natural resource, and fuels management objectives. Prescribed fire would not be used in this alternative.
Alternative IV - Wildland Fire Use
Under this alternative, a full range of available fire management strategies including appropriate management response, wildland fire use (the use of wildland fire ignitions to meet resource management objectives) and prescribed burning would be used. This alternative also allows for the use of mechanical treatments and chemical herbicides.
Alternative V - No Management
Under this alternative, all unscheduled wildland fire ignitions (lightning) would be allowed to burn unimpeded by management actions until objectives were met. Prescribed fire and non-fire hazardous fuel reduction would not be utilized in this alternative.
Alternatives Considered and Rejected
Alternative IV - Wildland Fire Use
This alternative has been considered and rejected because it is not feasible to safely manage a wildland fire to achieve resource benefit with the limited size and staff of PETE.
Alternative V - No Management
This alternative has been considered and rejected because it could threaten the integrity of PETE cultural resources and cultural landscapes, and does not ensure the safety of park visitors, employees or surrounding landowners.
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The environmentally preferred alternative is determined by applying the criteria suggested in the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which is guided by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The CEQ provides direction that "the environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101" (Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning Council on Environmental Quality's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 1981.)
Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act states that "…it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to … (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradations, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." The environmentally preferable alternative for this project is based on these national environmental policy goals.
Alternative I - This alternative would aggressively suppress all wildland fires. It would allow for an increased potential of ground disturbing activities during wildland fire suppression operations due to the effects of the use of heavy equipment (bulldozers and tractor plows) used in aggressive suppression activities. Hand line construction by suppression crews also may lead to increased ground disturbance in this alternative. Therefore, this alternative would not result in the same level of protection for natural and cultural resources and the public over the long-term as would occur with the preferred alternative. Consequently, this alternative does not satisfy Provision 4 of NEPA's Section 101.
Alternative II - Appropriate Management Response and Integrated Fuels Management would provide for continued suppression of all unscheduled wildland fire ignitions using the most appropriate management response. This would allow managers to choose a suppression alternative that would minimize ground and vegetation disturbance activities. This alternative would also provide for use of prescribed fire, mechanical fuel reduction, and chemical herbicides, used individually or in combination, to achieve natural resource, cultural landscape and fuels management objectives. The wildland fire suppression operations as utilized in this alternative would ultimately provide for better protection of natural and cultural resources, health and safety of visitors, park neighbors and employees because of their ability to reduce hazardous fuel loadings in a proactive manner before a catastrophic wildfire event occurs. In addition, the natural and cultural resource values of the park are enhanced through the use of prescribed fire to propagate native warm season grass populations and through improvement of oak - hickory forests in the park. This alternative would best satisfy each of the provisions of the national environmental policy goals.
Alternative III - Appropriate Management Response and Non-Fire Fuels Management would provide the same elements as Alternative II, however this alternative would not allow the use of prescribed fire to achieve natural resource, cultural landscape and fuels management objectives. This alternative excludes one of the potential methods of cultural and natural resource protection that has proven to be successful and at the same time exert a low impact on park resources. Consequently, this alternative does not satisfy provisions 3, 4 and 6 of NEPA's Section 101.
The environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative II - Appropriate Management Response and Integrated Fuels Management because it surpasses Alternative I and Alternative III in realizing the full range of national environmental policy goals as stated in 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act. The use of prescribed fire to enhance native warm season grass populations, enhance oak hickory forest habitat, and reduce heavy fuel accumulations provides a clear advantage over the other alternatives that do not utilize techniques that most closely replicate natural processes. A rejection of the preferred alternative may result in further degradation of natural resources and add to the accumulation of hazardous fuels. Admittedly, manual methods of hazardous fuel reduction can be effective, but, in and of themselves, they do not offer as many of the advantages that can be attributed to prescribed fire. Careful application of prescribed fire is considerably more cost effective than manual hazardous fuel reduction, and can be applied in a manner that enhances the safety of the crews doing the work. The negative impacts of smoke from prescribed burns cannot be totally eliminated, but they can be minimized through the use of a variety of implementation techniques that relate to time of ignition, ignition pattern used, fuel moisture at the time of the burn, and adherence to the environmental parameters of prescriptions that relate to the height of convection column rise and dispersion of pollutants.