HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA2431SD
421.32
.A4
U5
1978
Environmental St :tement
Chugaoh Moo e-Fire M nagement
Pro r m
"
t r~"·
.
. c' --.:
J~ .. *~'
f
f
. . ~
.t ·''",:.,: •• <~t-~--
Pledse Return To
DOCUMENT CONTROL
..
: ." ,' I:>>f
-~-...
USDA FOREST SERVICE ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT
FOR THE CHUGACH MOOSE -FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHUGACH NATIONAL FOREST
Prepared in accordance with
Section 102 (2) (c) of Public Law 91-190
USDA-FS-RlO-FES (ADM) 77-07
SUMMARY SHEET
I Draft ( ) Final (x)
II Name of USDA Agency: Forest Service
III Administrative (x) Legislative ( )
IV Brief Description of the Action
Over a 10 year period beginning in 1977, a total of about 22,000
acres of land at 139 sites will be treated by prescribed burning.
The purpose is to improve vegetation for use as forage by Alaskan
moose on the National Forest portion of the Kenai Peninsula in
southcentral Alaska. Prescribed fire will be used in a planned,
controlled, natural way to increase moose populations as past
wildfires have done by accident.
~
V Summary of Environmental Impact and Adverse Environmental Effects
The proposal will largely simulate the natural effects of fire
without all the adverse impacts usually associated with wildfire.
About 9% of the forested land in the proposal area will be
impacted. However, moose populations, a mobile resource, will be
affected favorably over a much larger percentage of the area. The
proposal will favorably affect or have no lasting effect on: veg-
etation, soils, water, early successional stage wildlife, fish,
recreation, wildfire hazards and visual resources in the long run.
At the same time some adverse impacts may occur as a result of:
changes in vegetation, decreased older forest wildlife populations,
insects, reduced recreation values received by those who dislike
the effects of fire, presence of dead burned snags and vegetation
reducing visual resource values, tempor~ry reduction in air qua-
lity, minor losses of wood products, and possible increased moose-
vehicle collisions.
VI List of Alternatives Considered
The alternatives to the proposal discussed and considered were:
ARLIS
Alaska Resources
Library & Information Services
Anchorage, Alaska
A. No action
B. Mechanical treatments
C. Chemical treatments
D. Commercial sale of wood products
E. Differently designed proposed action
VII List of Concerned Public From Which Comments Were Received
A. Local Government
Kenai Borough Planning and Zoning Commission
Cook Inlet Air Resource Management District
B. State Government
Department of Fish and Game
University of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Fairbanks
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit
Division of Lands
Department of Public Safety -State Troopers
Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Highways
Division of Policy Development and Planning
Division of Parks, SHPO
C. Federal Government
Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service, Kenai National Moose Range
Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Area Office
Bureau of Land Management
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10
Department of Agriculture
U. S. Forest Service
Alaska Planning Team
Institute of Northern Forestry
Alaska Region 10
Washington Office, Fire Management
Chugach National Forest
Department of Commerce
NOA National Marine Fisheries Service
Department of Defense
172D Infantry Bde. (Alaska) Natural Resources
D. Public Meetings, Organizations, and Individuals
Public meetings, presentations, news and radio
releases, etc., were conducted to solicit comments
before the Program and Final Environmental Impact
Statements were initiated. Organizations contacted
were:
Alaska Center for the Environment
Alaska Conservation Society, Cook Inlet Chapter
Elmendorf AFB, Rod & Gun Club
Anchorage Sportsmens Club
Society of American Foresters
Sierra Club, Knik Chapter
Sierra Club, Alaska Representative
Wildlife Society
Chugach Electric Company
Cook Inlet Native Corporation
Nordic Ski Club
Mountaineering Club of Alaska
Alaska Professional Hunters Assn.
Cook Inlet Historical Society
Izaac Walton League
Auoubon Club
VIII Date Draft Environmental Statement Was Made Available to CEQ and
the Public March 18, 1977
Date Final Environmental Statement Was Made Available to~and
the Public 21 M!\R 1978
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
Pouch 6606
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Table of Contents
I. DESCRIPTION 1
The Proposal 1
Public Information and Education 20
Present Environment 20
Location 20
Visual Resources 21
Social and Economic 21
Recreation 21
Wildlife and Fish 22
Fire 23
Timber 23
Soils 24
Transportation 25
Roadless and Wilderness Resources 26
Minerals 26
Land Occupancy 26
Land Ownership 27
Archeological and Historical Sites 27
Proposal Background 28
Purpose 28
Social, Economic, and Environmental Objectives 28
Demand or Urgency of Need 29
Origin of the Proposal 29
Historical 29
Present Forest Service Land Management Direction 30
State and Local Jurisdictional Controls 33
Moose-Fire Ecology 33
Wildfire's Effects on the Kenai National Moose
Range
Development of the Proposal
Review by Agencies and Resource Specialists
Range Treatment Technique Studies
Definition of Priorities and Restrictions
Priorities
Restrictions
Moose Production and Population Measures
Range Condition
Color Air Photo Interpretation
Field Checks
Annual Range Improvement Goals
Evaluation of Results
Interrelationship with other Projects
Forest Wildfire Suppression
Timber Management
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Favorable Impacts
Natural Environment
Vegetation
Soils
Water
35
37
37
37
38
38
39
39
42
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
45
46.
46
46
54
54
Wildlife 56
Moose 56
Sheep and Goats 57
Small Mammals 60
Fur Bearers 61
Black Bear 61
Snowshoe Hare 62
Birds 62
Fish 62
Recreation 63
Visual Resources 63
Wildfire 64
Social and Economic Environment 64
Recreation and Low Income Populations 64
Economic 65
Adverse Impacts 65
Natural Environment 65
Vegetation 65
Soils 65
Water 65
Wildlife 65
Caribou 65
Small Mammals 65
Furbearers 66
Birds 66
Fish 67
Insects 67
Recreation and Visual Resources 68
Wildfire 71
Air 71
Timber 72
Transportation 74
Roadless and Wilderness Character 74
Historical and Archeological 75
Mining Claims 75
Utilities 75
Social and Economic Environment 76
III. SUMMARY OF PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE AVOIDED 76
IV. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG
TERM PRODUCTIVITY 76
V. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 77
VI. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 77
No Action 77
Mechanical Treatments 77
Chemical Treatments 78
Commercial Sale of ~-lood Products 78
A Differently Designed Proposed Action 79
VII. CONSULTATION WITH APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES AND
REVIEW BY STATE AND LOCAL AGENCIES DEVELOPING AND
ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS AS WELL AS
CONCERNED PUBLICS
Narrative of Public Involvement Results
79
80
Summary of Input Results 85
Adjustments to Proposal Resulting from Public Input 86
Specific Responses to Public Criticism 86
Literature Cited 90
Appendices 95
Figure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
List of Figures
Kenai Peninsula Portion of the Chugach National
Forest showing proposed prescribed burn sites.
Canyon Creek Sites.
Chickaloon River Sites.
Cooper-Kenai Lakes Sites.
Cooper Creek Sites.
East Fork Creek Sites.
Grant Lake Sites.
Indian Creek Sites.
Juneau Creek Sites.
Kenai River Sites.
Ptarmigan Lake Sites.
Quartz Creek Sites.
Resurrection Creek Sites.
Six Mile Creek Sites.
Trail River Sites.
Trail Creek Sites.
Estimated population and probable range
capacity 1890-1960.
Generalized ecological zones (climate-vegetation-
land form) of the proposal area.
Moose composition GOUnt areas, Game Management
Unit 7, showing observed moose density ranks for
the 1961-74 period.
Scheduled moose range improvement by annual
increments and subsequent habitat condition changes.
Calculated number of cows, calves, and bulls
after prescribed burning.
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
36
40
43
58
59
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
List of Tables
Summary of annual prescribed burn acres
and cost for the 10 year period.
Prescribed burn sites acres by a~ea.
Browse plant densities and heights from two
sites on the west shore of Kenai Lake.
Average number of hunters and moose·harvests
for subunits of Game Management Unit 7 for
the 1961-74 period.
Total moose hunters, harvest and success
for Game Management Unit 7.
Air observations of moose numbers in composition
count areas of Game Management Unit 7 for the '·
1961-74 period.
Proposed prescribed burn sites adjacent to travel
or transportation systems.
Prescribed burn sites ov-erlap with inventoried··
commercial forest lands timber resources.
···:
.; ;_
2
4
34
39
42
69
73
List of Appendices
1. 1977 Prescribed burn sites schedule 95
2. 1978 II 95
3. 1979 " 96
4. 1980 " 96
5. 1981 " 97
6. 1982 " 97
7. 1983 " 98
8. 1984 " 98
9. 1985 " 99
10. 1986 " 99
11. Prescribed burns sites sizes, -fire behavior, 100
handline, and total cost estimates.
12. Prescribed burn plan format. 104
13. Historic/archaeologic sites in the proposal area 112
14. State Historic Preservation Officer consultation 113
letter
15.-19. Public criticism of the proposal (letters)
20.-22. Mixed supportive/critical comments (letters)
23.-30. Personal and public/agency supportive comments
(letters)
31. Alaska State Clearinghouse for EIS's letter
32. Alaska Department of Highways letter
114
128
133
144
146
I DESCRIPTION
The Proposal
Over a ten year period beginning in 1977 a total of 21,699 acres of
National Forest Land at 139 sites in historical winter range will
be treated by prescribed burning to effect improvement of vegeta-
tion for use by Alaskan moose (Alces gigas). About 2% of the total
land mass in National Forest on the Kenai would be treated. About
9% of the valley area (forested land) would be burned in total over
a 10 year period. This is a programmatic EIS covering 22,000 acres.
The U. S. Forest Service defines prescribed burning as:
The skillful application of fire to fuels in a definite area
under exacting conditions such as weather, fuel moisture, and
soil moisture, to accomplish certain planned objectives. Fire
is used scientifically to realize maximun net benefits at
minimum damage and acceptable cost.
Proper land-use coordination requires that prescribed burning
plans be correlated with the requirements and objectives of
both fire control and all affected resource management func-
tions. Probable benefits must be carefully weighed against
potential damages in planning the fire prescription. In some
cases only a light burn is desired, but in others the fire
must be intense and severe to accomplish the specific ob-
jective. (FSM 5153.11 Oct. 71)
Prescribed burning is not wildfire. Wildfire is accidental fire
begun by man or natural causes. Wildfires usually are suppressed
immediately and have no management objective. Wildfires may also
have positive, or neutral effects. Because they can destroy devel-
opments, timber etc. wildfires can have negative impacts.
Prescribed burning is the use of fire in a carefully controlled way
within weather, humidity and other conditions pre-determined
before the fire is ignited. Prescribed burning is confined to a
pre-determined area by means of pre-planned boundaries, either
natural, such as snow banks or creeks, or by ntan made boundaries
such as roads, trails and pre-constructed firebreaks. Prescribed
burns are staffed with fire-fighting crews, equipment, and mater-
ials to assure that the fire is confined within its prescribed
boundaries. If a fire should escape its boundaries, it can be
extinguished through the use of pre-positioned men, equipment,
supplies, handlines and other means.
1
Table 1 summarizes the Program schedule. Appendices 1-10 show
the detailed schedules.
Table 1-Summary of annual prescribed burn acres & cost.
No.
Year Sites Acres Cost $
1977 7 475 10,451
197£ 20 958 21,200
1979 23 2719 25,690
1980 13 2394 25,880
1981 4 2570 26,360
1982 12 2508 26,190
1983 20 2432 30,290
1984 20 2376 29,270
1985 12 2193 26,730
1986 8 3074 23,020
Totals 139 21,699 245,081
The treatments will occur entirely in the valleys and valley floors·
of watersheds on the Chugach National Forest portion of the Kenai
Peninsula. As shown alphabetically in Table 2 and Figures 1 -16.
The priorities in Table 2 indicate general value to moose, and
suitability and availability for prescribed burning. Figures 2 -
16 show the sites at a 1" = 1 mi'le scale. The numerals indicate
site number (i.e. 3), acreage (i.e. 38a) and the general difficulty
of the site (i.e. II).
The prescribed burning will take place primarily in late spring or
early summer but some may be done in mid-summer and early autumn.
The goal will be to kill all standing vegetation (large and small
trees, shrubs) in the sites to convert them to an early unshaded
successional stage. Willows and birch will be left as seed trees
as often as po~sible.
Total estimated cost over the next 10 years in 1977 dollars is
approximately $250,000 (not including administration overhead
costs). The Chugach National Forest Fire Management Officer
provided most of the burn cost estimate factors and experience.
Cost estimates were calculated based upon each unit's size, the
burn's resistance to control and rate of spread, amount of hand-
line (hand labor constructed fire breaks), number of men and
salaries, vehicles and equipment, aircraft costs, and per diem
and subsistence. Some of these factors are shown in Appendix 11.
2
Figure 1 -Kenai Peninsula portion of the Chugach National Forest
showing proposed prescribed burn sites
LEGEND
Forest Boundary
Sites
Highway
' " ' '
/
I
3
\
I
I
J
/
(
I
(
)
"'ALYE SKA SKI ARE A
Table 2 -Prescribed burn site acres by Area.
Area Acres Highest Priorities
Canyon Cr. 918
Chickaloon R. 2136 5
Cooper -Kenai L. 2135 4
Cooper Cr. 410
E. Fork Cr. 2364 8
Grant L. 659
Indian Cr. 430
Juneau Cr. 2800 1
Kenai R. 273 3
Ptarmigan L. 247
Quartz Cr. 2982 2
Resurrection Cr. 3067 6
Six ~1ile Cr. 874
Trail R. 471 7
Trail Cr. 1743
A Prescribed Burn Plan will be prepared for each site to assure that all
require~ents are met (See Appendix 12). Experienced fire management and
wildlife management personnel will prepare the Plans in consultation
with other land management professionals in the Forest Staff (landscape
architect, soils scientist, hydrologist, forester etc.).
4
Figure 2 -Canyon Creek Sites
.. Mud
-r
27 26
/
-28
33 .l4
3
--1
9
/ --
Figure 5 -Cooper Creek Sites
Figure 6 -East Fork Creek Sites
Figure 7 -Grant Lake Sites
Figure 9 -Juneau Creek Sites
' \~\
~\y--
3
-1-
J
~ -..
-~ ----.. • + • l 1 + 12
I J 0
4 (
_,_
(
?
r
15 14 ~ .L 13
1
Figure 10 -Kenai River Sites
GL.ACIEI!
( '" 11 .,,
I
-;e rva 111111
: 3
" .. .. ..
" -.--... .,
"$
Black Point
36
' I
Figure 15 -Trail River Sites
Public Information and Education
Some prescribed burn sites will be near or partially within sight
of transportation systems (roads, trails etc,) or interpretive
facilities (visitor's centers, signed roadside pulloffs etc.)
Interpretive signs and other means such as brochures or displays in
visitor centers will be used to inform and educate the public of
this beneficial use of fire for increasing moose populations. At
selected sites signs will be erected both before and promptly after
the burns to explain the justification and purpose to the public.
An annual progress report will be released thru the news media.
Some of this function can be financed thru present budgets and
some will require additional funding requests.
Present Environment
Location
The proposed action will take place on the National Forest portion
of the Kenai Peninsula in southcentral Alaska. Much of the follow-
ing Present Environment description has been extracted from the
Kenai portion of the Chugach Land Use Plan.
This area, containing approximately 1,200,000 acres, includes all
of the National Forest lands which drain into Turnagain Arm, the
Kenai River or Resurrection Bay. (See Figure 1)
The National Forest portion of the Kenai Peninsula is characterized
by rugged mountain terrain interlaced by narrow valleys which, for
the most part, run north and south. The eastern and southwestern
boundaries are heavily glaciated and most of the lakes and streams
in these parts of the unit carry heavy silt loads; whereas the
lakes and streams on the western half are clear.
Vegetation varies considerably with elevation. Timber stands, both
coniferous and deciduous, are found in the valley bottoms and
extend up to 1500 feet in elevation. The steeper slopes of the
mountains are generally covered by thick stands of alder in the
1000 to 2500 foot range. Above 2500 feet grassy alpine meadows
dominate the landscape along with barren rock outcroppings. Air
quality is excellent and pollutant content is insignificant.
Possible pollutant sources are the industries located on the west
side of the peninsula and in Anchorage. Climate is generally mild.
The annual precipitation averages about 25 inches and much of this
occurs in the form of snow in the winter and heavy rains in the
spring and fall. The first general snowfalls begin in mid-October
and the snow cover usually lasts until about the first of May in
the valleys. Summer temperatures are moderate and average around
20
56 degrees, although they may occasionally reach into the eighties;
winter temperatures may reach minus 20 degrees, similar or slightly
warmer than Anchorage. The area lies within the Continental Cli-
matic Zone, such as is found in interior Alaska.
Visual Resources
This portion of the Forest is scenic with its variety of topo-
graphic features, vegetation, lakes and streams. It is accessible
by paved road from Anchorage, has a trail system, and is enjoyed
by a great many people. In addition, a variety of wildlife can
often be seen from the highway.
Social and Economic
This area is influenced by the largest population concentrations in
the State. The Anchorage area, which lies 50 miles northwest of the
Forest boundary, has a population of about 190,000. It is the
business and commercial center of the State and is growing rapidly.
It is also the transportation hub for the entire north country,
being served by numerous airlines, as well as by highway, railroad
and by sea.
Seward, at the southern end of the unit, has a population of 2,000.
It is connected to Anchorage by the Alaska Railroad as well as by
highway. Other small towns in the area are Moose Pass, Hope and
Cooper Landing. The major communities in the western part of the
Kenai Peninsula are Kenai, Soldotna and Homer. These communities
are also connected by highway to Anchorage, thru the National
Forest. The total population in this vicinity is about 11,000.
Some major considerations in planning management of this area are:
1. The resident population of this part of Alaska will continue to
expand.
2. Recreation will continue to be a major use of this unit.
Recreation
Recreation is a major resource on the Kenai Peninsula. Approx-
imately 480,000 visitor-days of recreation use were recorded in
this unit in 1976. About forty percent of this use was attributed
to travel along the highways and roads within the Forest. Major
activities are fishing, hunting, cross-country skiing, hiking,
camping, and snowmobiling.
Exclusive of saltwater use, the 1972 recreation report indicated
that, compared with the Forest as a whole, the Kenai Peninsula
received ninety-six percent of the use on roads, ninety-eight
21
' I
!
' I
I i
percent on trails, ninety-three percent on lakes and streams,
ninety-three percent on undeveloped land areas, and ninety-four
percent at developed sites.
Since 1960 the Forest Service has constructed or improved 480 camp
and picnic units in 20 separate locations, 11 cabins, 10 trailhead
parking lots, two boating sites, a visitor's center and seven
visitor information signs. In addition the Forest administers
special use permits for 150 summer homes, four resorts, four
organization camps, two winter sports sites and seven roadside
picnic sites.
In 1977, a bill was re-introduced in the U. S. Senate to establish
this unit and some adjacent lands in the Harding icefields as a
National Recreation Area. The intent of this proposal is compat-
ible with the bill.
Wildlife and Fish
The Kenai contains a wide variety of fish and wildlife resources
and has a high public use of both the consumptive and non-consum-
ptive aspects of the resource. Big game includes moose, dall
sheep, mountain goat, caribou, brown and black bear, wolves and
wolverine.
The moose population has been declining due to natural loss of
winter range thru natural forest succession and suppression of
wildfires. The sheep, goat, and black bear populations receive
moderate to heavy hunting pressure where access is available.
Certain portions of the unit are closed to hunters to provide for
wildlife viewing. Wolves and a small number of brown bear are
found in the unit. The Kenai Peninsula is the only place withtn
the National Forest system to have a resident caribou and dall
sheep population. The caribou herd is growing • Wolverine,
coyote, fox, lynx, marten, mink, otter, red squirrel, spruce
grouse, ptarmigan, snowshoe hare, bald eagle, owls, hawks, song-
birds, and small mammals all add to the variety of the wildlife
resource.
Trapping of furbearers supplies a small income for a limited number
of trappers. Harvest levels tend to fluctuate directly with market
prices.
The fishery resource consists of many lakes and streams containing
king, red, coho, pink and chum salmon; rainbow and lake trout,
Dolly Varden char, grayling and smelt. The Russian River red
salmon fishery and the Resurrection Bay coho salmon fishery are
popular sport fishing attractions.
22
The Chickaloon Flats Game Management Area has been established
jointly with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game, and Alaska Division of Lands to manage the area for
the protection and utilization of the wildlife resource. Road and
trail access to and thru some of the key wildlife habitat provides
public use and enjoyment of both the wildlife and fishery resources.
Fire
Fire management on the Kenai Peninsula is significant to resource
managers, but only recently has been recognized as a potent tool
for land management. Land managers have the ability to control
both wildlife and prescribed fires.
The new Forest Service National Fire Plan has provided for in-
creases in initial wildfire attack capacity. Increased land use on
Native and State selections in and adjacent to the National Forest
will increase the risk of wildfire spreading to Forest lands. The
B.L.M. will continue to assist the Forest Service and the Kenai
National Moose Range in wildfire suppression.
On the Kenai, natural succession of vegetation toward a spruce
climax forest are increasing the chances of large wildfires in the
absence of fuel management. Emphasis on the use of prescribed
natural fire (allowing wildfires to burn within a limited area) or
prescribed burning as a management tool is increasing. The first
prescribed burning for wildlife habitat purposes on National Forest
lands in Alaska were conducted here in 1976, as part of a study
(described later).
The Kenai has a history of large wildfires. Evidence of past
wildfires can be seen in the forest communities today. Virtually
no upland situation below timberline seems to have escaped fire at
some time in the past. Climatic conditions and the nature of the
forest on the Kenai Peninsula favor extensive spread of fires if
suppression efforts and fuel management programs are not initiated.
High fire dangers are experienced throughout the summer months.
The trend of fire occurrence shows that for the period 1970 through
1974 there were 91 fires, compared to 24 fires for the period of
1965 through 1969; an increase of 280%. The 91 fires burned 153
acres and suppression costs were $387,000.
Timber
The forests of the Kenai Peninsula include Sitka spruce, white
spruce, black spruce, mountain hemlock, paper birch, quaking aspen
and black cottonwood. White spruce and cottonwood dominate the
23
valley bottoms over most of the area. Mixed stands of Sitka spruce
and hemlock are predominant where a marine climate is experienced
near Seward and adjacent to Turnagain Arm.
Commercial forest land covers about 100,000 acres. Only about
9,000 acres of this is potentially available for harvest without
special restrictions. Approximately two-thirds of the commercial
forest land is overmature, decadent and uneven-aged. The remainder
of the commercial forest land supports young, even-aged stands
which have followed fires during the past seventy-five years.
These young stands, in varying stages of plant succession, are
dominated by paper birch. Normal plant succession is toward a
spruce-hemlock forest climax.
Generally tree size and volume per acre are lower than on the
remainder of the Forest. White spruce stands average 10-15,000
board feet/acre while the better Sitka spruce and black cottonwood
stands average 20-25,000 board feet/acre.
Timber harvest has mainly been limited to small timber operators
who log the better stands of spruce near the highway system. Past
sales have typically averaged less than 1 million board feet per
year. The nearest major mill at Seward is presently closed and
future markets are in doubt.
Soils
The major portion of this unit consists of high
separated by narrow glaciated alluvial valleys.
typical glaciated U-shapes, contain glacial and
and often several lakes.
rugged mountains
These valleys have
alluvial deposits
The Twenty Mile, Placer, Snow and Resurrection Rivers drain large
ice fields and are subject to high water and frequent deposits of
alluvial materials. This results in braided streams and frequent
channel changes.
The northwest corner of the unit contains a portion of the Chick-
aloon Flats. This is a broad expanse of tidal marshes, through
which flow meandering channels intermingled with deposits of silt
and organic matter. Similar type areas are found at the head of
Turnagain Arm. In general, limited soils work has been done and
only broad groupings can be discussed. These include:
1. High mountains Shallow very fragmental mineral and shallow,
dark reddish-brown organic are the two major soil types. They
are generally less than 20 inches deep and are interspersed
with rock outcrops.
24
2. Steep side slopes Many of these areas are subject to rock and
snow slides. In general, soils are less than 20 inches deep
and are very gravelly. There are many outcrops of bedrock and
rock cliffs.
3. Low slopes Here both glacial and colluvial deposits occur.
Many have been partially sorted by water. Soils typically are
very gravelly and are less than 30 inches in depth. Areas of
highly thixotropic silty soils have been reported (Juneau
Creek watershed). Organic soils up to 10 feet in depth are
found in swampy areas and depressions.
4. Narrow and broad river and stream flood plains These are
variable depending upon source of deposited material, age
since deposition, stream size, gradient and other factors.
Soils adjacent to streams and subject to frequent flooding
have a few inches of soil over coarse to fine materials. This
is a very unstable location for soil development and areas are
being constantly rejuvenated by frequent deposition and re-
moval of material. Higher areas, which are more stable, show
more soil development. Textures vary from clay to sand with
depths generally less than 30 inches. Areas of mucky organic
soils occur.
5. Saltwater flats These consist of heavy deposits of sedge peat
and silt and are several feet in depth. They are subject to
frequent saltwater inundation.
Transportation
The Kenai area contains the largest concentration of roads and
trails on the Forest. Within the Forest boundary there are 107
miles of paved highways which form part of the link between Anch-
orage and the major population centers of the Kenai Peninsula.
There are also an additional 81 miles of gravel roads, including
campground loops, within the National Forest portion of this unit.
There is a total of 145 miles of existing trails of which 105 miles
are considered to be in adequate condition. These trails vary in
length from short nature trails to thirty-eight miles for the
Resurrection Pass Trail.
In addition to the commercial airports at Seward, Kenai, Soldotna
and Homer there are small airstrips located at Lawing, Quartz
Creek, Hope and along the pipeline route near Chickaloon Flats.
Floatplane air taxi service is available at Cooper Landing, Moose
Pass and Seward to provide access to the many lakes of the unit.
25
The Alaska Railroad operates a line through Placer Valley, Trail
Creek, Moose Pass, Snow River and on to Seward. Once the alpine is
reached, cross country hiking for great distances is possible.
Roadless and Wilderness Resources
The roadless character of the area and sites treated will not be
altered by the proposal. No roads will be built. No ground
vehicles will be used off of existing highways, roads, and trails.
No significant earth moving will occur. Handline construction
will disturb small areas of soil in a linear fashion.
Access will be improved a little by the clearing of handlines to
contain the burns. These, however, will be short-lived as the
lines will grow in with shrubs and trees very rapidly.
After extensive literature review and stury, Lutz (1960)
concluded that "it is likely that forest fires have occurred on
the Kenai ever since there were forests." The earliest written
account of fire there found by Lutz was in 1851. Therefore, it
appears that the wilderness character of the roadless areas on
the Kenai was shaped to some extent by fire. Past and present
management requires that all wildfires be suppressed on the Kenai
including the roadless areas. At present the only option immedi-
ately available to re-introduce fire into the roadless areas with
wilderness character is through prescribed burning such as is
proposed in this Program. This Program will not adversely affect
or change the wilderness character of the roadless areas where
some of the burns are proposed. Prescribed burning may actually
enhance wilderness character through simulation of natural
conditions.
Minerals
The Kenai Peninsula has a history of gold mining dating from the
1800's. Mining was primarily for placer deposits in the valley
bottoms. Although a number of hard rock lode mines were developed,
none of them produced significant amounts of gold. Virtually all
gold mining on the Kenai Peninsula shut down by 1941. Many claims
have been maintained on the books with proof of labor filed. Over
150 active claims exist on the unit and a number of new claims are
staked each year.
Land Occupancy
Land occupancies within this unit are many and varied. Besides
those uses of a recreational nature, there have been many special
use permits issued for homesites, transmission lines, power sta-
tions, radio and television towers, pack stations, dams and weirs,
air strips, borrow pits, sanitary land fills, cemeteries and var-
ious other community service facilities.
26
There are also scattered parcels of patented tracts, most of which
are located along the highways or the railroad tracks.
Land ownership
Under the provisions of the Statehood Act, a total of 4,147 acres
of National Forest Lands within this unit have been selected to
date by the State. These tracts surround the communities of Cooper
Landing, Moose Pass and Hope. None of the prescribed burn sites
are located within the selections.
There are also groups of patented homesites and homesteads at
Lakeview, Primrose Landing, Tern Lake, Upper Trail Lake and Snow
River in addition to small, scattered tracts in the vicinity of
Kenai Lake.
It is uncertain at this time what the total affect of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act will have on this unit. Some his-
torical or archeological sites selection have been made under the
act.
Archeological and Historic Sites
Most of the scattered sites are the result of past settlements and
activities of native, Russian, and early American settlement. They
are of interest to archeologists, historians, and to the general
public as well. Most of the sites discovered so far have to do
with mining activities that took place around the turn of the
century.
Appendix 13 lists the known sites on the National Register of
Historic Places (two each) and Alaska Heritage Resource Survey (12
each). These were obtained by consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer and his office files in Anchorage, Alaska,
with the assistance of Douglas Reger, in May 1977. A copy of the
SHPO letter is shown as Appendix 14.
No sites listed are in any of the proposed burn units.
A professional archaeologist with the Alaska Region, U.S. Forest
Service (Gerry Clark), has been consulted by phone, in writing,
and has surveyed sites in the field for any historical/archaeo-
logical significance/relics, remains, etc. An archaeologist is
presently assigned to the Chugach National Forest (John Mattson)
and will be consulted and involved in all burn site planning in
the office and field before any burns are approved or conducted.
Ground surveys of all sites will be conducted by the archaeolo-
gist as he sees fit for each site during the planning phase.
27
Proposal Background
Purpose
All indications are that the primary factor limiting moose pop-
ulations on the Kenai is food quantity, quality, and availability.
The purpose of the proposal is to improve the existing forested
moose habitat to increase the carrying capacity (population) for
moose. The tall growth form of the present forest cover on the
sites will be reduced to a low growth form (early successional
stage). The lower growth form of the food species (willow, birch,
aspen etc.) will thus be available for use by moose (below 7 feet).
In addition, the younger lower growth forms of sprouts and seed-
lings will have much higher nutritive quality and quantity of the
small succulent stems per acre.
Social, Economic, and Environmental Objectives
The social objective of the proposal is to produce more moose on
the same land for public use. The public use may be consumptive
(i.e. hunting), or non-consumptive (i.e. viewing, photography
etc.). The Alaska Fish and Game Department will manage the herd
itself for appropriate objectives of use.
There are no direct economic objectives for the proposal.
The calculated cost of the Program in 1977 dollars is estimated to
be about $250,000 ($11.50/acre).
Economic benefits that are very difficult to measure are: enhanced
recreation benefits, increased hunter and tourist expenditures, the
value of having more moose living in the area, and others.
The environmental objective of the proposal is to enhance the
productivity of the forest from its present low level to a higher
level of moose producing and carrying capacity. (See also Favorable
Impacts -Wildlife-Moose).
One calculation that is relatively easy to make for benefit is the
meat value of a moose. About 2200 additional bull moose 1-6 years
in age would be available for harvest over 25 years. The value of
meat alone is about $1,000,000 in 1977 supermarket packaged beef
values. This calculation is made for illustration and should not
be construed as favoring consumptive uses and values, over non-
consumptive uses and values. In fact, many more cows and calves
would be available for non-consumptive uses than bulls for con-
sumptive uses as a result of the Program (Fig. 21). Cows and
calves may also be available for consumptive use.
28
Demand or Urgency of Need
To some people producing more moose or any wildlife form is not
urgent. However, people in general have a need for natural aes-
thetic experiences as much as they need food, water and shelter.
More moose will satisfy wildlife experience needs as well as
subsistence needs for many people. Wildlife populations, and moose
in particuliar have or are reaching their maximum ability to pro-
vide for peoples' needs in Alaska. The moose productivity of much
of Alaska's land has remained the same or declined while human
populations and use of moose have increased dramatically in recent
years. Because of their large size, behavior, and palatability
they are much in demand by consumptive as well as non-consumptive
users.
Moose range deterioration has been formally recognized on the·Kenai
portion of the Forest since at least 1940 (Edwards, 1940). No
significant remedies have been planned or executed to date. We
believe that remedial action is long overdue in 1976.
Origin of the Proposal
Historical One of the earliest reports on moose range problems on
the Kenai was by Edwards (1940). He reported range deterioration
due primarily to moose numbers exceeding the range's carrying
capacity. He also observed that:
It is significant that over most of this country the growth of
browse species is largely confined to the limits of an old burned-
off area. Estimates as to the date of the fire made from obser-
vations of plant growth would place it at about fifty years ago.
It was reported that the bulk of the country now frequented by
moose has been previously burned over. Fire removes the dense
stand of spruce and permits the development of the deciduous
species. A dense stand of spruce reproduction is now encroaching
upon the mixed stand of aspen, willow and birch and rapidly re-
placing these more valuable species.
Lucas (1932) observed that "Native tradition indicates that the
western Kenai country was quite extensively burned over and that
moose appeared shortly thereafter."
Dufresne (1946) regarded 1883 as the year of the fire following
which moose (said to have been practically unknown up to that time)
appeared.
Lutz (1940) provides a detailed literature review which histor-
ically links moose and wildfires.
Lutz (1940) concluded that "it is likely that forest fires have
occurred on the Kenai Peninsula ever since there have been forests."
29
Effective wildfire suppression by man in the area did not occur
until the 1950's and 1960's. It is not merely a coincidence that
good moose ranges have been disappearing and no new ones have been
created, during this period of effective wildfire suppression.
Good moose populations are linked to early successional stages of
vegetation (Spencer and Chatelain, 1953, Leopold and Darling, 1953,
Viereck 1973, and Le Resche et al. 1974). In southcentral Alaska
the only force creating early successional stages over large areas
has been wildfire.
Present Forest Service Land Management Direction Generally the
direction at all levels is to produce maximum sustained yields of
resources consistent with the needs of other resources affected.
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act required
that the Forest Service (and other agencies) develop long range
resource goals and direction. Specifically the Forest Service's
recommended program developed under this act focuses on three areas
one of which is that: "Efforts on behalf of wildlife and fish,
land and water stewardship, and human and community development
would be accelerated."
The Sikes Act of 1974 directed the Forest Service to develop
cooperative wildlife habitat improvement plans with the state game
and fish departments. It will provide funds to finance such pro-
jects. The Chugach Moose-Fire Management Program is such a plan.
The Chugach National Forest Land Use Plan specifically directs that
the Forest seek ways to use prescribed fire for land improvement
projects such as silviculture, wildfire hazard reduction and wild-
life habitat. (Sect. 170.3 p. C -16.3) Other guidance provided
by the Chugach Land Use Plan and Alaska Region Program Emphasis
that pertains to the proposal follows:
Ch. 111. 2.
Man caused deterioration of noise and air quality will be kept
within ambient established Federal and State standards. Emphasis
will be directed toward maintaining noise and air quality at pre-
sent or lower levels.
• • • air quality will not be degraded more than tem-
porarily by the proposal.
Ch. 117.3, Item 2.
Place emphasis on habitat improvement where demand is shown.
• • the proposal will improve a large amount of habitat in
a high demand area.
30
Ch . 11 7 . 3, It ern 5 .
Management of key habitat sites along highways on the Kenai and CRD
will be directed toward wildlife photography and viewing.
• . . the proposal will provide more moose for such use on the
Kenai.
Ch. 170.1, Item 7.
The need for the use of fire in maintaining existing range or
creating new moose range areas will increase on the Kenai Peninsula.
this proposal will increase or improve such range.
Ch. 170.1, Item 8.
More studies and research will be needed to determine the effects
of fire on soil fertility, stability and tree regeneration.
development of this proposal has added to our knowledge
of these factors.
Ch. 170.3, Items 2. and 3.
Identify areas of wildfire potential and plan fuel management
accordingly.
Seek ways to use prescribed fire for land improvement projects such
as silviculture, hazard reduction and wildlife habitat •
. this long range proposal will contribute to these goals.
Ch. 211, Item 28.
Design habitat improvement and use projects to avoid adverse
impacts upon aesthetic and other resource values.
• . . this proposal has been designed to avoid such impacts as
much as feasible.
Ch. 211, Item 51.
Consider effects on fishery habitat of all operations adjacent to
bodies of water.
this factor was considered, and the impact will be
negligible if not beneficial.
Ch. 324, Item 8.
Evaluate proposals for habitat improvements which may create an
impact on tree regeneration.
. . the proposal does not significantly impact commercial
timber regeneration or the commercial timber base.
31
Ch. 354, Item 8.
Maintain a natural appearance which protects or enhances aesthetic
and recreation values.
. . • the frequent natural boundaries of the sites will
protect or enhance such values thru added vegetative and forest
opening variety.
Ch. 354, Item 12.
Evaluate traffic before habitat improvement measures are attempted
close to high speed roads.
• traffic has been evaluated and some increased collisions
may occur. Mitigation measures will reduce this problem. (See
Adverse Impacts -Transportation)
Ch. 354, Item 13.
Avoid adverse aesthetic impacts in habitat improvement projects.
. . . few aesthetic values will be impacted adversely due to
the natural boundaries and treatments prescribed. Some adverse
impacts will be unavoidable.
Ch. 354, Item 18.
Incorporate landscape management considerations into the design,
location, alignment, and appearance of all roads, trails and other
improvements.
. • . two Forest Landscape Architects have been consulted and
their concerns and suggestions incorporated where feasible.
Kenai Unit, Area A-9, Item 2/c-59.
Traffic considerations will be carefully evaluated before habitat
improvement measures are attempted close to high speed roads .
. • • traffic considerations were carefully evaluated. Some
adverse impacts are expected but mitigation measures will reduce or
eliminate them.
Kenai Unit, Area A-11, Item 1/c-64.
Allow no developments that will adversely affect Mineral licks or
the animals using them.
the sites are not near the licks in Quartz Creek. Such
prescribed fire treatment would not adversely affect the sites if
nearby.
The following are quoted from the U.S.F.S. Alaska Region Program
Emphasis FY-77.
32
In coordination with other program activities, implement prescribed
burning as a land management tool in natural and activity fuels.
Begin identification of areas which should be planned for fire
prescriptions.
. . this study will facilitate accomplishing these emphasis
goals.
State and Local Jurisdictional Controls The Program will be
coordinated within the jurisdictional areas of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, the Cook Inlet Air Resources Management District and the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The Program will comply with
the Air District's open burning regulations for 1.) prior notifi-
cation of the District of burning to be done, and 2.) no burning
on days forecast by the weather services to be poor for smoke
dispersal. Smoke dispersal will be a lesser consideration for
burns in more remote areas.
The Alaska Department of Fish and Game will be instrumental in
assuring appropriate law enforcement and harvest regulations to
allow the moose herd to grow as a result of the Program.
Cooperation and coordination will be accomplished with all juri-
sdictions.
Moose-Fire Ecology Moose Habitat Requirements-Cover such as
brush, forests or terrain is important to moose primarily for
escape or concealment from man or predators. Cover is more than
adequate on the Kenai. The same cover generally provides for the
seclusion needs of moose. Water supplies too are more than ample
here.
We believe that the factor limiting moose on the Kenai is lack of
food ... quantity, quality, and availability. Table 3 shows some of
the results of the Quartz-Kenai Prescribed burn Study begun in 1975
for two important browse species.
The species of greatest importance are Kenai paper birch (Betula
papyrifera kenaica), willow (Salix alaxensis, Salix scouleriana, Salix
bebbiana) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides).
33
Table 3 -Browse plant densities and heights
from two sites on the west shore of Kenai Lake.
Mature Spruce Forest 1959 wildfire
(late successional stage) (early successional stage)
plants/acre ave. height ft. plants/acre ave. height ft.
willow 0 0 312. 2.4
birch 55 30 5062 3.1
both 55 30 5374 2.8
This sample shows 100 times as many browse plants on the burned
area as on the unburned area. Furthermore, all of the browse is
available (below 7 ft.) in the burn and none is available in the
mature forest. Fire does _not always produce such dramatic results
but this example is illustrative.
Burning increases protein and phosphorus content and digestability
of shrub tissues thru elimination or reduction of shading and
competition (Dewitt and Derby 1955, Schaefer 1965, Hanson and Smith
1970, Lay 1957, Halls and Epps 1969). Potash content is also known
to increase (Komarek, 1976). The willow and birch browse plants
on the Kenai are generally decadent from perennial over use and old
age. The quantity and quality of browse from such plants is low-
ered as a result (Spencer and Chatelain 1953).
Role of Fire in Nature -That fire plays such an important part in
the ecology of moose in southcentral Alaska should come as no
surprise. All over the U. S. prescribed fire is being used to
duplicate the effects once obtained thru natural wildfire for
managing specific plants or animals. Examples are the use of
prescribed or prescribed natural fire in Sequoia, Kings Canyon,
Everglades, Shenandoah, Grand Teton and Yosemite National Parks and
in the Nez Perce, Clearwater, St. Joe, Gallatin and most other
National Forests. Benefits are derived for plants, animals, people
and industries. Volumes of periodicals contain thousands of such
examples.
Simply outlined, fire accomplishes the following in moose habitat:
1. Reduces older vegetational stages or climaxes to early
successional stages thru:
a. forest canopy removal by killing
b. seedbed/soil preparation/scarification
c. inducing new crops of young productive browse
plants or sprouts.
34
2. Recycles nutrients from the older or decadent vegetation's
stems and trunks into the soil and back into young plants or
sprouts very quickly thru reduction to ashes.
3. Allows the growing branches or sprouts of shrubs and trees
to be available to moose.
Nearly 90 percent of the winter forage in the region grows out of
reach within a few years if not browsed adequately or treated by
fire or other techniques. (Spencer and Chatelain 1953).
Moose are very mobile in locating and utilizing forage sources.
They moved into the 1959 Kenai Lake wildfire area from miles
around to use the profuse birch and willow browse growing there.
Burns on the Chugach National Forest could influence moose move-
ments on the Kenai National Moose Range and vice versa. That these
movements would involve large numbers of moose is doubtful.
Wildfires' Effects on the Kenai National Moose Range Probably the
best documented account of the relationship of moose populations
and fire on the Kenai Peninsula was written by Spencer and Hakala
(1969). Figure 17 is taken from Spencer and Hakala's paper and
illustrates the response of the moose population on the Kenai
National Moose Range to periods of wildfire occurrence as well as
specific fires.
Specific findings of Spencer and Hakala's study which were in-
strumental in developing and designing this proposal are:
1. Vegetation following burning is largely determined by the
vegetation there before the burn.
2. Heavy browse growth after fires is reached in about 7
years and reaches maximum in about 15 years.
3. Moose populations begin increasing due to fire effects
about 5 years after fire.
4. After burns the favorable forage conditions last from 5-20
years and perhaps longer under favorable conditions.
5. Forest fires in the boreal forest have generally been
beneficial to moose.
35
Figure 17 -Estimated population and probable range capacity 1890-1960 (for
moose on the Kenai National Moose Range from Spencer and
Hakala, 1964)
. . 6,000
• ' I
5,000 I Pr )b b le ·:
I , Ra Ht4 ~· I .
4,000 I '\ • .. ' ra pa i tv 1t
' I • I
I I ;. ~. I .,
' I \ I I 'l I '
,,, .. . . •• ·~ , .. .;" I ~ " ' ., ''\; • • ----lM lu o e Pc pi ~i p'l.
3,000
CIJ
1-4
Cll 2,000 ~
;::l z 1,000
0
scm 1900 910 ~920 .930 1q14o .a. 950 1960
,._FIRES -..:;..j J I
1926 BURN 1947 BURN
36
Development of the Proposal
Review by Agencies and Resource Specialists
In October 1975, an outline and brief description of the method-
ology to be used in developing the plan was sent to many agencies
for review and input. The proposal was discussed with many indi-
vidual professional resource specialists. Comments and suggestions
received were incorporated where reasonable. See Section VII,
Consultation with Others.
Range Treatment Technique Studies
Studies of range improvement techniques begun in the mid 1960's by
the Forest Service examined roller-dozer crushing, and herbicide
treatment to kill older vegetation and release browse growth.
Recent analysis of accumulated data and literature showed that
neither technique appears to be feasible for range treatment in the
Kenai Mountains (Culbertson, 1975, Culbertson, 1976, Lyons and
Mueggler 1968). (See also Section VI Alternatives to the Proposed
Action). Consequently prescribed burning has become the only
opportunity worth developing.
The Quartz-Kenai prescribed Burn Study was begun by the Chugach
National Forest in 1975, to study the effects of past fires and
refine techniques for use of prescribed burning. A total of 10
acres have been burned at three sites. Some results obtained thus
far are:
1. Browse increased by a factor of 100 times after the 1959
Kenai Lake Fire.
2. Prescribed burning on low or wet sites with abundant grass
and forb growths should be done after snow leaves in the
spring but before summer green up.
3. Prescribed burning had very little effect on soils.
Temperature measurements made during the prescribed burns
showed that while temperatures reached 400° to 600° F. at the
surface organic horizon (leaf litter) they were less than 100°
F. at the litter-soil interface.
4. Weather and climate will be major factors affecting the
success of prescribed burning.
37
Definition of Priorities and Restrictions
Priorities The following factors were mapped and assessed to
determine where the highest priority areas were for prescribed
burning: moose winter ranges, access, timber land classification,
vicinity ownership and snowfall patterns. Because climate, veg-
etation, and burn results are all interrelated, the generalized
ecological zones shown in Figure 18 were drawn to assist in eval-
uating potential sites. A brief description follows:
ecological zone/name climate vegetation landform
1 interior continental white spruce-mountains and
hardwood old broad low
alt. valleys.
2 glacier glacier-icefield spruce glaciers,
influenced con-cottonwood ice fields in
tinental mountains,
younger glacial
valleys.
3 coastal marine sitka spruce coastal mts.
hemlock and valleys
The potential for fire use for moose habitat improvement in each of
these zones is very different as follows:
ecological zone
interior
glacier
marine
fire use potential
high
low or none
low or none
The priorities as used in this proposal by area are shown in Table 2.
Snowfall depth patterns showed a snow "shadow" in the Juneau-Cooper-
Quartz-Moose Pass Kenai Lake area (interior zone) and much greater
depths in the Turnagain-Snow River-Seward area (glacier and marine
zones).
38
Restrictions All the following were mapped on ~ set of one-inch top-
ographic maps. Most of these were purposely avoided to prevent con-
flicts:
buildings
businesses
towns
mines
lakes
streams
recreation sites
highways
recreation withdrawals
private land
trails gravel withdrawals (RR)
timber resources
caribou ranges
power lines
pipelines
tele-communication site some outstanding visual features
Subunit
01
02
03
04
Developments or other potential conflicts not detected in this
level of site planning will be detected when the on the ground site
prescribed burn plans are written.
Range Capability Analysis
This step analyzed condition, availability, and suitability of
ranges for treatment by prescribed burning.
Moose Production and Population Measures These indicate the
productivity of the ranges as reflected by measures of the moose
population itself and its use by hunters. Three Alaska Fish and
Game Department data sources were used here for the 1965-74 period:
moose harvests, hunter numbers, and air surveys (Tables 4, 5 and
6). The limitations of these data are recognized such as error,
poaching effects, weather, terrain, and observer and observability
differences between areas. They were used only as indications of
general patterns.
Table 4 -Average number of hunters and moose harvests
for subunits of Game Management Unit 7
for the 1965 -74 period.
Hunters Hunters/mi 2 Rank
36 0.08 3
62 0.13 2
106 0.15 1
42 0.13 2
39
Figure 18 -Generalized ecological zones (climate-vegetation-landform)
~in the proposal area
..,.. '
(/I?
.y-1
1
INTERIOR
.'3
COASTAL.
',
' ' ' \
\
\
\
' ' '
I
l
........ -
\
,..---/
l
' ........
--= ............ "\
.J .. _ J
r -J l ,_
-~ \
l -... / I -
...,
I
\
\
\
\
I
\
\
\
40
\
\
\
\ ', ' '
~
\
' )
J
I
/
--
.3
CO~STAL
----..
' .....
2.
GLACIER
----------------
~ ;
I .
Subunit
*
01
02
03
04
Moose
Harvest
15
22
70
16
2 Harvest/mi
.03
.05
.10
.05
Rank
3
2
1
2
Generally Table 4 shows that hunter numbers and moose harvest have been
greatest in the western third of the proposal area, less in the middle
third, and least in the eastern third.
* 01 = 20 mi R., 02 = 6 mi Quartz-Johnson-Trail Cr., 03
Kenai 1.-Resurrection R., 04 = Seward-Snow-Trail R.
Cooper-
Table 5 -Total moose hunters, harvest, and success
for Game Management Unit 7.
Year Hunters Harvest Success %
1965 No data
1966 445 113 25.4
1967 414 124 30.0
1968 481 164 34.0
1969 561 179 32.2
1970 520 180 34.7
1971 563 119 30.0
1972 780 176 22.6
1973 779 157 20.6
1974 492 64 13.0
1975 462 66 14.3
41
'1:
Table 6 -Air observations of moose numbers in composition count areas
Area
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20N
21
of Game Management Unit 7 for the 1961 -74 period
Ave. No. Moose Moose/mi 2
52 0.68
18 1.05
31 0.44
46 1.00
111 1.66
104 2.21
12 2.00
17 0.52
82 1.28
280 3.11
24 2.00
214 5.94
113 5.38
68 2.96
104 1.00
41 1.58
33 2.54
46 1.00
& -s 135 3.21
96 4.00
Figure 19 illustrates the data of Table 6. Generally higher
observed moose densities for the 1964 -74 period were in the
central and western portions of the proposal area (the interior
ecological zone).
Range Condition Twelve Forest Service and Alaska Fish and Game
Department Cole browse transects were established and read in Unit
7 during the 1962-72 period in the following areas: Six Mile
Creek, Juneau Creek, Portage Valley, Ptarmigan Creek, Quartz Creek,
Snow River and Twenty Mile River.
Generally the readings confirmed what bilolgists knew already . .
. • . the Kenai ranges have deteriorated to decadence and low pro-
ductivity. The average form class was 2 to 3 or moderately to
severely hedged, the age class was mature to decadent, and leader
(new stems) use usually approached or exceeded 50%.
Observation of browse plants in general in the proposal area shows
severe hedging of nearly every available browse plant. Close
examination frequently reveals that seemingly live heavily hedged
browse plants or sprouts are really dead. The only extensive
42
Figure 19 -Moose composition count areas, Game
Management Unit 7, showing observed
moose density ranks for the 1961-74
Water
![]IIIII 1 highest densit
W~Ja
w~ 4 lowest density
highly productive moose winter range below tree line known is about
3000 acres in the 1959 burn area west of Kenai Lake. Low growth
willow forms and dwarf birch (Betula glandulosa) do provide some
moose winter ranges at or near tree line but offer no known po-
tential for management.
The present moose range problems on the Kenai were predicted by
Spencer and Hakala (1964), Spencer and Chatelain (1953), and
Leopold and Darling (1953).
Color Air Photo Interpretation Potential sites were outlined on
4"/mile color positive air photo series taken in 1974, while close
coordination with the restriction maps was maintained. This close
coordination prevented layout of burn sites where other uses were
already present or would be damaged. The air photos were searched
stereoscopically for adequate boundaries to hold prescribed burn-
ing. A difficulty of treatment code was assigned, the acreage was
measured, and a serial number was assigned each site. Black spruce
Bogs were avoided as they are unsuitable sites (Viereck, 1973).
Field Checks Most sites were checked on the ground, or from a
helicopter to assure that appropriate browse species, were present
for successful post-burn results. Fuel and firebreaks were verif-
ied and analyzed by the Forest Fire Management Officer. Accuracy
of airphoto observations was also checked. Aerial oblique color
slides of most sites were taken and catalogued for future refer-
ence. Many potential units were eliminated due to conflicts with
other uses or low suitability. Others were added as a result of
field work.
Annual Range Improvement Goals Development
The total 21,699 acres inventoried was roughly divided into two
initial years annual acreage goals of 500 and 1000 acres for 1977
and 1978. Then the remaining 20,000 acres was divided over the
next eight years for the 10 year Program. (Table 1).
Next the sites were mapped and labeled according to the proposed
year of treatment using the following guides:
1. Largest units delayed (until more local experience is
gained).
2. Remote clusters of sites scheduled together to be done
concurrently.
3. Low risk sites to be done first, higher risk delayed
4. Lower drainages to be done before upper drainages.
44
II
5. Adjacent sites were scheduled to be treated several years
apart.
Evaluation of Results
Photo points and available browse density plots will be emplaced
and marked with steel and a map for each burn unit. The photo
points and plot readings will be re-done at 5 year intervals be-
ginning just before the burn and continuing for 20 years.
Interrelationship with Other Projects
There are two other programs in the proposal area that potentially
affect relatively large acreages.
Forest Wildfire Suppression
This program is very effective at limiting wildfires to small
sizes. It has had obvious beneficial effects. However, one
adverse effect since its inception decades ago has been to allow
the forests to age and mature to the point where the present pro-
posal has become necessary for rehabilitation of moose forage
habitat.
Timber Hanagement
This program affects more acres at present than any other except
wildfire suppression. Annual harvest has averaged less than one
million board feet or about 100 acres affected annually. This
proposal has no significant effect on the commercial timber base.
(See Section II Environmental Impacts, Adverse, Timber).
Less than 10% of the total forest land in the proposal area would
be affected in combination over the next 10 years. All of these
will be regenerating to new conifers, hardwoods, and other veg-
etation within a few years of harvest or burning (See Section II
Environmental Impacts, Favorable, Vegetation). The accumlative
effect of the two programs is not significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Although the proposal is generally considered of local importance,
the road system through the area is used significantly by visitors
from outside Alaska and could be considered to have State or
National significance. The area involved is inside the proposed
Seward National Recreation Area (1977 Senate Bill) which would
focus national interest on this area if passed by Congress.
Viereck (1973) has written an excellent paper describing the
impacts of wildfires on vegetation, wildlife, soils and water, and
recreation in the Alaska Taiga Zone of most of interior Alaska.
45
II
'" ill
111
llj
The proposal area is a part of this zone. Two differences between
wildfires and prescribed burning are in the effects on vegetation
and soils. Wildfires would be larger, more lethal to more veg-
etation and soil damage, if any, would be more notable than for
prescribed burning.
Some differences also are apparent between the Taiga of interior
Alaska and that of the Kenai. The Kenai's winters are not usually
so severe nor are such extremely low or high temperatures encount-
ered as in the interior. Also, permafrost is not known on the
Kenai as it is in the interior.
Little could be gained by describing in different words what
Viereck, an experienced plant ecologist, has already written and
summarized so well. Therefore he will be cited frequently in the
following passages on environmental impacts.
Favorable Impacts
Natural Environment
Vegetation Whether prescribed burning will favorably or adversely
impact vegetation largely is a matter of personal point of view,
philosophy, and goals. Burning will adversely impact the present
stands by largely destroying them above ground, along with whatever
present social or aesthetic values they now possess. However, the
resulting generation of vegetation will be favorably impacted. Is
it a favorable impact that one generation (of whatever organism)
dies so that another might have space in which to live and grow?
If the goal is to eliminate overstory vegetation to favor younger
growth (as in the proposal) then the impact of burning on the
vegetation (and moose in this case) is favorable, Viereck des-
cribes the ecological effects of fires on vegetation:
1. Dry sites. On dry sites such as southfacing slopes or
coarse river alluvium, the usual forest vegetation is white
spruce, paper birch, aspen, balsam poplar, or some combination
of these species. Depending upon the severity of the fire,
the usual succession is reinvasion by light seeded species
such as Epilobium and willow shrubs, especially Salix sc6uleriana
and ~ bebbiana, and an almost immediate replacement by tree
~yecies. Both aspen and birch will regenerate from the orig-
inal trees by sprouting or root suckers. The herbaceous or
shrub stages last only until they are overtopped by the tree
species. If a seed source is available, white spruce will
also invade within a year or two of the fire, as is evidenced
by many even-aged spruce stands. However, in most extensive
fires seed is not available; also, white spruce may produce
abundant seeds only once in 12rAspen and birch stands dominate
46
most of the south-facing uplands in the interior of Alaska.
Aspen occurs on the driest, warmest sites. These are gen-
erally south-southwest facing slopes (Lutz and Caporaso, 1958;
Gregory and Haack, 1965). Balsam poplar and black cottonwood
also occur on these sites, but they are primarily found
adjacent to rivers (Hutchison, 1967: Viereck, 1970). The
paper birch type occurs on cool, moist east-and west-facing
slopes (Gregory and Haack, 1965).
Eventually these stands are replaced by black or white spruce,
but the process is usually a slow one. Spruce seed is often
limited, distribution is not great over large areas, and
seedbed conditions are not optimal for spruce regeneration.
Also, Gregory (1966) shows that it is difficult for seedlings
to become established because of the smothering effect of the
birch litter. On south-facing slopes, aspen is gradually
replaced by white spruce-few aspen stands are over 100 yr
old, and these usually have an understory of white spruce.
Paper birch is replaced by either black spruce or white
spruce. Mixed stands of birch and spruce of up to 150 yr. of
age are common in the uplands.
Because of the frequency of fire in the uplands, what happens
to the older spruce stands is not entirely known. Older white
spruce stands exist only on the islands of floodplains where
they are protected from fire by the river. Here, 350-year-old
white spruce stands have been found. These river-bottom
spruce stands may persist as a result of flooding that period-
ically eliminates the moss layer, preventing the development
of permafrost (Viereck, 1970). Normally on the floodplain,
the successional sequence is from white spruce to black spruce
and bog as permafrost develops in the spruce stands (Drury,
1956; Viereck, 1970). It has been suggested that, even on the
upland, old white spruce stands may be replaced by black
spruce and bog. Wilde and Krause (1960) have stated "The poor
regeneration of white spruce on these moss-covered soils cast
doubt on the climax nature of this species in the subarctic
environment. A wide opening in the canopy is likely to cause
invasion by Sphagnum~· and black spruce, an association
which would preclude the regeneration of white spruce." This
is in contrast to more southerly areas of the boreal forest,
where it is considered that white spruce would be the pre-
vailing vegetation if it were not for repeated forest fires
(Raup and Denny, 1950, Rowe, 1971).
Occasionally, where black spruce stands have developed on
coarse alluvium or outwash, or on thin rocky soils, a severe
fire may result in the replacement of black spruce stands by
aspen that are established as seedlings or by root suckers.
Often in these stands, black spruce may reseed at the same
47
time as aspen, but because of the rapid growth of aspen and
the slow growth of black spruce, these stands develop into
dense aspen stands with a low understory of black spruce.
Thus, black spruce may occur on these temporarily dry sites,
but with the development of the black spruce and moss and an
impervious frozen layer, these sites will revert to more mesic
conditions.
Most of the proposed sites are of the Dry Site type described by
Viereck.
2. Wet sites. The forest succession on wet sites, poorly
drained sites, and permafrost sites follows a somewhat dif-
ferent sequence. These sites, occupied primarily by black
spruce stands, muskegs, and bogs are the most widespread in
Alaska and are the most frequently burned.
Because of the semiserotinous cones on the black spruce,
tremendous quantities of spruce seed drop to the ground during
the first and second summer after a fire. These quickly
germinate and the pattern is that of rapid replacement of the
black spruce type by another very dense black spruce stand.
The "wet sites" occur in the proposal only as inclusions with
larger expanses of "dry sites". Therefore detailed discussion is
not necessary.
Viereck continues:
Present Mosaic of Vegetation
The successional sequence described in the above section and
the relative frequency of fires in the last 200 yr have
resulted in a mosaic of vegetation in the interior of Alaska
that is closely related to past fire history. Old fire bound-
aries are apparent when one scans the hillsides or studies
aerial photographs. Nearly all the stands are less then 150
yr old, and most represent earlier stages of fire succession.
Thus, paper birch and aspen cover large areas of the drier
sites in the upland, whereas dense young stands of black
spruce are common in poorly drained upland sites and in the
lowlands. At present, these are no accurate figures as to the
relative percentage of area covered by each of the major types
within the taiga. According to Hutchison (1967), of the 43
million hectares of forest land within the taiga. 79% is of
noncommercial forests, primarily black spruce and open white
spruce stands near tree line. Of the area classified as
commercial, which totals 10.5 million hectares, white spruce
accounts for 57%: paper Birch, 23%: aspen, 11%: and balsam
poplar and cottonwood, 9%.
48
Although the distribution and abundance of these types are
related in some degree to chance following fire, much is owed
to the autecology of the individual species, especially to
their regenerative capabilities and their site requirements.
C. Autecological Relationships
The revegetation of a burn in the Alaskan taiga is related to
two basic sets of variables. First, the site will set limit-
ations on the plant community and thus the potential number of
species available to colonize an area. Second, the success of
the species to colonize an area is dependent upon its reproduc-
tive characteristics.
Reproduction of the tree species and associated shrubs and
herbs is complex owing to the many controlling factors so we
will consider seed and vegetative reproduction separately.
1. Seed reproduction. Obviously, seed supply is of basic
importance. Where environmental conditions do not limit
germination and seedling growth, it is the factor controlling
this type of reproduction. The source can be either seed
dispersed onto the burned seed bed or seed stored in the seed
bed that is not burned nor rendered nonviable by the temper-
ature created by the fire.
In the taiga of Alaska, information exists only for seed
dispersed into the burn. Zasada (1971) summarizes the in-
formation for tree species. The most important aspects of his
paper and the limited information available on other woody
species are summarized below.
(a) Most wildfires occur during the months of June and July.
This includes the time (mid-June) of ripening and dispersal of
aspen and balsam poplar seed, but definitely before ripening
of white spruce seed, and well before the occurrence of sign-
ificant amounts of paper birch seed. Thus, immediately after
a fire, a seed source for aspen and balsam poplar may exist on
both living and dead trees within the burn and on trees in
adjacent, unburned stands. White spruce and paper birch seed
must come from living trees within the burn or stands adjacent
to the burn. It is not likely that seeds in cones or catkins
would mature after death of the parent tree by fire. Fires
also occur prior to black spruce seed maturation. However,
because of the semiserotinous cones of black spruce, there is
always some seed available after the burn except in a few
cases, where the burn is hot enough to destroy the cone and
its seed. In central Alaska, in one heavily burned black
49
I'~
spruce stand with a density of 909 dead trees per hectare,
based on the seed remaining in 16 trees, it was estimated that
the residual seed numbered 8,200,000 per hectare. Germination
of this seed for each tree ranged from 8.3 to 7.5% with an
average of 41% for 6400 seed, which mean that there were
approximately 3,400,000 viable seeds per hectare left on the
trees following a heavy burn.
(b) The periodicity and quantity of seed crops vary signif-
icantly between hardwood and coniferous species. Birch, which
depends heavily on seed as a means of reproduction (Gregory
and Haack, 1965), produces vast quantities of viable seed at
least once every 4 yr (Zasada and Gregory, 1972). Although no
information is available for aspen and balsam poplar, the
quantity and periodicity of seed crops appear similar to
birch. The interval between good white spruce seed crops
appears to be 10-12 yr. and the quantity of seed produced in
these good seed years is 10-20% of that produced by birch
(Zasada and Viereck, 1970). Periodicity of seed crops in
black spruce is less important than in other species because
some seed is always available in the semiserotinous cones:
however, intervals between good crops are probably roughly the
same as for white spruce. At present, no data exist on seed
production in black spruce in Alaska.
Another factor to be considered in relation to fire and peri-
odicity of seed crop in white spruce is that of a correlation
between bad fire years and increased seed crop the following
year. Zasada and Gregory (1969) show that one factor of im-
portance in initiation of flower buds in white spruce is a
warm, dry period in June and the first half of July. These
same conditions also create high fire danger potential. For
the brief period of record (1957-1971) of seed production,
1958 and 1970 were the best seed years, whereas 1957 and 1969
were the most destructive fire years. A similar correlation
has been noted for Pinus sylvestris by Uggla (1958), who
stated "There exists a tendency toward a coincidence of hot
summers, good seed years, and years with many forest fires." . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(c) Tree seed dispersal in the taiga is accomplished pri-
marily by wind; unknown and perhaps significant quantities are
dispersed over snow and by water, mammals, and birds. Aspen
and balsam poplar are dispersed the greatest distance, follow-
ed by paper birch, white spruce, and black spruce. The rela-
tionship of the number of seeds reaching a given location in a
disturbed area and the quantity of seed produced is important
and has been considered in detail for birch by Bjorkbom (1971).
50
Thus, the size and shape of the fire may be important factors
in determining the invading tree species. Small burned areas
could be colonized by white spruce dispersed from trees around
the edge of the fire, whereas invasion of white spruce into
large burned areas is an extremely slow process unless pockets
of unburned white spruce remain within the burned areas. In
a study in the Caribou-Poker Creeks Research Watershed near
Fairbanks, Quirk and Sykes (1971) suggest that stringers of
mature white spruce are less susceptible to fire than the
surrounding successional stands and thus may remain as a seed
source when the surrounding stands stands are burned. Effect-
ive dispersal distance for white spruce has been determined to
be approximately two tree heights (45-60 m). Extensive fire
areas are easily recolonized by black spruce from residual
seed, and by aspen, balsam poplar, and birch from long-dis-
tance transport of seed and from vegetative reproduction.
Although Rowe (1971) considers white spruce in Alaska to be a
fire-adapted tree, it seems to have no reproductive behavior
that is adapted to invasion of large burned areas.
Excluding the largest, the proposal sites average about 100 acres.
This larger size should favor hardwoods (long range seeders) over
spruce (short range seeders).
The above discussion considers only tree seed. No information
is available concerning seed production, survival, dispersal,
and mobility for shrub and herbaceous species.
Salix is one of the most important groups of shrubs to invade
burned areas. Some Salix species, such as Salix alaxensis and
~ scouleriana, produce ripe seed as early as the end of May,
wheras others, such as §alix glauca, disperse ripe seed from
late July until the end of August. Salix seed, as with aspen
and balsam poplar, are viable only for a few weeks (USDA
Forest Service, 1948). Therefore, the time of burn may be
important in determining which species of willow will colonize
the burn the first year.
In the proposal the favored willow species will be thus determined
by the date of the burn, and timing of a species seed release.
Such dates cannot be determined exactly before hand in planning for
a given prescribed burn site.
The second possible source of seed for regeneration following
fire is organic matter and soil; longevity of seed stored
there and whether or not it is rendered nonviable by the
temperatures generated by the fire will determine the avail-
ability of this seed. There seem to be two general categories
of seed.
51
I
Tree, tall shrub (alder, willow), and certain small shrub
(e.g., Vaccinium ~seeds occupy one category. The long-
evity of these seeds is generally short under natural con-
ditions, lasting from a few weeks (willow) to probably no more
than several years (white spruce). In addition, the physical
characteristics of these seeds, e.g., thin, soft seed coats
and little or no endosperm, seem to provide very little
protection to the embryo from high temperatures.
In contrast, the second general category of seeds has re-
latively thick, hard seed coats and more endosperm surrounding
the embryo than short-lived seeds. The longevity of long-
lived seeds is not known, but the thick seed coat suggests an
impervious nature and perhaps longer period of viability under
na~ural conditions. Although no data are available for Alaska
for the effect of fire on seed germination, seeds from else-
wn.re with similar characteristics are known to be fire-
resistant and, in some species, their germination is stim-
ulated by fire (Cushwa et al., 1968) Among others, genera
included are Viburnum, Rosa, Cornus, Geocaulon, Corydalis, and
ShepherdJa~ In one burn studied in Alaska, Corydalis
sempervirens seed germinated within a few weeks after a burn,
apparently from residual seed in the burned organic layers.
The environmental factors that regulate temperature and
moisture and affect seed germination and seedling establish-
ment are the next important aspect of seed reproduction.
Mineral soil appears to be the most suitable seed bed for
germination of all species of Alaska taiga trees and most of
the shrubs. Organic seed beds can provide excellent condit-
ions if they remain wet throughout the critical period;
however, this probably rarely occurs on most burned sites in
Alaska. When seed beds are dry, temperatures as high as 70°C
have been recorded at the surface of the unburned moss-organic
matter on south slopes. The maximum thickness of organic seed
beds that can be tolerated is determined in part by the
ability of the radicle to penetrate to a more stable moisture
supply such as exists in the mineral soil; general obser-
vations show that thicknesses greater than 5-8 em will prevent
rapid establishment of white spruce and most likely all tree
species.
Lutz (1956) observed considerable variation in seed bed con-
ditions in burned areas. He reports that an average of 35% of
burned areas contains exposed mineral soil. However, the
variation is extreme (0-100%) and would appear to indicate
that each burn must be considered as a separate case. With
regard to seed-bed conditions, it is probably more realistic
to consider the organic matter thickness in the unburned
stands. In mature hardwood stands, organic-matter thickness
averages 7-10 em. In white spruce stands, moss-organic matter
52
is generally 20-30 em thick; in black spruce, up to 50 em or
more thick. This, in conjunction with those factors that
affect drying of these layers, helps to explain the variation
in the amount of mineral soil exposed and observed by Lutz.
They also complicate the patterns of revegetation within each
burn.
Considering the general abundance of moisture in the growing
season on the Kenai, and the fact that exposed mineral soils favor
most of the trees and shrub species, hot fires will generally be
favored in the burn prescriptions to assure mineral soil exposure
and overstory kill.
2. Vegetative reproduction. Vegetative reproduction is
important for the following reasons:
(a) The great variability in destruction of the organic layers
sets limitations on reproduction by seed.
(b) Reproductive material with an established root system and
available supply of stored food is immediately available and
not dependent on dispersal into the burned area.
(c) There is a low success ratio of sexual reproduction by
some species coupled with an ability to reproduce vegeta-
tively. Aspen stands are mostly the result of vegetative
reproduction (Gregory and Haack, 1965). Balsam poplar and
black cottonwood are known to reproduce vegetatively; however,
the importance in stand formation is not known! Birch also
reproduces by stump shoots but although stands with several
stems originating from old stumps are not uncommon, most trees
appear to be of seed origin. Vegetative reproduction fol-
lowing fire is of little importance to the spruces. Most of
the shrub and herbaceous species sprout or sucker vigorously
following fire. On a 1971 fire at Wickersham Dome in interior
Alaska, revegetation is being studied in detail by the In-
stitute of Northern Forestry. Populus tremuloides, Betula
papyrifera, Salix scouleriana, and Alnus crispa were observed
to produce shoots to 40 em long the same summer as the fire,
and there were numerous smaller sprouts of Ledum groenlandicum,
Rosa acicularis, and Vaccinium uliginosum.
The occurrence of the propagating plant parts within the
organic matter-soil system is important in vegetative re-
production. This, as with organic matter, varies between
sites and with species. In the aspen stands, most of the
propagating roots occur within 5-15 em of the soil surface.
In white and black spruce forest, the roots and rhizomes of
many of the shrub and herbaceous species occur within 2-5 em
of the interface between mineral soil and organic matter.
53
Thus, the intensity and depth of burn may encourage sprouting
and suckering under some conditions and prohibit them under
others.
Soils -Viereck continues:
III. EFFECTS ON SOIL
Soil Nutrients
Lutz (1956) summarizes the data on the effects of fire on soil
nutrients in Alaska. Although, as stated in Ahlgren and
Ahlgren (1960), there is considerable variation in the effects
of fire on soil properties as related to various aspects of
the site conditions and original soil properties, some gen-
eralities may be made which seem to hold true for Alaska and
other northern countries. Both Lutz in Alaska and Scatter
(197la) in northern Canada find an increase in nitrogen,
exchangeable calcium, and to a lesser degree, potassium and
phosphorus in the surface soil layers following fire. Coupled
with this is a decrease in acidity. Lotspeich et al. (1970)
find no significant trends in soil nutrients 1 year after a
fire in black spruce stands in eastern Alaska but note a
slight decrease in total cation exchange and an increase in
potassium.
Lutz (1956) explains the increase in available nutrients as
resulting from their release from the burned portions of the
organic layer as well as from increased nitrification by soi.l
organisms and increased abundance of plants with nitrogen-
fixing organisms following fire.' Van Cleve (1971), on the
other hand, estimates that with a uniform burn consuming the
nitrogen in the 0-5 em layer of the forest floor, 778 kg/ha
and 2026 kg/ha of nitrogen would be lost from a 70-and 170-
yr-old spruce forest, respectively. This loss would represent
a potential supply of N rather than an actual supply of avail-
able N at the time of the fire.
However, Heilman (1966, 1968) shows that much of the soil
nitrogen, potassium, and calcium is tied up in lower organic
layers, which in permafrost soils remain frozen the year
around and is thus unavailable to plants. In the five stages
of succession from a birch-alder stand to a sphagnum-black
spruce stands, he finds that the foliar levels of nitrogen
decrease with age of the successional stand and that P and K
actually are deficient as the nutrients become unavailable in
the frozen or cold organic layers. He concludes that the
54
removal of low-density and low-nitrogen-containing layers of
moss by fire and the deeper thawing of the underlying soil
result in a concentration of available nutrients in the
warmest portion of the soil profile. They also help to
explain the large improvement in productivity and available
nitrogen following the burning of the sphagnum-black spruce
type in Alaska.
Whatever the actual cause, there does seem to be a release of
nutrients and a fertilizing effect of fire on the organic
soils in Alaska. Lutz (1956) notes that seedlings which
become established immediately after fire may grow faster than
seedlings of the same age in nursery beds. No data exist for
the amount of time that this effect persists under Alaskan
conditions. However, in Sweden Uggla (1967) finds that the
growth of seedlings on an area of raw humus that had been
burned was better than growth on an unburned area for only the
first 9 yr following the fire. After 21 yr, tree growth on
the unburned area was 65% greater than on the burned area. In
Alaska, Heilman (1966) shows that in the later stages of
succession of the black spruce type the nutrients once again
become limiting to tree growth.
Rallston and Hatchell (1971) made an extensive literature review on
soil effects of prescribed burning (versus wildfire). They cited
41 pieces of literature, concluding:
It should be recognized by now that drastic changes in soil
physical properties and removal of forest floor materials
sufficient to cause significant increase in erosion rates can
only be expected from severe fires or on sites where partic-
ular combinations of soil, topography, and rainfall confer
high risk of damage. If recommended conditions for prescribed
burning are observed, the danger of causing soil damage is
negligible. Probably the most cogent summary of our topic is
given by Davis (12) who notes:
There is a tendency to overemphasize the unfavorable
effects of fire on mineral soil by stressing extreme
situations in frequency and intensity of burning. There
should be no minimizing of the destructive and undesir-
able results of wildfires, and this applies both to
occasional severe fires and to the cumulative deter-
iorating effect of frequent moderate fires. But it must
also be recognized, and this is a point of large prac-
tical importance, that many fires have little total soil
effect one way or another and some are beneficial. This
fact permits a fairly wide range of choice in management
without risking significant soil damage.
There seems little reason to question this viewpoint at this
time.
55
I
!
l
l
t
!
I
'
No surface vehicles will be used off of roads on the ground for
burn site or handline preparation. Handline will usually be limit-
ed to narrow mineral soil exposures of 1-4 feet and occasionally to
1/2 mile length but usually much less. We do not believe that
these will have significant impacts. The proposal's impacts on
soils will be neutral to favorable in general due to the fertil-
izing effects.
Water Again Viereck (1973) makes a good description of the impacts:
Little information is available on the effects of fire on
hydrologic relations in Alaska. Lotspeich et sl. (1970)
studied changes in stream nutrients and fauna in and adjacent
to a 100,000-hectare fire in eastern Alaska. They find an
increase in the chemical oxygen demand and potassium concen-
tration in streams of the burned area, compared waith those in
the unburned area, but they find no change in the benthic
fauna of the streams that could be attributed to the effects
of the fire.
Increased erosion and water runoff as a result of fire seem to
be at a minumum in northern areas in contrast to temperate
regions, where fire nearly always results in increased runoff
and flashy stream flow (Ahlgren and Ahlgren, 1960). Both Lutz
(1956) and Scatter (197la) point out that the low intensity of
summer rainfall, the long periods when the soil is frozen, the
high water-holding capacity of the organic layers, and the
rapid revegetation of the partially burned organic soils
result in very little surface erosion of the burned sites.
The areas burned will accumulate more snow (and consequently water)
so that in spring break-up greater amounts of water will be re-
leased into watersheds and streams. This impact will not sign-
ificantly affect those systems due to the small acreages involved
compared to the total watershed acreages.
The proposal's impacts on water will be neutral to favorable in
general as a result of some possible nutrient release into present-
ly quite sterile water systems.
Wildlife -Moose -The discussion of the rationale for the proposal
in the DESCRIPTION adequately showed that the impacts will be ex-
tremely favorable on moose. Figures 20 and 21 shows the range
acreage improvement and condition changes and calculated response
of the proposal area's moose population to the prescribed burning.
56
The benefits to moose populations were calculated by comparing two
situations for the proposal area. The "present" situation was that
of the present with low calf:cow ratios of about 20:100 and high
mortality of calves of about 20% per year. The second was the
"improved" situation created by prescribed burning with calf:cow
ratios improving to 40:100 and calf mortality falling to 10%. More
than a dozen assumptions had to be made before the population
response models could be calculated. The benefit of the proposal
was then obtained by subtracting the "present" from the "improved"
situation. However, simplified benefits for a given 25 year life
on each prescribed burn treatment are as follows:
Total additional calves produced (born) -5500
Total additional calves surviving to yearling -4800
Living moose at year 25 for all treatments combined (recog-
nizing the staggered burn schedule) -2200
Bull harvest that could be taken in bulls only seasons,
yearlings thru 6 yr olds -2200 (harvest occurs annually for
each of 25 years)
The increased capacities used were calculated based on the results
of fire effects on the Kenai National Moose Range herd reported by
Spencer and Hakala (1964). There the calf:cow ratio increased from
20 to 50 per hundred cows and November and January composition
counts increased dramatically during the decade following the 1947
Burn. The same is expected with the proposal. The figures were
calculated on the assumption that delays in the Program, lack of
adequate finances, weather or other circumstance would not greatly
upset the schedule. The capacity is calculated based on the ave-
rage expected vegetative response. Some sites may not respond as
well as expected and others may far exceed expectations. For
example, Quartz Creek and Resurrection Creek among others are
expected to provide much higher moose population response per acre
treated than Ptarmigan Lake or Trail Creek.
Viereck (1973) summarized the impacts on most other major species
or wildlife groups:
C. Sheep and Goats (Ovis, Oreamnos)
Leopold and Darling (1953b) conclude that sheep and goats
primarily associated with climax vegetation of the alpine type
rather than with tundra-taiga types and that fire, because of
its infrequent occurence in this type, has little influence on
the habitats of sheep or goats in Alaska. Hjeljord's (1971)
investigation of the feeding ecology and habitat preference of
the mountain goat in southeastern Alaska and Gross' (1963)
study of sheep range on Victoria Mountain and Mount Schwatha
in Alberta does not mention the influence of fire on the
habitats of these species.
57
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
........
Ill 15 "0
1: ca
Ill 14 ::l
0 ..c
.j..J 13 .........
"0
QJ 12 1: .....
::l
j:Q 11
Ill
QJ
..... 10 C) <
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Changes=
Figure 20 -Moose Range improved by annual increments
and subsequent habitat condition changes
2432
2508
2570
2394
2719
early
improvement
growth
3074
2143
2376
year
II=
or
yr. re-burn
2002
peak range production years
2(l07
Figure 21 -Calculated Number of Cows, Calves and Bulls After
Prescribed Burning
100
90 For a given 1000 acres burned
80
Q)
"5 70
0:
1::
<1'1 :::> <1'1
Q)
60
Q) I..
~ ~50
0 :ro
0
~ ~ 40
0 z 30
20
10
at year 0:
... __ .... ----
/
/
,./
/
/
/
. .. ...... --------:' ~--:-;-.-;-. -:-....... . ....
5 10 15 20
Year Post-Burn
/
/
/
/
I
I
Cows
1 Ca 1 ves
•• Bulls,
• • • • 1-6 yr. old
25
On plant succession and wildlife management, Cowan (1951)
comments that some sheep ranges and populations in the
Canadian Rockies are being reduced by the advance of the
forest in areas where fire control is effective. Geist (1971)
feels that sheep habitats are being displaced gradually by
other plant communities in response to climatic changes and
that the stable climax grass communities that comprise major
sheep habitats do not vanish within a few decades as do the
burned habitats of moose. He notes exceptions where fire
results in some grasslands occupied by sheep.
Edwards (1954) states that fire improved sheep ranges by
converting the undesirable coniferous forest into productive
grasslands on which sheep in the Canadian Rockies depend for
forage. Sheep population in these areas tripled between 1916
and 1936, primarily through improved range conditions result-
ing from fire.
In the proposal area there are several sheep or goat winter spring
ranges that could be effected. No prescribed burns are proposed in
these areas. The prescribed burns proposed are down in the bottom
and lower sides of the valleys and in all likelihood will not
affect sheep or goat range.
D. Small Mammals
Hakala et al. (1971) cite an unpublished report by Ellison on
file at the Kenai National Moose Range of a study of small
mammals on the 1969 Swanson River burn. They verify this
report and state "Immediately after the fire, dead voles
(mice) were found in the smoldering ashes. But a year after
the fire, numbers of voles seemed to be nearly equal inside
and outside the burn, although numbers of shrews may have been
fewer in parts of the burn. The insectivorous diet of shrews
might make them more susceptible to habitat disturbance by
fire." Ellison feels that location of traps in the burn
possibly influenced results; however, there were many islands
of unburned habitat throughout the burn.
The heavier lush growth of forbs and shrubs in the burn area we believe
will be a favorable impact on mice and shrews as heavier more nutritious
growth makes more and a better variety of foods and provides cover from
avian and other predators. Deer mice (Peromyscus sp.) or other insec-
tivorous seed eating small mammals may invade the sites within a short
time after the burns (Fala 1975, Tester 1965, and Tevis 1956).
Small mammals can usually escape immediate fire effects by use of
burrows.
60
Viereck continues:
E. Fur Bearers
Hakala (1952), in describing beaver (Castor canadensis)
habitat on Goldstream Creek and Chatanika River, mentions that
where spruce has been burned, poplars and birches are abund-
ant. Murray (1961) studying beaver ecology in the upper
Tanana River, comments that when fire makes actual contact
with a beaver colony "damage may be immediate and absolute."
The immediate effect of fire is destruction of their food
supply; but on a long-term basis, fire renews the aspen-
cottonwood forest. He also observes that when pure spruce
stands burn, new growth of aspen and cottonwood increase the
abundance and availability of beaver food.
Patrie and Webb (1953) feel that the high beaver populations
of many areas in the northern forest are a direct result of
extensive clearcutting and widespread forest fires. They do
state, however, that "modern fire control and intensive forest
management practices are generally reducing the area of suit-
able beaver habitat, because the beaver is adapted to the
early stages of forest succession, especially postfire types,
which include aspen and willow."
Koontz (1968), in studying small game and fur bearers of the
proposed Rampart Dam impoundment area on the Yukon River in
Alaska, concludes that the effects of fire on wildlife populations
are not clearly understood but that many people believe that
uncontrolled fire and certainly repeated fires are not bene-
ficial to some species of wildlife. He thinks that fires
repeated at "long intervals" may be beneficial to most species
of wildlife by creating edge and causing reversion of veg-
etation into several successive stages.
Murray (1961) states that fires in the past were set by
Indians in interior Alaska to drive muskrats from their dens,
but that this practice has been successfully discouraged.
F. Black Bear (Ursus americanus)
Hatler (1972), in his study of food habits of black bear in
Alaska, states that many older burns produced excellent crops
of blueberries, which comprises 49% of the fall diet of black
bear in his study.
61
The proposal we believe will favor black bears by providing ex-
cellent berry crops, edge, and other usable vegetation not found in
more mature forest types.
G. Snowshoe Hare (Lepus americanus)
Grange (1965) feels that the chance for great abundance of
hares in northern coniferous forest is limited to very early
successional forest stages not long after fire. He states
that 9% of the total forested area was burned in Alaska during
an 11-yr period (1940-1950) and that, because of slower suc-
cession, fire effects may persist for decades. Generally,
Grange feels that the relation of fire to habitat succession
and fluctuations in snowshoe hare population should be studied
more thoroughly before the influence of fire is dismissed.
During a peak of the hare population (estimate of 150 hares/
square km) near Fairbanks, Alaska, in the fall~inter of 1971-
1972, hares consumed willow sprouts that resulted from a fire
during late June of 1971. They also consumed charred black
spruce and aspen bark.
Birds -The greater varity of habitats and more deciduous flora
created by the burn openings will probably provide for a greater
diversity of birds (Conner and Adkinson 1975). Worldwide, de-
ciduous forest generally supports a wider variety of birds than
coniferous forests. Generally the mature forest species such as
cavity nesters will not be favored but the species using early
successional stage or low shrubby areas will be. Since the pro-
posal will only affect about 9% of the area's forest, the impact to
mature forest bird forms will not be significant.
Increased insect populations in the burn areas should favor more
small birds and their predators than the shaded relatively sterile
coniferous or overgrown forest types presently on the sites.
Fish -The waters of the proposal area are generally cool, low in
nutrient content, have high gradients and are only moderately pro-
ductive. The proposals impacts will be neutral in general and
favorable at best on fish and fish habitat. As pointed out earlier
some increased oxygen demand occurs in waters of watersheds with
very large wildfires. However, oxygen levels are not limiting in
the area's streams. The sites are relatively small, and they will
be done over a 10 year period instead of simultaneously (as with a
wildfire). Siltation will be negligible as stated earlier and will
not affect fish.
62
Recreation -All forms of recreation will be enhanced by the
presence of more moose that people can use and enjoy for whatever
purpose. Hikers, campers, backpackers, fishermen, hunters, pic-
nickers, nature-watchers, cabin users, horseback riders, snow
mobilers, skiers, motorists, photographers and berrypickers will
usually enjoy seeing more moose. As pointed out by Hakala et al.
(1971) the recreational use of a burned area for hunting will be
greater for years after a fire than before because of increased
moose and snowshoe hare populations. Many more moose will be avail-
able per year over the 25 year life of the burns for consumptive as
well as non-consumptive recreational use.
Fires also create good conditions for edible mushrooms, blueber-
ries, and a variety of wildflowers, with obvious favorable re-
creation values.
Visual Resources -Much of the valuable visual resources in the
Kenai now are largely the result of past wildfires: birch stands,
aspen groves, contrasting colors, and golden leaves in autumn. The
proposal will largely simulate wildfire effects on the visual
resources.
The prescribed burns will treat areas to natural boundaries such as
snowline, treeline, creeks, ponds ridges, meadows, rock chutes, and
areas adjacent to lakeshores as well as roads and utility corrid-
ors. Inside the burns themselves fire will burn in various natural
shapes and fashions: it will creep here and there, burn hot in one
place and cool in another; leave some patches un-touched and others
totally consumed. Live untouched stands or trees will remain in
some areas. This fire behavior will occur because of the natural
variations in topography, fuels, temperatures, humidity etc. This
natural pattern and resulting successional stages of plants will
highly contrast with unburned stands. The increased variety will
add interest and therefore enhance the visual resource.
Short-term impacts (up to 40-60 years), because of numerous snags,
may exert considerable impact in some areas. Long-term impacts
may be beneficial because of the maintenance of variety in the
landscape. It may be impractical to cut snags in many areas.
The burns in the more sensitive visual areas (i.e. E. Fork Cr.,
Canyon Cr., Quartz Cr. , Resurrection Trail etc. have been sched-
uled to allow 2-5 years between burning of adjacent sites. This
will allow more vegetation recovery in adjacent sites and reduce
impacts. However, this will not mitigate to a large degree the
impact of numerous snags resulting from the burns.
Is maintaining visual variety thru burning a favorable or adverse
impact? Largely as a result of anti-wildfire advertizing by pri-
vate and government over the last 40 years the common public at-
titude against fire (any fire, for any use) has been negative.
However, recent trends in public land management show a demand for
63
management (of all resources) in as naturalistic a manner as pos-
sible (wooden signs, earth-tone paints, natural shaped clearcut
logging etc.). Using fire (a natural force) will comply with the
present trend of naturalistic management.
Meskimen (1971) outlined four simple concepts for use of prescribed
burning in forest landscapes create variety by arranging vegetation
types so their edges form naturalistic patterns. In short he
directed that land managers use "nature faking". He continues:
Plus scenery usually has the quality of variety --contras-
ting landforms or life forms arranged in patterns that impress
us as pretty or at least interesting. Conversely, minus
landscapes lack variety: perhaps not enough different land-
forms or life forms to show contrast; or forms too disordered
:.·. make patterns; or patterns displeasing in shape or size.
Between the extremes of landscapes so empty that no contrast
exists or so cluttered that no patterns emerge, there is an
almost infinite spectrum of desirable variety. This broad
range of variety offers unlimited opportunity to intensively
manage our mutiple resources. And we'll be scenically com-
patible as long as we imitate shapes and sizes from the char-
acteristic landscape. That's nature faking.
Komarek (1973) points out that:
The natural landscapes when first viewed by European visitors
to this country, I suggest, were managed landscapes. The word
"manage" implies control and it is clearly evident that biotic
community development and open space were to a large extent
controlled by lightning-set fires and fires set by the hand of
men on purpose. And these landscapes can be approximated
because it makes no difference if vegetation is burned by a
fire set by a lightning strike, or an aborigine twirling a
fire stick or by a college educated ecologist with a drip
torch, the ecological effects can be simulated.
Wildfire The proposal will reduce wildfire hazards in the area to
some extent by consumption of fuels and making breaks in otherwise
continuous forests fuel types (somewhat like a fuels management
program does.) This Program will not alter the Forest Service
policy of suppression and control of wildfires.
Social and Economic Environment
Recreation and Low Income Populations -The proposal will improve
the quality of life for residents in the Anchorage-Kenai area thru
greater populations of moose for recreational and subsistence use.
Greater expenditures by recreationists (especially hunters) on the
Kenai portion of the National Forest will add income to what is
64
otherwise a low-income population with seasonal incomes. The
significance and magnitude of the added moose related expenditures
in the local economy is not known at this time.
Economic-The cost of the Proposal is estimated to be $245,081 in
1977 dollars. Recreation, aesthetics, meat, viewing and other
values will be the benefits of the proposal. For harvestable
surplus moose meat values alone the benefit is about $1,000,000 or
a benefit:cost ratio of about 4:1. Other values probably contri-
bute as much or more value so the benefit:cost ratio is probably
closer to 10:1.
Adverse Impacts
Natural Environment
Vegetation-As discussed thoroughly under Favorable Impacts,
Vegetation, the above-ground vegetation will be mostly destroyed by
the prescribed burns. For the management objective of producing
good moose foraging habitat the effect is favorable and will not be
further discussed here.
Soils -There will be no significant adverse impacts of the pro-
posal on soils (See Favorable Impacts, Soils)
Water -There will be no significant adverse impacts of the pro-
posal on water temperature, chemistry or sediment loads. (See
Favorable Impacts, Water)
Wildlife -Caribou - A small herd of about 400 caribou is found
year round in the alpine portion of the proposal area. All the
proposed burns are below treeline in spruce hardwood forest so will
not adversely affect their year-round ranges. There is only a
remote chance that a prescribed burn would escape and affect the
Kenai caribou herd range.
Generally there is agreement in the literature that wildfire
eliminates much of the lichen forage in spruce forest for con-
siderable periods (Viereck 1973). However, Lensink (1954) and
Skoog (1968) have shown that caribou in Alaska are not dependent
upon lichen growth in spruce forest and can utilize other available
foods such as sedges to make up for any losses of lichens due to
fire.
Small Mammals -Herbivorous mice such as voles (Microtus sp. or
Cleithrionomys sp.) will probably be reduced in numbers for perhaps
2 years following burning (Fala, 1975)
Red squirrels, which are primarily a more mature forest species
will probably be adversely effected on the burn sites.
65
Furbearers -The proposal will adversely affect fisher and marten
habitat and numbers on the perscribed burn sites as reviewed by
Viereck (1973):
Lensink (1953) and Lensink et al. (1955) found that
Cleithrionomys and Microtus comprise 74% and 68% of the diet
of marten (Martes americana actuosa) during summer and winter
and conclude that marten is found in areas dominated by climax
spruce forest. The burning of climax spruce forest eliminates
fur bearers, such as marten.
Edwards (1954), working in \~ells Gray Park, B.C., concludes
that fire removed marten for decades and found that decline in
caribou restricted the use of forested lowlands by wolverine
and grizzly bear.
During a 3-yr study (1948-1951) in Ontario, DeVos (1951) found
that fisher (Martes pennanti pennanti) and marten (Martes
americana americana) were practically absent from extensive
recently logged or burned areas and that stands of birch and
aspen of fire origin were poor habitats. He states that late
stages of succession produce more favorable habitats for
fisher and marten.
Predators of mice such as weasels, mink and fox may also be
adversely affected on the sites due to possible reduced
herbivorous mouse populations there.
Birds -Mature forest species (i.e. woodpeckers, chickadees)
will be adversely affected by the proposal at least for the
period until the site again develops more mature forest.
The burns will possibly reduce the capacity of the sites to
support spruce grouse (another mature forest species) as
reviewed by Viereck (1973):
Hakala et al. (1971) cite an unpublished report by
Ellison concerning the effect of the 1969 Swanson
River fire on spruce grouse. Ellison found only 18
Broods on one 10.4-sq-km (4-sq-mile) plot in the
burned fraction 1 yr after the fire, compared with
41 on the same area in 1969 before the fire. They
conclude that the fire reduced the carrying capacity
for grouse broods by 56%.
The immediate affect of a prescribed burn in spring will be the
destruction of nests on site. Adults will probably attempt to re-
nest nearby but will probably have reduced success. The preferred
burn period will be midsummer to obtain better vegetation kill.
Thus, nests will be less impacted and young birds will be mobile
enough to avoid the flames.
66
Fish -There will be no significant adverse impacts of the proposal
on fish or their habitat. (See Favorable Impacts, Fisl:!_).
Insects-The following review is taken from Viereck (1973):
EFFECTS ON INSECTS
A number of insect species have been observed to be prevalent
in fire-damaged trees, especially spruce. Buprestids and
cerambycids are commonly seen in large numbers within a fire
area, possibly attracted to the smoke and heat (Evans, 1971)
or by some olfactory response to volatile materials. Scoly-
tids attack the damaged trees and the fallen logs that have
adequate phloem for brood production.
The wood borers rapidly degrade the logs, making salvage for
lumber impractical. They play a major role in breaking down
damaged material. Bark beetles are of more importance on the
fringe of the fire, in "islands" of slightly scorched trees
within the fire perimeter, or in the residual stand.
Dendroctonus sp., J~ spp., and Trypodendron spp. have all
been found in damaged trees adjacent to burns. The first two
genera have the potential to increase their population in the
burned material and spread to the live trees outside the burn.
Trypodendron bores directly into the wood, causing a "shot
hole" appearance. The holes and staining that follow degrade
the wood. If the climatic conditions are favorable, the
populations of Trypodendron in adjacent unburned stands may
cause as much or more damage than the original fire.
Another aspect of fire-insect relationship is that the changes
in the composition or age of the forest stands after fire are
accompanied by changes in the insect fauna. Where spruce may
not have presented an entomological problem, destructive
defoliators, such as the large aspen tortrix (Choristoneura
conflictana), may become widespread in the hardwoods (Beck-
with, 1968). Often The conversion of a large area to seedlings
produces a potential insect problem that does not exist prior
to the fire. . ..... .
Any adverse impacts from insects will generally not have any impact
on the commercial forest lands because they are mostly in the
coastal ecological zones and most of the proposal is in the in-
terior ecological zone. (See Figure 18). Baker (1974) relates
bark beetle outbreaks to the presence of many old white spruce and
their debris in Alaska forests. Thus burning could also tend to
reduce insect hazards. We are not aware of any insect problems
following fires in the area in the past so this potential adverse
impact will probably not occur in any significant magnitude.
67
Recreation and Visual Resources -Recently burned and blackened
areas are considered unattractive by many people. The dead snags
still standing, brown needles or scorched trees, and a blackened
forest floor are the immediate after effects of any burn. Charred
trees will stand for years before deteriorating.
The burns in the more sensitive visual areas have been scheduled
to allow 2-5 years between burning of adjacent sites. This will
allow some vegetation recovery in adjacent sites and help to
reduce impact. However, this will not reduce the impact of snags
on those adjacent sites.
Advertising has emphasized the early stage of the post fire scene
.... ashes, blackened trees etc. In the first growing season within
a few weeks a fresh new growth of forbs, tree and shrub sprouts,
wildflowers, and grasses begin emerging from and covering the
ashes. There is frequent~y an almost parklike appearance to the
burn except for the dead spires still standing. Within a few years
the areas are being revegetated with new shrubs and young trees.
Fireweed is a common component of post-fire vegetation. The added
colors, contrasts, and diversity in the forest vegetation enhance
recreation experiences and will at least partly offset any long
term negative impacts of dead tree tops showing. Generally the
adverse impacts to recreation and visual resources have already
been avoided thru the coordination with and avoidance of high use
sites in the development of the proposal. (See Section I DES-
CRIPTION, Development of the Proposal). The burns in the more
sensitive visual areas have been scheduled to allow 2-5 years
between burning of adjacent sites. This will allow for more
vegetation recovery in adjacent sites and reduce impacts. Burning
creates negative and positive impacts that may or may not offset
one another.
Table 7 summarizes the proposal sites adjacent to transportation
systems (highways, roads, trails, major lakes).
68
Table 7 Proposed prescribed burn sites adjacent to travel or tran-
sportation systems.
Miles of System Affected
Area Paved Highway
Canyon Cr. 4
Chickaloon R.
Cooper Kenai L.
E. Fork Cr.
Grant Lake
Juneau Cr.
Kenai R. 1
Ptarmigan L.
Quartz Cr. 7
Resurrection Cr.
Six Mile Cr.
Trail R.
Trail Cr.
Affected Totals -12
Proposal Area Totals -107
Affected Total ~
Proposal Area Totals -11%
Gravel Road
0.5
4
6
7
17.5
81
22%
Improved
Trail
3
6.5
1.5
11
105
10%
Major Lake
or River
3
8
3.5
1.5
1
0.3
1.3
0. 7
19.3
125
15%
The areas with the most potential for adversely impacting recreation and
visual resource due to present public use, accessibility, visibility of
sites, and topography are: Cooper-Kenai Lakes, E. Fork Creek, Juneau
Creek, and Quartz Creek.
Four recreation cabins will be affected by prescribed burns in their
vicinity at Swan Lake, Juneau Lake, and Trout Lake. The discussion that
follows is based upon the view that the burns will adversely impact
these cabins' visual attractions.
69
Juneau Creek site 2 (See Figure 9) will be on gentle slopes behind
the Trout Lake Cabin. It will probably be largely screened from
view by vegetation in the foreground between it and the cabin.
Site 2 will also be in view about 500 yards across Juneau Lake from
the Juneau Lake and Romig cabins. Its impact has been or will be
lessened by the mitigation measures outlined below. One major
mitigation measure already taken was to avoid planning a burn in
the excellent potential moose range north, south, and east of the
Juneau Lake Cabin. The loss of this range to natural succession is
a major wildlife habitat tradeoff impact of having put the cabin
here in the past. The land provided for developed recreation
cabins, campgrounds and other such sites all over the Kenai has
been mostly at the expense of key moose winter range. These have
been acceptable tradeoffs in the multiple-use context. Therefore,
it seems now that any tradeoffs in recreational values of these
four cabins may be a matter of tradeoffs by one resource or use for
the benefit of another in the National Forest multiple-use environ-
ment.
Specific mitigation measures that have already taken place thru
planning and coordination or will be taken during or after the
burns are:
1. Layout of burn sites away from transportation systems, camp-
grounds, cabins, summer homes, and other high public use areas.
2. Leaving buffer zones of brush or timber between high public use
areas and burn sites, where possible, and when negative impacts
would otherwise occur.
3. Felling of unsightly snags close to high public use routes and
sites or selected areas within burns after the burns are finished.
4. Avoidance of burn site layout on points of special visual
attention near common transportation routes such as islands,
wildlife rearing areas, lake shores etc.
5. Controlling ignition thru the Prescribed Burn Plan to be
written for each site so that vegetation and visual values to
transportation systems is affected the least amount possible.
6. Because of the great variety of characteristics, patterns,
kills etc. That will result from each individual prescribed burn,
some mitigation needs will not be apparent until after the burn is
completed.
7. Burns immediately adjacent to trails and paved highways will be
minimized in number on an annual basis where possible using the
following as guidelines:
4/yr. on paved highways, 2/yr. on maintained system trails.
This will reduce annual impacts to visual resources.
70
8. State troopers will be
involving traffic control.
provide information on the
stoppages.
requested to participate in burns
An individual will be designated to
burn to motorists during any traffic
Wildfire -Fire is a very powerful force that will utilize natural
fuels, in this case, inside prescribed boundaries. More fuels that
it could utilize will always be in the vicinity and these could
accidently become ignited, resulting in a wildfire. Hopefully in
all cases the actions required by the Prescribed Burn Plan will
prevent a wildfire, and in nearly all cases it will. Note that· the
Prescribed Burn Plan (Appendix 12) also allows and plans for this
eventuality in the "Suppression Plan If Fire Escapes" section.
The Chugach National Forest's normal wildfire suppression system
will be implemented in the event that a prescribed burn results in
a wildfire.
Air -Smoke management will be an important factor in planning each
burn. Smoke in the air at low altitudes for any significant period
can adversely affect recreation, transportation and residents.
Potential smoke management problems will be derived from weather
forecasts before burns are begun. This will assure no burning in
poor dispersal weather, and as rapid as possible smoke dispersion
when the decision is made to burn. For example, we know that
burning under a neutral or unstable lapse rate will reduce low-
level pollution, that burning following a cold frontal passage is
conducive to good smoke dispersal and that burning when the mixing
layer is greater then 2,000 feet is desirable (Ward and Lamb 1970).
Smoke dispersal will be a less critical consideration in remote un-
populated areas.
An extensive literature review and analysis of the impacts of
prescribed (or controlled) burning on air has been done by Komarek
(1970). His conclusions follow:
An ecological review on air pollution as a whole, and in
particular the relationship of controlled burning to such
possible pollution warrants the following conclusions:
1. In spite of the tremendous amounts of pollutant materials
released into the atmosphere, mankind as yet has not mater-
ially affected air quality on a global basis. This is largely
due to the excellent self-cleansing properties of the atmos-
phere as well as the extremely large volume of the air en-
velope of the earth.
71
2. The air pollution problem, presently, is primarily one of
urban areas and the consequent concentration of pollutants
from combustible engines, industrial processes, and the burn-
ing of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gasoline, etc. ). Over 95
percent of the pollution problem is a city problem; not of
rural areas or of forest and field.
3. Smoke particles from lightning fires have always been a
part of our atmosphere long before man. These particles play
an important part in our atmosphere as condensation nuclei for
rainfall and are a vital part of our atmosphere.
4. There is no evidence that materials resulting from control-
led burning in forestry, agriculture or wildlife management
are hazardous to human health.
5. The problems of such controlled burning are primarily one
of visibility. However, such burning is not a daily activity
and any one acre is only burned one time within any one year,
or even longer intervals. That visibility can be an important
problem is certain but this can be handled by proper manage-
ment, particularly with due regard for meteorological condi-
tions. It is weather that primarily creates such conditions.
6. I find that controlled burning as a source of air pollution
is rarely if anything but a purely local matter. The past
history of fire exclusion abundantly demonstrates that wild-
fires would sweep large areas and, in fact, would produce much
larger problems of air pollution. These wildfires occur under
the worst possible conditions and only come under control when
weather patterns or fuel conditions change.
7. And in final conclusion I wish to state that there is no
ecological alternative to controlled burning for its many
important uses in wildlife, forest and farm management. These
past ten Fire Ecology Conferences, where over 200 speakers
have presented their studies and their conclusions, cannot be
over-looked. The work of these leading ecologists, foresters,
wildlife managers, and other land managers must be recognized
by the specialists in air pollution or drastic effects on
nature's ecosystems will result.
Timber -Table 8 shows the overlap of proposal burn sites with
commercial forest lands. Note that a very small percent of the
timber base is involved (0.5, 11, and 3% of standard, special, and
marginal components). The 11 million board feet of the marginal
component are all inoperable, The stand codes of the remainder of
the stands shows them all to be immature or pole timber. Con-
sequently none of the stands are mature and available for harvest,
except perhaps some trees in the 45 acres of standard component on
the Hope Road near the mouth of Six Mile Creek. Note that it has
been deferred in the burn schedule until 1980 to allow for possible
house log cutting or other utilization of the wood values.
72
overlap with inventoried commercial forest lands timber resource.
Burn Area Site Overlap Est. Compartment Stand Mgt sec Acres Total Vol.
Acres Over-No. No. Restr. mm BF
lap
Vol.
mm BF
Standard Component:
Six Mile Cr. 1 45 0.9 22 5 077 10 45 0.9
10-550
Special Component: 45 acre 0.9 mmBF (0.5% of Kenai standard com anent acres)
Quartz Cr. 21 49 0.2 12 3 634 11 49 0.2
11-650
E. Fork Cr. 16 40 0.2 33 35 683 11 207 1.0
11-650
E. Fork Cr. 14 50 0.2 33 34 683 11 74 0.3
10-650
E. Fork Cr. 12 10 0.2 33 28 683 11 44 0.3 ...... 11-650 w
E. Fork Cr. 1 54 0.3 22 2 681 11 54 0.3
11-650
Six Mile Cr. 13 177 0.9 33 7 610 11 177 0.9
11-650
Resurrection Cr. 21 100 2.2 21 3 610 10 189 2.8
11-650
Resurrection Cr. 26 50
Resurrection Cr. 15 96 0.5 7 3 683 11 96 0.5
11-650
Resurrection Cr. 29 25 0.1 7 1 683 11 25 0.1
11-650
Chickaloon R. 1 20 0.3 4 11 610 10 33 0.5
10-650
Chickaloon R. 1 15 0.1 4 4 610 11 61 ,0. 3
11-650
Chickaloon R. 2 40 0.6 4 2 683 10 112 1.7
10-650
Total 726 ac. 5.7mm BF (11% of Kenai SEecial comEonent acres)
Marginal Component: (All inoperable)
Total 1136 ac. 11 mm BF (3% of Kenai marginal component acres)
Transportation -The influence of the proposal on recreation
associated with transportation systems has already been discussed
as well as the fact that smoke dispersion could partially hamper
some aircraft corridors for short periods.
Another possibility that could be an adverse impact of the proposal
is increased vehicle-moose collisions. This will probably result
from either increased numbers of moose crossing the highways or
increased traffic or both. One possible solution to this problem
would be to make the prescribed burns up to the edge of highways
and roads. Thus, moose range could be improved and the additional
moose would also be much more visible to an approaching vehicle .
. . . . collisions would thus be reduced. Overall then the two
actions 1) more moose produced and 2) greater visibility of moose
approaching the right of way would tend to offset one another.
Screening burn effects from public view will be done where feasible
when the visual impacts are negative, Generally roadside veg-
etation will be preserved except to prevent or reduce vehicle-moose
collisions.
Mitigating measures which will be taken (or requested from the
Alaska Dept. of Highways) are:
1. Posting of signs warning motorists of moose and major crossing
areas or crossings with significant collision hazards.
2. Reduction of speed limits on specified portions of the paved
highways to reduce the collision potential.
3. Clearing of areas adjacent to the right of way by felling and
burning to assure better visibility of moose at crossing areas or
areas with significant collision hazards.
4. Other measures as suggested thru public and agency involvement.
Roadless and Wilderness Character -The roadless character of the
area and sites treated will not be altered by the proposal. No
roads will be built. No ground vehicles will be used off of
existing highways, roads, and trails.
No significant earth moving will occur. Handline construction will
disturb small areas of soil in a linear fashion.
Access will be improved a little by the clearing of handlines to
contain the burns. These, however will be short-lived as the lines
will grow in with shrubs and trees very rapidly.
This area is not a classified wilderness nor is it expected to be
in the forseeable future.
74
After extensive literature review and study Lutz (1960) concluded
that "it is likely that forest fires have occurred on the Kenai
ever since there were forests." The earliest written account of
fire there found by Lutz was in 1851. Therefore, it appears that
the wilderness character of the roadless areas on the Kenai was
shaped to some extent by fire.
Recent, past, and present management requires that all wildfires be
suppressed on the Kenai including the roadless areas. Existing
wildfire suppression is, in fact, then considered to be adverse to
the "Road less and \.Jilderness" character of the area. The major
natural influence of fire has been removed by man.
At present the only option immediately available to re-introduce
fire into the roadless areas with wilderness character is thru pre-
scribed burning such as is proposed in this Program. This Program
will not adversely affect or change the wilderness character of the
roadless areas where some of the burns are proposed.
Prescribed burning may actually enhance wilderness character thru
simulation of natural wilderness conditions.
Historical and Archeological -Appendix 13 lists the known sites on
the National Register of Historic Places (two each) and Alaska
Heritage Resource Survey (12 each). These were obtained by con-
sultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and his
office files in Anchorage, Alaska, with the assistance of Douglas
Reger in May 1977. A copy of the SHPO letter is shown as Appendix
14.
No sites listed are in any of the proposed burn units.
A professional archaeologist with the Alaska Region, U.S. Forest
Service (Gerry Clark) has been consulted by phone, in writing, and
has surveyed sites in the field for any historical/archaeological
significance/relics, remains, etc. An archaeologist is presently
assigned to the Chugach National Forest (John Mattson) and will be
consulted and involved in all burn site planning in the office and
field before any burns are approved or conducted. Ground surveys
of all sites will be conducted by the archaeologist as he sees fit
for each site during the planning phase.
~1ining Claims - A few of the proposed burns will remove vegetation
on non-patented (not private) mining claims. There is no legal re-
quirement that the vegetation be left for mining use. In fact the
Multiple-Use Mining Act of 1955, retains the Forest Service right
to manage vegetation on un-patented claims. This should have no
adverse impact on mining operations.
Utilities -No adverse impacts to utilities (powerlines, pipelines)
are anticipated. Specific measures to be done to assure no inter-
ference with utility services are:
75
1. Clearance of fuels away from utility poles or facilities.
2. Posting of fire fighting crew members, tank trucks or
other control equipment near or accessible to utility struc-
tures as required by the burn situation.
3. Other utility structure protective measures as required.
Social and Economic Environment
There will be no significant adverse impacts on the social and
economic environment.
III SUMMARY OF PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS \iHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED
The proposal will adversely affect the following:
existing vegetation
some herbivorous small mammals
red squirrel habitat
spruce grouse habitat
mature forest bird species habitat
some vegetation adjacent to the burns as a result of insect damage
some recreation and visual resources
wildfire hazard (resulting from the prescribed burns themselves)
air quality locally and temporarily
a limited amount of commercial timber
moose vehicle collision rate
Mitigation measures have been accomplished or outlined for many of
the above to reduce the adverse impacts. These measures have been
outlined in Section I: Development of the Proposal; and Section
II: Adverse Impacts.
All of the above adverse impacts cannot be avoided because they are
the natural consequences of converting over-grown or older forest
types to early successional stages by use of prescribed burning.
IV RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIR0~1ENT
AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The short-term effects of the proposed action on the long term
productivity of resources has largely been discussed already.
Briefly the effect on the long term productivity of various amen-
ities and resources can be described as follows:
76
Resource
timber
soil
water
moose
mature forest birds
early successional birds
fish
recreation
visual resources
wildfire hazard (general)
quality air
access
roadless character
wilderness character
minerals
open space and solitude
diversity
Long Term Effect
none to insignificant conflict
none to insignificant damage
insignificant to increased amount
greatly increased numbers
decreased numbers on site
increased numbers on site
none
enhanced experiences
minor improvement
decreased
none to insignificant decrease
in quality
none to insignificant improvement
none
none to more natural
none
none
increased vegetative and animal
V IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The only irreversible and irretrievable commitment will be the oil,
gasoline, and other fossil related products used in the chainsaws,
trucks, aircraft and other equipment during the life of the Program.
VI ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
No Action
This alternative is the existing management on the proposal area.
The impact of this alternative is what we have today . . . • deter-
iorated, moose ranges and aging, forest land. Very low numbers of
moose are being produced. The potential of the land for producing
moose, a highly desired game animal, food source, and wildlife
attraction, would continue to be lost to forest succession. The
present benefits in water, recreation, fish, wood etc. continue to
be produced under this alternative.
Mechanical Treatments
This alternative has been studied by the Forest Service for years.
Studies done on the Mile 43 project were recently completed. This
project used bulldozer drawn rollers to crush down and break up
more older forest stands to remove the canopy and allow for sprou-
ting and new seedling growth of browse for moose. Some of mech-
anical treatment's advantages are its manageability to make dif-
ferent shapes and sizes, and work near developed sites without fear
of damaging them. Two of the major disadvantages are that it is
77
very expensive and it cannot be used on rugged, remote or non-road
accessed terrain. Large quantities of machinery fuel would be
consumed during the Program. Other disadvantages are that it does
not kill young spruce and they tend to re-establish more quickly
after crushing than after burning. Minerals are not recycled as
thoroughly or quickly as with fire. Birch does not attain nearly
as dense stands as for fire as shown in limited studies (Culbertson
1976). Estimated treatment costs are about $150/acre in 1977
dollars (Culbertson, 1976).
The hydroax is another machine that is capable of removing older
forests by mowing with a large set of high speed blades. Its
advantages and disadvantages are the same as for bulldozers and
rollers. Its costs are about $8,000/month rent on the machine and
$90/day for an operator. On the Kenai proposal area's ranges
(larger tall trees and shrubs) at best, it would cost $100 per
acre.
Chemical Treatments
Herbicide treatments to remove older shrubs and induce better
forage has been studied by the Forest Service in the proposal area
and elsewhere. With 2,4D and 2,4,5T sprays short-term (5 year)
gains in willow browse were realized with no long-term benefit,
while birch and aspen showed neither short nor long-term improve-
ments (Culbertson, 1975). These same results were also found by
Lyon and Mueggler (1968). Since this alternative would not ac-
complish the required results; acreage cost rates are meaningless.
Commercial Sale of Wood Products
Logging or chipping the forest stands and then burning are a
possible alternative. At present however, chipping is not con-
sidered as primary manufacture and Forest Service restrictions
prohibit export of wood products from Alaska that do not meet the
primary manufacture requirements. Most of the proposal sites do
not have large enough trees on them for felling and canting to meet
primary manufacture requirements.
This operation's disadvantages are essentially the same as for any
mechanical treatment. Road access and more gentle terrain would be
required. Burning after removal of the wood products would accomp-
lish mineral recycling and added browse stimulation. In the
multiple-use context this is a better alternative than merely
burning, at least for the gentle terrain. Burning would still be
needed to treat remote or rugged sites. Costs would be those for
administering the sales and planning and executing the burning.
Currently the market for low quality-quantity forest wood products
as are grown in the proposal area is poor.
78
A Differently Designed Proposed Action
Tlte proposed action could be scheduled over a longer period, 20
years for example. This would delay accomplishment and results,
but it would spread any adverse effects out over a longer period
and consequently reduce their intensity.
All the proposal sites near or visible from trails, roads, lakes,
or recreation developments could be eliminated. This would remove
most visual and recreation impact. However, it must be recognized
that the best existing and potential moose ranges are near or in
the same travel-recreation-visual corridors as are used by man.
The range improvement results potential would be so reduced as to
make the proposal ineffectual. Access for the public to use the
moose resource (for hunting, viewing etc.) would. also be much more
difficult and expensive.
General
All of the above are alternatives for killing the dominant non-
browse productive overstory vegetation. However, to accomplish the
required results the minerals must be recycled. To do this in a
timely manner fire must be used. In this aspect then, the only
alternatives are "No Action", or any of the above combined with
fire treatment. In actuality, econonomic considerations eliminate
most alternatives except a "No Action" and a largely fire oriented
alternative, such as is proposed.
VII CONSULTATION WITH APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES AND REVIEW BY STATE
AND LOCAL AGENCIES DEVELOPING AND ENFORCING ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
AS WELL AS CONCERNED PUBLICS.
Professional Agencies and Individuals
Individuals and members of the following have been consulted,
asked for, or provided input and advice on the proposal:
U. S. Dept. of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
U. s. Environmental Protection Agency
U. S. Dept. of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Fish and Wildlife Service
Kenai National Moose Range
79
U. S. Forest Service
Alaska Planning Team
Insitiute of Northern Forestry
Alaska Region 10 Office
Washington Office
Alaska Interagency Hoose Committee
State of Alaska
Dept. of Fish and Game
Dept. of Highways
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Kenai Borough Planning And Zoning Commission
Cook Inlet Air Resource Management District
U. S. Army, 172 D Infantry Bde. (Alaska), Natural Resources
University of Alaska, Dept. of Natural Resources
Many land management specialists on the Chugach National Forest
have been consulted, given advice and guidance, and contributed
materially to the proposal:
Clay Beal -Forester, Forest Supervisor
T. Edward Morris -Fire Management Officer
(prescribed burn plans, fire mgt. technical advice and
guidance, knowledge of prescribed burn costs and estimates)
Fred Harnisch -Forester, Timber Program Mgr.
Norm Howse -Fisheries Biologist, Wildlife & Fish Program Mgr.
Gerald Coghlin -Engineer, Forest Engineer
Gerry Clark -Archaeologist, R-10 U. S. Forest Service, Juneau
Wallace Watts -Forester
Quentin Mack -Forester, Timber Planner
Charles Harnish -Hydrologist
Thomas J. Sheehy -Soil Scientist
Edgar Brannon -Landscape Architect
James Tallerico -Landscape Architect
Sigurd T. Olson -Wildlife Biologist, Alaska Planning Team
Frank Morrell -Forester, I & E Program Manager
James L. Culbertson -Wildlife Biolgist, Chugach
Moose-Fire Mgt. Program development and Environmental Statement
Narrative of Public Involvement Results
Complete transcripts of meetings and public response letters are
on file. For concerns lists, the number of timPs mentioned is once
unless shown in parentheses.
The bulk of the directly communicated (other than by radio and news
media) involvement consisted of answering questions posed by the
members of the public concerned enough to attend meetings or make
contact. This input we interpreted as "neutral" (62%).
80
Several organizations representing interested groups were absent
from all meetings (after direct invitation). These were: Sierra
Club, Nordic Ski Club, Mountaineering Club of Alaska, Alaska
Professional Hunters Association, and the Izaac Walton League.
No letters or other input were received from these organizations.
Interpretation of input "for" or "against" the proposal was based
on the direct statement, general thrust, and/or attitude of the
respondents' input or questions.
Understandably, all wildlife organizations were in favor of the
proposal (i.e., Elmendorf Rod and Gun Club).
Government Agencies Meeting
The following agencies with potential concerns on the proposal
were invited to this meeting held at the Chugach National Forest
Supervisor's Office at 9:00a.m., January 14, 1977:
Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game (did not attend)
Kenai National Moose Range
Bureau of Land Management (Anchorage Office)
National Park Service
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Alaska Division of Lands
Cook Inlet Air Resources Management District
Alaska State Troopers
Federal Aviation Administration
Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Alaska Dept. of Highways
A briefing on the purposes, background, and environmental
considerations, as well as maps and slides, were presented. The
session was opened for questions, answers, concerns, and input.
Most discussion involved questions and answers, and is briefed
below as concerns:
impact of more moose, more hunters
other costs of more moose, more hunters in EIS
spruce grouse habitat loss or gain
* small bird nest destruction (2)
* inability to reach 10 year goals
* too much emphasis on hunter harvest
moose aesthetic values (5)
reduce spruce to get more moose
air space restriction
smoke problems (2)
old forests will burn in future as wildfire
alternatives to fire for moose
timber sales slash burning
81
erosion of soil into salmon streams
* natural fire starting in proposed burn site
impact on Resurrection Trail users
control of alpine fires
caribou habitat
adequate fuel for aerial ignition of sites
long term maintenance of burn sites
Christmas trees
public meetings
* moose-car collisions
* stress habitat improvement, not meat values
* = negative comments on proposal
Private Organizations Meeting
The following organizations were invited to the meeting held at
7:30 p.m. on January 20, 1977, at the Chugach National Forest
Supervisor's Office:
Attended
Alaska Conservation Society
Elmendorf Rod & Gun Club
Society of American
Foresters
Anchorage Sportsmens Club
Alaska Center for the
Environment
Wildlife Society (attended
1/14/77)
Audubon Club (attended
1/14/77)
Did Not Attend
Sierra Club
Nordic Ski Club
Mountaineering Club of Alaska
Alaska Professional Hunters Assn.
Cook Inlet Historical Society
Izaac Walton League
Their concerns were expressed almost entirely as questions, and
are briefed as follows:
burns near trails
cost per acre
timber use
increased calf crops
Kenai National Moose Range Programs (2)
units in Wilderness Areas
* poor weather conditions on Kenai for burns
nutrient cycling
present and future moose populations (4)
* overbrowsing vegetation
caribou habitat
fire control measures in event fire escapes boundaries
burning of large areas, size of burns
moose use of burned areas
* danger to large numbers of moose drawn to burn sites
82
* hunting season changes by ADF&G
past moose harvests
ADF&G fisheries involvement
burn proximity to roads and trails in 1977
EIS requirement
disadvantages of burning
more people visiting burn areas
* moose-car collisions
* = negative comments on proposal
Key Individual or Group Contacts
The Forest Supervisor and Wildlife Biologist described the proposal
and answered questions by phone or in small meetings with the
following:
Who
Cook Inlet Native
Regional Corporation
Lands Section
Alaska Department of
~ish and Game, Juneau
Office, Research,
I & E, Habitat
Chairman, Alaska
Department of Fish
and Game
Chugach Electric
Sierra Club, Knik
Chapter
Elmendorf Rod and
Gun Club
Date
3/09/77
2/02/77
1/28/77
1/28/77
1/25/77
3/02/77
Alaska Department of 4/05/77
Fish and Game, Anchorage
Office, Noontime Seminar
* Kenai Peninsula 6/28/76
Planning Commission
Concerns
very much in favor of program;
size of project and where
post burn plant species; alder
invasion; in favor of proposal
in favor of proposal
wanted notification of burns;
protection of powerlines;
caribou habitat
none
all 72 members in favor of
proposal
area to be improved; salmon
streams protection
moose-car collisions; smoke,
fire hazards
* = negative comments on proposal by 2 of 8 members on Commission
83
Public Meetings
Three public meetings were held. These were preceded by
announcements in local newspapers, radio releases, and posted
notices in public places such as post offices (see below). Most
meeting time was devoted to providing information and answers.
Meeting
Cooper Landing, Alaska
Seward, Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
Concerns expressed were:
Attendance
18
9
15
Time and Date
7:30p.m., 3/29/77
7:30p.m., 3/30/77
7:30p.m., 3/3t/77
old forests will burn in wildfires if not managed
burns are better for moose than old forests (5)
forest litter needs burned off· * some burns proposed could impinge on goat/sheep range
* waste of wood products (3)
smoke
furbearer habitat
* wildfires resulting from proposed burns
burning better than logging
preference for moose over small birds and mammals
* burns unsightly (2)
wolf increases due to more moose
moose range carrying capacity and numbers (3)
burn timing * young animals endangered by fires (3)
moose-car collisions (2)
too much fire control on Kenai
proposal funds may be cut off or limited (2)
caribou habitat
fire use on Kenai National Moose Range
leave areas for moose cover
need to monitor forage production
too small acreage to be burned
historical cabin in danger from fire
control of fires near structures
notification of local people of burn needed
plant species valuable to moose
more hunters leading to more vandalism
public input use in making decision
need more moose
man-caused fires
* = negative responses
84
Summary of Input Results
A. Meetings
1. Open Public Meetings
Seward Cooper Landing Anchorage
For 1 5 6
Against 1 1 3
Neutral 7 13 6
Total
Attendance 9 19 15
2. Interested Agency Meeting
Total attendance 13 (neutral input)
3. Interested Conservation Groups Meeting
Total attendance 5 (neutral input)
B. Reviews of EIS
1. Government and Agency
Favorable 5
Unfavorable 3
Neutral 7
Total 15
C. Letters
1. Private Organization Letters
Favorable 1
Unfavorable 1
Total 2
2. Personal Letters
For 2
Against 3
Total 5
D. Key Individual/Group Contacts
For 2
Against 0
Neutral 5
Total 7
85
Totals ---
12
5
26
43
E. Summary (of all individual input received)
For
Against
Neutral
Total
22*
12
56
90
24%
13%
62%
* does not include Elmendorf Rod and Gun Club vote of
72 members in favor 3/2/77
Adjustments to Proposal Resulting from Public Input
The ideas, criticism, and support that was received had been
predicted. No new significant concerns surfaced.
As a result of the input, the following measures will be taken
in addition to those already outlined:
1. Special consideration will be given to private landowners'
concerns adjacent to burns.
2. Special efforts are being taken to assure use of the tree
and wood resources in the sites before and after burning.
Efforts include advertising free firewood and houselogs,
and administering their utilization by the public.
3. Adjustments will be made on unit boundaries to prevent any
potential damage to wild sheep and goat ranges from burning.
4. Special surveys and consultation with State and Federal
archaeology/history authorities has been and will be con-
tinually conducted to assure protection of historical/
archaeological resources.
Specific Responses to Public Criticism
The following responses will be brief where the answers are already
in the text of the EIS, and no response will be made except as
"Refer to EIS." Input-Appendix number refers to the copy of the
letter making the substantive criticism (shown as an appendix to
this EIS).
Input
Appendix No.
15
Jean Smith
Response
1. The USFS has determined through public
contact that some species (i.e., moose) can
be given priority for management on limited
acreage over other animals in less demand
(i.e., rodents, birds, etc.). Significant
damage to other wildlife habitat will not
occur in our judgement.
86
l
15B
Cook Inlet
Historical Society
16
Jerry Allison
17
Maurice Amundson
18
Kenai Borough
18B
Alice Yarborough
2. Visual damage potential is being handled
by mitigating measures outlined in EIS and
consultation with landscape architects.
3. Wildfires will not replace planned, con-
trolled burns because they frequently are
not in forest types that will result in good
moose forage areas.
4. We do not intend to cancel the proposal
due to public support for moose production
for viewing, photographing, or hunting.
4B. Refer to responses 1 and 4.
5. Refer to EIS. See response 1 above.
6. We are permitting the public to take
trees and firewood for their use instead of
burning them.
7. Developments that must be protected from
wildfires are shown in the EIS.
8. Measures will be taken before any burn to
assure that it does not result in wildfire on
any adjacent lands •. There is, however, always
an element of risk in prescribed burning.
9. Visual resources protection -see
response 2.
10. Management of the smoke created will be
a prime consideration in planning and managing
the burns. Special efforts will be made to
prevent prolonged exposure of people/dwelling
areas to smoke.
11. No minutes were forwarded to us to answer
in this EIS. The EIS establishes the scien-
tific and public support for this program
concept.
llB. Moose priority -see response 1.
87
19
Nelson Eshleman
12. Contour strip cropping would require
mechanical vehicles. On the steep, wet,
rugged terrain of the Kenai mountains,
vehicle use would not only be extremely
difficult, but also detrimental to soils,
water, access, and wilderness character
through the requirement for roads.
13. Moose have not historically and do not
require the use of high capital intensive
domestic crops for forage to survive and
flourish. Refer to EIS contents.
14. Wood use -see response 6.
15. Costs of prescribed burning are much
less than cropping that would require high
capital costs in purchase of machinery and
its maintenance. Cost of machinery far
exceeds burning costs.
16. Fertilizers are very expensive. Their
use in domestic grain (cash crop) production
makes farm profits very slim. Therefore,
their use for a (noncash, amenity) crop such
as moose could hardly be cost effective.
The following letters were both supportive and critical or needed
response:
20
Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game
21
Alaska Dept. of
Fish and Game
22
u.s. Dept. of
the Interior,
Env. Officer
17. In very few, if any, burns do we expect
to have wildfire result wherein the use of
fire retardants would be necessary. We may
use retardants in those few instances as a
last resort to prevent major wildfire outbreak.
18. We would use tracked or wheeled vehicles
in streams for fire suppression only as a
last resort, and primarily for protection of
private property or to prevent loss of life.
We feel this is very unlikely at this time.
19. The boundaries of burn units will· be
adjusted in consultation with ADF&G to assure
that no wild sheep or goat ranges are adversely
affected.
20. Vegetative•moose response to the Kenai
National Moose Range Fires has been docu-
mented well by Spencer and Hakala (1964).
It is not necessary to repeat its results
here.
88
31
Office of the
Governor
21. We are budgeted, staffed, and intend to
conduct monitoring of soils/watershed effects
of the burns for 1978 and thereafter. Based
on existing soils and water knowledge and
literature, we do not expect such problems.
22. We have consulted the appropriate State
historical and archaeological authorities and
have hired an archaeologist to continue the
efforts.
23. Protection of historic/archaeological
sites -refer to response 22 and EIS for
compliance.
24. Erosion and water quality -refer to
response 21.
25. Coordination with State forestry personnel
has been made and will continue with Lawrence A.
Dutton and Paul Maki.
89
Literature Cited
Ahlgren, I. F. and Ahlgren, C. E. 1960. Ecological effects of forest
fires. Botanical Review 26(4)484-533.
Ahlgren, C. E.
burning.
1966. Small mammals and reforestation following prescribed
Journal of Forestry, 64(9):614-618.
Baker, B. H. 1974. "Did Beetles Do That?" Alaska Magazine, July 1974.
p. 48.
Bjorkbom, J. C. 1971. Production and germination of paper birch seed
and its dispersal into a forest opening. U.S. Forest Service Research
Paper, NE-209, 14 pp.
Conner, R. N. and Adkissen, C. S. 1975. Effects of clearcutting and
the diversity of breeding birds. Journal of Forestry.
Cowan, I. M. 1951. Plant succession and wildlife management. Proceedings,
Second Alaskan Science Conference, Alaska Division, American Asso-
ciation for the Advancement of Science, pp. 322-327.
Culbertson, J. L. 1975. Quartz Creek moose habitat improvement project
herbicide treatment phase. Completion Report and Final Results.
Chugach National Forest, 5 p.
Culbertson, J. L. 1976. Mile 43 moose range crushing 10 year analysis
and comparison to the effects of the 1959 Kenai Lake Fire, Progress
Report. Chugach National Forest, 8 pp.
Davis, K. P. 1959. Forest Fire: Control and Use. New York: McGraw Hill
Co., Inc., 584 pp.
Dewitt, J. B. and J. V. Derby. 1955. Changes in nutritive value of
browse plants following forest fires. Journal of Wildlife Management,
19:65-70.
Drury, W. H., Jr. 1956. Bog flats and physiographic processes in the
upper Kuskokwim region, Alaska. Contribution to the Gray Herbarium
178. Harvard University, Cambridge, 130 pp.
Dufresne, F. 1946. Alaska's animals and fishes. A. S. Barnes and Co.,
New York, xvi and 297 pp.
Edwards, 0. T. 1940. Preliminary inspection report on the Kenai River
moose winter range. USDA Forest Service.
Edwards, R. Y. 1954. Fire and the decline of the mountain caribou herd.
Journal of Wildlife Management 18(4):521-526.
Geist, V. 1971. "Mountain Sheep, a Study in Behavior and Evolution."
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 383 pp.
90
Grange, W. 1965. Fire and tree growth relationships to snowshoe rabbits.
In "Proceedings, Fourth Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference",
pp. 111-125. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee.
Gregory, R. A. 1966. The effect of leaf litter upon establishment of
white spruce beneath paper birch. Forest Chronicle 42, 251-255.
Gregory, R. A. and Haack, P. M. 1965.
aspen and birch stands in Alaska.
Paper NOR-2, 27 pp.
Growth and yield of well-stocked
U. S. Forest Service Research
Gross, F. E. 1963. "Range and Use of Range by Dall Sheep Ovis dalli dalli
in Victoria Mountain and Mount Schwatha, Alberta." M.S. thesis,
University of Alaska.
Hakala, J. B. 1952. "The Life History and General Ecology of the Beaver
in Interior Alaska." M.S. thesis, University of Alaska.
Hakala, J. B., Seemel, R. K., Richey, R. A., and Kurtz, J. E. 1971. Fire
effects and rehabilitation methods --Swanson-Russian Rivers fires.
In "Proceedings, Fire in the Northern Environment, a Symposium,"
pp. 87-99. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,
Portland, Oregon.
Halls, L. K. and Epps, E. A.
overstory in the south.
1969. Browse quality influenced by tree
Journal of Wildlife Management 33:1028-1031.
Hanson, W. 0. and Smith, J. G. 1970. Significance of forage quality
as a tool in wildlife management. Range and Wildlife Habitat Evaluation--
A Research Symposium, USDA Misc. Publication 1147, 220 pp.
Hatler, D. F. 1972. Food habits of black bear in interior Alaska. Cana-
dian Field Naturalist 86(1):17-31.
Heilman, P. E. 1966. C~ange in distribution and availability of nitrogen
with forest succession on north slopes in interior Alaska. Ecology
47' 826-831.
Heilman, P. E. 1968. Relationship of availability of phosphorus and
cations to forest succession and bog formation in interior Alaska.
Ecology 49(2):331-336.
Heyward. 1938. Soil temperatures during forest fires in the longleaf
pine region. Journal of Forestry 36:478-491.
Hjeljord, 0. G. 1971. "Feeding Ecology and Habitat Preference of the
Mountain Goat in Alaska." M.S. thesis, University of Alaska.
Hosking, J. S. 1938. The ignition at low temperatures of the organic
matter in soils. Journal of Agricultural Science 28:393-400.
91
Hutchison, 0. K. 1967. Alaska's forest resource. U.S. Forest Service
Resource Bulletin PNW-19, 74 pp.
Komarek, R. 1970. Controlled burning and air pollution: an ecological
review. In "Proceedings, Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference",
10:141-173.
Komarek, R. 1973. Comments on fire and natural landscape. In "Proceedings,
Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference", March 22-23, 1973. 13:1-5.
Komarek, R. 1976. Fire in the northern environment symposium. BLM Sym-
posium, October 1976.
Koontz, K. C. 1968. "Small Game and Fur Bearers of the Rampart Dam Impound-
ment Area." M.S. thesis, University of Alaska.
Lay, D. W. 1957. Browse quality and the effects of prescribed burning in
southern pine forests. Journal of Forestry 55:342-374.
Lensink, C. J. 1954. "Food requirements and range use, Nelchina caribou
herd: Summer food habits." Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration
Project W-3R, Quarterly Progress Report 9 (1). U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Leopold, A. S. and Darling, F. F. 1953a. Effects of land use on moose
and caribou in Alaska. Transactions, 18th North American Wildlife
Conference, 553-562.
Leopold, A. S. and Darling, F. F.
Ecological Reconnaissance."
1953b. "Wildlife in Alaska:
Ronald Press, Co., New York.
An
129 pp.
LeResche, R. E., Bishop, R. H. and Coady, J. 1974. Distribution and
habitats of moose in Alaska. Naturaliste Canadien 101:143-178.
Lotspeich, F. B., Mueller, E. W. and Frey, P. J. 1970. "Effects of large
scale forest fires on water quality in interior Alaska." U.S.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Alaska Water Laboratory, 155 pp.
Lucas, H. 1932. A report of a special investigation of the Kenai Pennisula
moose herds, May 7 to July 27, 1932. 6 pp. mimeo.
Lutz, H. J. 1956. Ecological effects of forest fires in the interior
of Alaska. U.S. Forest Service Technical Bulletin 1133, 121 pp.
Lutz, H. J. and Caporaso, A. P. 1958. Vegetation and topographic situations
as indicators of forest land classes in air-photo interpretation of
the Alaska interior. U.S. Forest Service, Alaska Forest Research
Center Station Paper 10, 31 pp.
Lutz, H. J. 1960. Early occurrence of moose on the Kenai Peninsula and
in other sections of Alaska. Alaska Forest Research Center, Forest
Service, USDA, Misc. Publication No. 1.
92
Lyon, L. J. and Mueggler, W. F. 1968.
browse evaluated six years later.
32(3): 578-541.
Herbicide treatment of north Idaho
Journal of Wildlife Management
Meskimen, G. 1971. Managing forest landscapes: is prescribed burning in
the picture? USDA Forest Service, S.E. Forest Experiment Station. In
Proceedings: Prescribed burning symposium. pp. 54-58.
Murray, D. F. 1961. "Some Factors Affecting the Production and Harvest
of Beaver in the Upper Tanana River, Alaska." M.S. thesis, University
of Alaska.
Patrie, E. F. and Webb, W. L. 1953. A preliminary report on intensive
beaver management. Transactions, 18th North American Wildlife Conference,
533-539.
Ralston, C. W. and Hatchell, G. E. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on
physical properties of soils. USDA Forest Service, S.E. Forest Experi-
ment Station. Proceedings: Prescribed Burning Symposium. pp. 68-77.
Raup, H. M. and Denny, C. S. 1950. Photo interpretation of the terrain
along the southern part of the Alaska Highway. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 963-D, 95-135.
Robinson, R. R. 1952. Forest management and fire control problems in
Alaska. Proceedings, Third Alaskan Science Conference, Alaska Division,
American Association of the Advancement of Science, pp. 52-54.
Rowe, J. S. 1971. Spruce and fire in northwest Canada and Alaska. In
"Proceedings, lOth Annual Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference," pp.
245-254. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee.
Shafer, E. L., Jr. 1965. Deer browsing of hardwoods in the northeast.
USDA Forest Service Resource Paper NE-33. Northeastern Forest Experi-
ment Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, 37 p.
Scatter, G. W. 1971. Fire, vegetation, soil, and barren-ground caribou
relations in northern Canada. In "Proceedings, Fire in the Northern
Environment, a Symposium", pp. 209-230. Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.
Skoog, R. 0.
Alaska."
1968. "Ecology of the Caribou (Rangifer tarandus granti) in
Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Spencer, D. L. and Chatelain, E. F.
moose of southcentral Alaska.
pp. 539-522.
1953. P~ogress in the management of
18th North American Wildlife Conference,
Spencer, D. L. and Hakala, J. B. 1964. Moose and fire on the Kenai.
Proceedings, 3rd Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference, Tallahassee,
Florida. 3:11-33.
Stelfax, J. G.
1800-1970.
1971. Bighorn sheep in the Canada Rockies --a history,
Canadian Field Naturalist 85(2):101-122.
93
Sumner, L. 1951. Alaska's biological wealth--why let history repeat
itself? Proceedings, Second Alaskan Science Conference, Alaska Division,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 337-339.
Tester, J. R. 1965. Effects of a controlled burn on small mammals in
a Hinnesota oak-savanna. American Midl. Nat. 74(1): 240-243.
Tevis, L., Jr. 1956. Effects of a slash burn on forest mice. Journal
of Wildlife Management 20(4):405-409.
Uggla, E. 1958. "Ecological effects of fire on north Swedish forest."
Institute of Plant Ecology, University of Uppsala. Almqvust and
Wilsell, Sweden, 18 pp.
Uggla, E. 1967. En studie over branningseffekten pa ett tunt rahumustacke.
(Effects of fire on a thin layer of raw humus.) Sveriges skogsvards-
forbunds tidskrift 2, 155-170.
Van Cleve, K. 1971. Effects of some intensive forest management practices
on white spruce ecosystems in interior Alaska. In "Proceedings,
Fire in the Northern Environment, a Symposium," pp. 199-207.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.
Viereck, L. A. 1970. Forest succession and soil development adjacent to
the Chena River in interior Alaska. Arctic and Alpine Research 2, 1-26.
Viereck, L. A. 1973. Wildfire in the taiga of Alaska. Journal of
Quaternary Research 3:3, pp. 465-495. October 1973.
Ward, D. E. and Lamb, R. C. 1973. Prescribed burning and air quality
current research in the south. Proceedings, Annual Tall Timbers
Fire Ecology Conference, August 20-21, 1970. 10:129-140.
Wilde, A. and Krause, H. H. 1960. Soil-forest types of the Yukon and
Tanana Valleys in subarctic Alaska. Journal of Soil Science 11, 266-274.
Zasada, J. C. 1971. Natural regeneration of interior Alaska forests
seed, seedbed, and vegetative reproduction considerations. In "Pro-
ceedings, Fire in the Northern Environment, a Symposium," pp. 231-246.
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon.
Zasada, J. C. and Gregory, R. A. 1969. Regeneration of white spruce with
reference to interior Alaska: A literature review. U.S. Forest Service
Research Paper PNW-79, 37 pp.
Zasada, J. C. and Gregory, R. A. 1972. Paper birch seed production in the
Tanana Valley, Alaska. U.S. Forest Service Research Note PNW-177, 7 pp.
Zasada, J. C. and Viereck, L. A.
in interior Alaska, 1957-68.
11 p.
1970. White spruce cone and seed production
U.S. Forest Service Research Note PNW-129,
94
Appendix 1 -1977 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres -~st $ ------
E. Fork Cr. 3 47 702
E. Fork Cr. 8 110 1380
Quartz Cr. 4 50 709
Quartz Cr. 10 58 1930
Quartz cr. 13 90 2010
Trail R. 7 40 1880
Trail R. 8 80 1840
Totals 7 475 10451
.i
Appendix 2 -1978 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cos_u
Quartz 15 38 560
Quartz 6 33 700
Quartz 21 60 1020
Canyon Cr. 5 40 1540
Canyon Cr. 11 32 600
E. Fork Cr. 2 165 1100
E. Fork Cr. 16 & 17 117 1420
E. Fork Cr. 12 10 340
E. Fork Cr. 9 17 340
Cooper Cr. 1 35 2210
Cooper Cr. 2 15 2230
Cooper Cr. 6 110 1960
Kenai R. 5 43 540
Resurrection Cr. 30 117 2420
Cooper-Kenai L. 5 15 900
Six Mile Cr. 2 27 800
Six Mile Cr. 4 32 700
Six Mile Cr. 6 25 800
Six Mile Cr. 9 7 460
Six Mile Cr. 11 20 560
Totals 20 958 21,200
95
Appendix 3 -1979 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost $
Quartz Cr. 24 90 1680
Quartz Cr. 5 22 500
Quartz Cr. 19 180 3260
Cooper -Kenai 1 112 260
Cooper -Kenai 2 120 1210
Cooper -Kenai 3 73 410
Cooper -Kenai 4 153 510
Cooper -Kenai 10 & 11 280 1360
Resurrection Cr. 15 350 2260
Resurrection Cr. 22 80 760
Resurrection Cr. 27 40 510
Resurrection Cr. 28 180 2010
Resurrection Cr. 29 70 1060
Trail R. 2 7 300
Canyon Cr. 14 30 660
Canyon Cr. 12 110 680
Kenai R. 1 75 1040
Kenai R. 2 75 1040
Kenai R. 3 55 1140
Cooper Cr. G 250 1960
Six mile Cr. 8 37 500
Six mile Cr. 13 300 1780
Six Mile Cr. 5 30 800
Totals 23 2719 25,690
i
Appendix 4 -1980 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost $
Juneau Cr. 1 800 7020
Juneau Cr. 3 700 5120
Quartz Cr. 23 123 1540
Quartz Cr. 9 5 200
Quartz Cr. 26 180 2500
Quartz Cr. 29 55 1200
Canyon Cr. 4 27 1860
Canyon Cr. 8 27 1000
Canyon Cr. 9 20 900
E. Fork Cr. 4 70 1000
E. Fork Cr. 20 70 520
Six Mile Cr. 1 117 1880
Six Mile Cr. 10 180 1120
Totals 13 2,394 25,880
96
Appendix 5 -1981 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area
Juneau Cr.
Resurrection Cr.
Resurrection Cr.
Resurrection Cr.
Totals
Site
2
21
25
26
4
Acres
1300
570
400
300
2,570
9020
6520
5100
5720
26,360
Appendix 6 -1982 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost_j_
Cooper-Kenai L. 12 500 3740
Cooper-Kenai L. 13 450 3740
Trail Cr. 1 & 2 35 720
Trail Cr. 3 30 210
Trail Cr. 17 350 3920
E. Fork Cr. 1 355 1740
Canyon Cr. 6 & 7 340 5660
Quartz Cr. 14 160 1340
Quartz Cr. 30 180 2420
Quartz Cr. 8 15 400
Quartz Cr. 28 63 1640
Quartz Cr. 20 30 660
Totals 12 2,508 26,190
97
Appendix 7 -1983 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost $
Chickaloon R. 1 50 2260
Chickaloon R. 2 375 3860
Chickaloon R. 3 65 2460
Chickaloon R. 4 160 2460
Chickaloon R. 5 36 2060
Grant L. 1 82 720
Grant L. 2 125 700
Grant L. 3 10 420
Grant L. 4 242 2320
Grant L. 6 200 1020
Trail Cr. 5 27 810
Trail Cr. 6 60 610
Trail Cr. 7 145 860
Trail Cr. 8 60 610
Trail Cr. 9 32 210
Trail Cr. 10 15 210
Trail Cr. 18 7 700
Canyon Cr. 3 47 1660
Canyon Cr. 6 & 7 340 5660
E. Fork Cr. 10 & 11 354 680
Totals 20 2,432 30,290
Appendix 8 -1984 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost $
16 70 610
Quartz 7 23 500
Quartz 25 110 2380
Quartz 22 30 1880
Canyon Cr. 10 172 2820
E. Fork Cr. 6 40 580
E. Fork Cr. 1 355 1740
E. Fork Cr. 13 & 14 207 780
E. Fork Cr. 1,9 190 1540
Kenai R. 4 25 440
Six Mile Cr. 3 27 600
Six Mile Cr. 12 50 3680
Six Mile Cr. 7 15 360
Totals 20 2,376 29,270
98
Appendix 9 -1985 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost j_
Resurrection Cr. 23 760 6200
Resurrection Cr. 24 200 5500
Trail R. 1 172 1130
Trail Cr. 19 450 5600
Quartz Cr. 16 18 340
Quartz Cr. 33 150 1540
Quartz Cr. 12 90 1340
Quartz Cr. 18 15 460
Quartz Cr. 27 150 1880
Canyon Cr. 2 61 1440
E. Fork Cr. 5 127 1300
Totals 12 2,193 26,730
Appendix 10 -1986 Prescribed Burn Sites Schedule
Area Sites Acres Cost $
Chickaloon R. 7 1000 4260
Chickaloon R. 9 450 2960
E. Fork Cr. 18 465 1600
Cooper-Kenai L. 7 42 700
Cooper-Kenai L. 8 390 2500
Ptarmigan L. 1 52 1460
Ptarmigan L. 9 195 2360
Quartz Cr. 34 480 7180
Totals 8 3.074 23,020
99
Appendix .ll
Prescribed Burn Site Sizes
Fire Behavior, llandli ne and Total Cost Estimates
L ~ low, M ~ Nedium, II = high
Resistence Rate of Handline Total
Area Site Acres to Control Sf> read Comfllete Imr>rove Cost $
Canyon Cr. 1 12 H H s 460
2 61 H H 10 1440
3 47 H H 10 3S 1660
4 27 H H lS so 1860
s 40 H H so 1S40
6 & 7 340 H H 80 S660
8 27 M ll 10 lS 1000
9 20 H M 30 900
10 172 H H 70 20 2820
11 32 L M 10 900
12 110 L M 680
14 30 L M 20 20 660
Chickaloon R. 1 so H H 90 2260
2 37S H H 240 3860
3 6S H H 70 2460
4 100 H H 10 100 2460
s 36 H H 60 2060
7 1000 M M 60 4260
9 4SO M H 30 40 2960
Cooper-Kenai L. 1 112 L M 260
2 120 L H 20 1200
3 73 L H 20 410
4 1S3 L H 30 SlO
s lS H H 2S 900
7 42 L M 25 700
8 390 M M 180 2SOO
10 & 11 280 L H 20 1360
12 soo H H 80 3740
13 4SO H H 80 3740
Cooper Cr. 1 15 H M 20 so 4300
2 lS H M 20 so 2230
s 2SO H H so 120 4300
6 110 H H 1960
E. Fork Cr. 1 3SS M M 30 1740
2 16S !1 M 10 30 1100
3 47 L M 10 lS 1000
4 90 M M 10 1000
s 127 M M 30 1300
6 40 M H S80
7 & 8 110 M M 2S 7S 2660
9 17 L M 340
10 & 11 3S4 L M 680
12 10 L M 430
100
Resistence Rate of Headline Total
Area Site Acres to Control -~ad_ __ s:.<?.!!I.EJ~te ____ IEI.£!_DVe ________ s;o~_i>_ ___ -------Quartz Cr. 26 180 H H 170 2500
27 150 M M 60 1880
28 63 M M 10 50 1640
29 55 M M 70 1200
30 180 M H 20 180 2480
31 148 M M 30 120 3060
32 40 M M 20 1340
33 150 M H 20 1540
34 480 H H 160 160 7180
Resurrection
Creek 15 350 L M 60 2260
21 570 H H 100 80 6520
22 80 L M 25 760
23 760 M H 80 70 6200
24 200 M H 40 60 5500
25 400 H H 100 5100
26 300 M H 50 70 5020
27 40 L H 5],0
28 180 H H 30 2010
29 70 L M 20 40 1060
30 117 H M 40 2420
Six Hi. Cr.
1 117 H M 15 1880
2 27 M H 20 880
3 27 H M 20 600
4 32 M M 15 700
5 37 L M 15 800
6 25 L M 15 560
7 15 L M 15 360
8 37 L M 5 500
9 7 L M 5 460
10 180 M M 1120
11 20 L M 15 560
12 50 H H 100 3680
13 300 H H 20 1780
Trail R. 1 172 M L 20 40 1130
2 7 L L 10 300
4 170 M L 20 40 1130
7 & 8 122 H H 20 100 2160
Trail Cr. 1 & 2 35 L M 15 720
3 30 L L 210
5 27 L M 60 20 810
6 60 L H 20 60 610
7 145 L H 20 860
8 60 L H 20 610
9 32 L L 210
10 15 L L 210
12 70 L L 610
13 132 L L 5 510
101
Resistence Rate of Handline Total
_ __A!~---~_!:_~--Acr~~~ Conyol ___ Sprea_d __ S:.Q!!ll>lete _l!!!J>.rov~ ________ C_p~_!:_j ___ E. Fork Cr.
13& 14 207 M M 780 16 & 17 117 H M 40 1420 18 465 L H 80 1600 19 190 H H 20 1540 20 70 L L 540 Grant L.
1 82 M M 20 720
2 125 M M 20 700 3 10 L L 540 4 242 L H 40 20 2320 6 200 H M 10 1020 Indian Cr.
1 90 M M 70 2650 2 240 M M 30 2450 3 100 M M 20 3250 Juneau Cr.
1 800 L L 40 7020 2 1300 L M 200 9020 3 700 M M 20 5120 Kenai R.
1 75 L M 10 40 1040 2 75 L M 20 1040 3 55 L M 20 40 1140 4 25 L M 440 5 43 L M 540 Ptarmigan L.
1 52 M M 20 1460 9 195 M H 20 2360 Quartz Cr.
1 87 M M 20 1100 2 27 M M 340 4 50 L M 5 600 5 22 L L 20 500 6 33 L L 20 20 700 7 23 L L 20 500 8 20 L H 20 40 400 9 5 L M 200 10 58 M M 15 60 1740 11 180 M M 80 40 400 12 90 M H 10 1340 13 90 M M 30 60 2060 14 100 M H 10 1340 15 38 M M 10 560 16 18 M M 340 18 15 L M 10 460 19 180 H M 70 40 3260 20 30 M M 10 20 660 21 60 M H 30 1020 22 30 M M 40 1880 23 120 M H 20 1540 24 90 M M 70 1680 25 110 M M 40 100 2380
102
Resistence
___ ___!\_Fea ____ Si~~------to Control
Rate of Handline Total ~_I_eaq_ __ . Co_!!!l)}.et ~-_l _Ill_ll..-!".93_~---____ f_o_s .!_j_ ___ _
Trail Cr.
14 300 L L 30 1660
16 70 L L 20 610
17 350 M H
3920
18 7 L L
700
19 450 II M 120 80 5600
103
APPENDIX 12
ALASKA REGION
PRESCRIBED BURN PLAN
FOREST -----------------------
PREPARED BY
DATE PREPARED ------------
APPROVED BY
DATE OF APPROVAL --------------
SALE OR PROJECT NAME
LOCATION------------------T. ____ R. S.
TYPE OF BURN: COMPLEX INTERMEDIATE NON-COMPLEX ----------------------------
TYPE OF FIRE --------------------------------------------------------------
PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVE OF BURN -----------------------------------------------
DATE CUTTING OR TREATMENT COMPLETED ------------------------------------
PRESCRIBED BURN SCHEDULE FOR: SPRING ___ SUMMER ___ FALL ___ WINTER
ESTIMATED COST: PREPERATION BURNING EQUIPMENT --------------------
REMANNING TOTAL --------
AREA ANALYSIS
A. ANALYSIS
1. SIZE (ACRES) -----------PERIMETER (CHAINS)
2. TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
SLOPE ASPECT ELEV. TOP BOT.
~----------------------------
POSIT ION ON SLOPE -UPPER 3rd ____ MIDDLE 3rd -------------------
FLAT ---------SADDLE -----------
104
:0~1RGL LINE---------------------------------------------------------------------
HATER SOURCES ----------------------------------
SOIL CONDITIONS
3. FUEL DESCRIPTION
VEGETATIVE TYPE -------------CONDITION ------------------
FUEL TYPE -----------------TONS PER ACRE ---------------------
ARRANGEHE~T ----------------------...,-----------------
4. FUEL CONDITION ADJACENT TO BURN AREA---~·------------------------
. ·'··· ~··· ..
PRESCRIBED HEATHER AND FUEL CONDITIONS
In Block Outside Block
Item Maximum Mimimum Maximum Mimimum
1. FUEL NOISTURE RANGE
2. RELATIVE HUNIDITY
3. tHND SPEED AND DIRECTION
4. IGNITION TU1E ---------
•. • . . . . ' .. ;; -~ .. •. --.--!''. ·-·-~··· ..• • ...... ,.
PREBURN HEATHER
] • PRECIPITATION 1-IEASURENENTS ---------------'----------------
2. FUEL NOISTl!RE STICKS DAILY l-1EASUREHENTS THO !-lEEKS IN ADVANCE OF BURN ------
3. HYGROTHE1010GRAPH CHARTS T!W !-lEEKS IN ADVANCE OF BURN ---------------
~m,._.u,.,~"'' """"'"''"·•• ..... -... ··•-·•'··--····~:::O-:::·:::::::·•·:::::·-:::··-=··~'·•::'' ·::'::"·'::·•·=·::::::' IC:,::::;••C: .. :::J::3::C:===== .. ·:!:··=· :::; ... :;: ... :: .. =· =·!:· -~·-~··~--~ .. :::::-:!:'• :=:-:_: .. ;::. -~-==
105
WEATHER FORCAST DAY OF BURN
FORCAS'l' CENTER __ _ FORECASTER
2. SUMMARY OF FORECAST
WEATHER DURING BURN
1. WET BULB ___ DRY BULB ___ RELATIVE HUMIDITY ____ WIND SPEED -----
WIND DIRECTION ____ FFM ___ TIME FIRED ----TIME FINISHED ___ _
FIRE OUT -----
SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
L. SAFETY PLAN ------------------------------------
2. HAZARDS
FIRING CREW MEMBERS COULD GET AHEAD OF ONE ANOTHER.
DIP TORCHES WHEN USED ON POOR FOOTING IMPOSES A THREAT FOR BURNS ON OPERATOR.
DENSE SMOKE, AND THUS, THE DANGER OF EXCESS INHALATION.
IN GENERAL MOST HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH WILDFIRES WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE
BURN.
3. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS.
ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THE ABOVE HAZARDS CAN BE COPED WITH AS FOLLOWS:
ASSURE THAT EVERYONE IS BRIEFED REGARDING THE HAZARDS.
CREWMEN MUST WORK DELIBERATELY AND AT SAFE SPEEDS.
MAINTAIN GOOD COMMUNICATIONS AND BE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS THEIR JOB.
WEAR THE SAME PROTECTIVE GEAR THAT IS USED ON WILDFIRES, LOW FLAMMABILITY
CLOTHING, GOOD BOOTS, GLOVES AND GOGGLES IN HEAVY SMOKE.
IN GENERAL GOOD COORDINATION BETWEEN CREWS AND EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS INDIVIDUAL
EFFORTS AND SAFETY CONSCIOUSNESS WILL BE NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN A SAFE WORKING
106
.. .
PUBLIC INFOR}~TION
CONTACT THE FOLLO\HNG:
LOCAL PEOPLE _____ RECREATIO~ISTS STATE TROOPERS. ___ _
NE\VS HEDIA COOPERATING FIRE AGEXCIES OTHER -----------
::. ..
UNIT FIRING PLAN
A. FIRING PRESCRIPTION
1. METHOD-----------------------------------------
2. IGNITION POINTS------------------------------
3. SEQUENCE OF FIRING---------------------------
4. Tl}ffi OF IGNITION -----------------------------------------------
5. EXPECTED FIRE BEHAVIOR --------------------------
·--------·--·---·---
107
.. .
HOLDING AND HOPUl' PLAN
1. PLANNED FIRE LINE BREAKDOI-IN:
SECTOR
SECTOR
SECTOR
2. TANKER AND HOSE-LAY LOCATIONS -------------------------
3. HATER STORAGE OR SOURCES--------------------------
4. PORTABLE PUNP LOCATIONS-------------------------
5. HOLDING FORCE INSTRUCTIONS -------------------------
6. NO~UP FORCE INSTRUCTIONS --------------------------
7. FOLLOH-UP PATROL AFTER HOOOP -------------------------
108
ORGANIZATION AND EQUIPHENT
A. ORGANIZATION
1. PRESCRIBED BURN FIR.E BOSS--------FIRE BEHAVIOR OFFICER-----
2. FIRING BOSS ·------CRE\-1 --------
3. HOLDING BOSS ------CRE\~: ----------------
4. MO~P BOSS ---------' CREIV:
B. EQUIPMENT
1. TRANSPORTATION
2. CONMUNICATIONS --------'-------------------------
3. TORCHES AND ·FUEL ~------------------'----------
4. HAND TOOLS----------------------~----------
5. TANKERS AND PID-fPS -------·----------------------
6. SPECIAL EQUIPHENT ----------------------__;:.___----"------
109
SNOKE HANAGEMENT FORECAST
A. S~IOKE MANAGEHENT
1. STABILITY AND EXPECTED CHANGES ( INVERSIONS, TINE OF FORHATION, AND SISS.)
2. ESTIHATED HEIGHT OF SHOKE COLLJr-!N --------------------
3. ESTIHATED DIRECTION OF .S!-IOKE COLffiiN h'IND DIRECTION AND SPEED AT SMOKE
COLffif:~ HEIGHT.)
4. SPECIAL OR. UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS OF S}IOKE BEa~VIOR ON THE FIRE.
110
SUPPRESSION PLAN IF FIRE ESCAPES
FIRE BOSS -----------
AVAILABLE MANPOHER ON PRESCRIBED BURN
FIRST REINFORCE~ffiNTS
tfHERE: HOH HANY: -------------------------~
ETA: --------------------------Hm-1 TO CONTACT:------------
AVAILABLE EQUIPME~T
TYPE: -------------------------------lfHERE:
ETA: ----------------------HOl-1 TO CONTACT:
CONTROL PLAN
--------~-------------------------------------------------~ --~~------------
111
Appendix 13
Historic/Archaeologic Sites in the Proposal Area
Burn Area Seward
East Fork 105
Canyon Creek 106
" 36
" 152
" 153*
" 22
" 35
Quartz Creek 15
Juneau Creek 41
Trail Creek 118
" 37
" 93
* on edge of site
National Historic Register Sites on Kenai
Seward Number 25
Seward Number 18
Alaska Nellie's Homestead
Hope Historic District
Alaska Heritage Resource Surve:l:': Sites
on Edge of or Near Sites
No. Name ~
White's Roadhouse cabins
Hope Cutoff Prehistoric site
Site
Canyon Creek logs (dam?)
Lauritsen Cabin cabin
Michelson Cabin cabin
Dahl town 3 cabins
Michaelson Cemetary cemetary
Gilpatrick cabins, town
Slaughter Gulch Russian
artifacts
Johnson cabins
Johnson Springs cabin and
springs
Hunter buildings
112
Date Other
1910
1900
1900
1900
1900
1896
'-
1910 RR station
near Tinker
claim
1912 RR station
..
*
Appendix 14
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
August 9, 1977
Re: 1130-1-1
Clay G. Beal, Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
Pouch 6606
2221 East Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Dear Mr. Beal:
_.,... ... ,. ....... -.
:~ I
·•'
.·j,!~ ... ·
In response to your request (I.D. No. 77023510) concerning the Chugach
Moose-Fire Management Program's consideration of archaeological and
historical resources we wish to emphasize the following:
1. The accessibility of the Kenai Peninsula increases the need for
interpretation and identification of Heritage resources to enhance
the recreation values of the area for the public. At the same
2.
time, accessibility increases the danger of careless destruction to
heritage resources. The responsibility to both identify and protect
heritage resources lies with state and federal agencies.
Your statement to include an archaeology-history specialist in all
present and future project and operation planning to protect heri-
tage resources in accordance with Federal and State laws is strongly
endorsed.
3. Burn sites should be of sufficient distance from any identified
heritage resource to eliminate any adverse effects. In addition,
we highly recommend a site survey of each proposed burn location
prior to any action.
Sincerely,
TERRY A. McWILLIAMS
Director
dJ4.,.7h~~
By: William S. Hanable
State Historic Preservation Officer
KK:lea
113
18
Appendix 15
REAL T 0 R ________ <e_o_7_, 2_7_7-_eo_,_3 __ _
IIOX 11128
748 F STREET
ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 1111501
Clay .t.leal
l<'oJ•est ~upervisor
Chugach ~ational ~crest
2221 E. Northern ~ights #230
A::1choraGe, ~;laska 99.501+
.Jcar i·1r. i3c al :
REti\VED
April 21, 1977
APR 2119TI
. tHUGAtll N.f.
i-iavinc~ atte::1ded the public hearing i1arch 31 at which Lee Cul'bertson
presented the Forest Service' plan to burn 22,000 acres over the
next 1-J years, I remain unconvinced that this is a worthwhile project
and wish to go on record that I am opposed to the plan.
·rr;e reasoning presented by I·1r. Culbertson in support o~ the plan
is specious from several standpoints. By what rationale does the
.t'Orest .:;,ervlce, or ut:o.me .1anagement a~:;ency determine that moose have
hi;her priority in the f:Che:ne of.' life than birds, rodents 1 a :id other
living creatures? ·.ihy rr.ust we burn 22,000 acres in the hope that
the number of moose could double within 20 to 40 years? A more
economical and simpler method to accomplish this would be to ban
the cow moose hunts for a given period of years (or entirely), or
to snorten the hunting season. >·,hile this may not be politically
popular with the hunting enthusiasts in the area, I believe the
majority of voters are non-hunters.
·:·::-.e proposed burning plan certainly does not take into consideration
the visual pollution created. l~r. Culbertson embraced the plan under
the theory that "tourists love to see moose". True, but even more
than seeing moose, I believe they enjoy seeine trees and I do not
think we local residents or the tourists should be exposed to the
ugly sight of hundreds of acres of burned areas for the next ~O+
years. ll~ trade-off oetween that and possibly a few more moose is
certainly unacceptable to me.
:·1r. Culbertson stated an esti~ted cost of ~~12.00 per ac;,1 e to
accomplish the proposed plan. 'l'h:!.s results in a cost o~ ~264,000. for
the 10-year 22,000 acre plan. I am reasonably sure the .~;12. per acre
figure is based on 1977 costs and can be expected, through rising
inflation, to double that figure, rna king the whole plan extremely
costly to the taxpayers. The end does not justify the means.
The proposed plan also apparently does not take into consideration
REALTOR•
fires in the area which will normally occur durin,; the 10-year
period caused by lightning, plane crashes, arson or accident.
'l'he /J.Brch 31 t1.nchorage Times carried a front-page story stating
114 -
Mr. Clay Beal -page 2
April 21, 1977
State Forester Ted Smith waa placing a burning ban in effect one
month earlier than normal this year because he felt the forest fire
danger will be extreme. Having specifically asked Mr. Culbertson
if the Forest Service burning plan would be reduced (if implemented)
by whatever burning occured through other means, he stated this
would not happen --that the Forest Service would pursue their
program regardless. Such inflexability is appalling.
In this current era of environmental awareness and fear of
ecological degradation, resulting in rerouting of the Oil Pipeline
to protect a nesting ptarmigan (or whatever), the cancellation of
dam projects in the lower 48 because of some un-heard of insect,
etc., I am astounded that the Forest Service would even consider
this burning project and to tell us, as Mr. Culbertson did, that
the environmental impact statement filed in Washington was found
totally acceptable, certainly strains one's sense of credibility.
I hope you will cancel entirely the proposed burning plan and
devote your efforts to the many other very worthwhile management
programs carried on by the Forest Service.
Sincerely,
.::::rea-~ .-IC
Jean Smith
115
Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor ,
Chugach Nation~l Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska
Blvd., Suite 2~--
99504
Dear }1r. Beal:
Thank you for your copy of Environmental Statement Chugach
Moose-Fire Management Progr§m.
The book is w~ll done and the presentation is clear. Although
I could perceive your point, I could not help but wonder what
happens to birds, nests, etc., and the smaller animals when
the forest burns.
r Moose is of course useful to man as food, but should we use our 1 \forests to raise our cattle? Is this the function of forests?
• ,I am sure that we throw off the balance of Nature when we set
[artificial fires which are supposed to prepare grazing ground
for the moose.
I fear I am one of those who would prefer to leave the "forests"
alone; just protect them from man who has succeeded so well in
destroying so much, at times even intentionally.
~oat people who hunt moose do not need it for food; they can
afford and have freezers full of beef.
Sincerely,
Anf:;;±~k:("~
Vice President, Cook Inlet Historical Society
..C.:.Ml&J lit "'-~..., • .:J.Iw-t.J 6 9w. ~ .. ~uuwn
~·7 ~WIIIIa dl-, ~ .. dl~ 9~01
116
_J
RECEIVED
AUG 12 m7
CHU6ACH N.F.
Apno::~ndix 16
. lc
117
Appendix 17 ·y
<?<s &-:.v.&~ -i:ru~ cL;J.. ~~'-v.J' r~
MAY 17 llif7
121
L_v;~f~
9!1~~~
123
Mr. Clay Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
222 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Beal:
,
DON GILMAN
MAYOR
'RECEIVED
_CHUGACH N.F.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the Kenai Penin-
sula Borough Planning Commission action upon review of the ENVI-
RONMENTAL STATEMENT CHUGACH MOOSE-FIRE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
At the April 25, 1977 meeting, the Planning Commission voted to
go on record as opposing the burn program in concept, especially
opposing the burn program in the populated areas of Canyon Creek,
Cooper Creek, Cooper-Kenai Lake, East Fork Creek, Kenai River,
Quartz Creek, Six Mile Creek and Trail River. A copy of the
appropriate minutes will be forwarded to you as soon as they
are approved.
swrely,
~~~w~~
Acting Planning Director
IDW:rh
124
R£tlt'lia
~ r 1!JTll
_QISOIIf.
Forest Supervisor
~hugach National Vorest
2221 E. Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Uear Sir:
P. 0. Box 2140
Anchorage, Ala•ka 99510
Harch 29, 1977
Since I will be unable to attend your public hearing
in Anchorage regarding your proposed 10-year burning
program for Vorest Service land on the Kenai, I
am writing to express my opinion on this matter, and
hope that you will include this letter in your collection
of public input concerning the burns.
1 wish to express a strong objection to the program.
I believe it over-emphasizes the fostering of population
growth in one single species at the expense of well over
a hundred other species of wildlife that live within
the area. l~hile studies are plentiful on the beneficial
effects of fire for moose populations, very few studies
have been done on its effect on other species --and what
studies exist are ambiguous as to results. ,~ major pro-
gram such as you propose should not be em''arked upon with-
out further preliminnry study. ·~ 2-2,000 acre program
suggests that hunting is considered o prime use of a
National Forest, rather than just o,.ne of numerous ler;i-
timate uses.
I also feel the assumption that controlled burning will
simply replace the "uncontrolled" burns that modern fire-
fighting technology now prevents is a questionable claim.
Helatively large "out-of-control" burns do still occur
down on the Kenai, for example, the one near the oil
pipeline road within the Moose Range. Intensifying forest
management to the extent of staging large burns raises
humanitarian questions that should he addressed. ·
I hope that my opinion may be included in vour record of
pub-lic testimony.
Sincerely,
. _/ t1 ~ ,_ ? . ~. !
({Ji-c.f /dA4'~
Alice Ya~borough
125
19 April 1976
Subject: Control Burning of Government Lands for Browsing
Burning of any type, is not always a good thing, to begin with, it
creates errosion of the soil and in many cases destruction of---
vegetative forest products, it eliminates the absorption of water
changing water shed conditions, causing flooding and errosfon.
I would be more in favor of contour strips, with the planting of domestic
grasses and or oats, with the application of nutrient feeding fertilizers
annually ---not necessarily reseeding each season ---for generally there
will be enough seed re1t1ai ni ng to rep 1 en ish, through the treading of the
animals.
These strips could be (50) feet in width, following a natural terrain
contour in-land, far enough off of the Highway that, they would not be a
Highway hazard and at the san~ time not be easy Prey areas for the
Hunt~r ---Gut could improve the feeding with higher nutrient feed
Juring the worst part of the winter month \~hen feed browse is at a
prem~um, for all ages of the animals.
These strips would not destroy the primitive-ness of any area, but,
could aid as a fire-break for future fire control ---provide additional
feeding habitat and or environment with minimum controls.
The cost would be far less in the long. run than control bum,ing
the animals themselves would do a lot of the improving, after the
strips are established ---by treading and browsing over periods of
each season.
Further-more, these animals will alternate their diet---by changing
browsing from domestic feed to natural feed and returning periodically.
This, I know, for I have monitered their actions or habits for many
years during the winter months and in general this is their browsing
habits ---when available in our Homestead Farming areas.
I don't feel burning is the answer to the problem of providing a
feeding habitat ---there is just to much reaction from other problems
such as, Soil errosion, Wind errosion, water shed and many others ---
not to onention the extendC"d wait for reveqetation ---the destruction
of natural growth production fr·o1n past years, that could in time be
utilized as marketing r~s~urces.
126
(2)
Subject: Control Uurnlng of Government Lands for Browsing
The cost of Control Burninq is prohibitive, the amount of man-power
and machinery needed to stand-by for· this type of operation cannot
justify the investment return ---Where as, Contour stripping could be
done, with much Jess resistance, or calculated risk, plantinq Contour
str1>s is less costly, more cnnservation-wi·.;e in all phases of the
operation. These contour strips would be a green belt of nutritional
vegetative cover over the terrain, least apt to cause errosion or
other conservation probl~ns.
The minus of the many elements needed in the soil, creates malnutrition
and disease in plant, animal and man ---by balancing or adding these
essential nutrients, we will produce a better quality of plant, animal
and man.
I would like to make it known ---that, you can analyze our soils, here
in Alaska, and you will find the lacking of the many elements that are
needed for the proper feeding and growth of Plant, Animal and Man ---
In fact, you can send soil samples out to the big Laboratories for a
nine element analysis, and they will write back and ask where the sample
came from, that all they could find was high Nitrogen and a small amount
of potash ---I would say this is poor nutrition.
Many Farmers from the Upper Kenai Peninsula feel, that, with this type
of a feeding habitat, it would greatly relieve the domestic crop
destruction caused by the moose in past years ---even though the Wild
life Management in the State of Alaska ---denies that Moose will eat,
high nutritional fed domestic grain and grasses and survive ---We find,
they do very well and to the extent of migrating into herds ---numbering
from (6) to (25) head or sometimes even more ---depending upon the
amount and size of domestic feed available ---they also feed in the
manner mentioned earlier---They even stay in the area after they have
eliminated the bulk of the feed. We have photographic proof, as does
many tourists who travel by.
We feel, that the Upper Kenai Peninsula has had and seen enough of all
types of burning, and that there are better ways to improve the Habitat
of w11 d-11fe.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
)ui.un) <:.-' ~
Nelson C. Es~leman
Farmer and Conservationist
Star Route #2, Box 236
Sterling, Alaska 99672
127
. --~ .. Appendix 20
...,~-·---··
DEPARTMENT OF FISH i\ND Gi\ME
IJFRCE OF THE CIJMMISSIDMEII 611MJIIT__. _ _... _,
June 9, 1977 ~JfCftYID i
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Beal:
JUN l '}
.CHUG4CH N.F. t ,_,,I
Please excuse the tardiness of this reply to the Chugach National Forest
Moose Management Plan draft environmental impact statement. I sincerely
hope that our comments will still be considered at this late date.
The Chugach National Forest Moose Management Plan was found to be very
well done in general. It was felt that the historical and present
situations were treated comprehensively and that in most cases sufficient
consideration was given to the spectrum of public and resource concerns.
There are some concerns, however, which the Department feels were not
fully discussed in the Moose Management Plan. I would like to bring
these concerns to your attention.
At the beginning of the proposal the Forest Service mentioned on page
one (1}, paragraph five (5) "If a fire should escape its boundaries, it
can be extinguished through the use of prepositioned men, equibhent,
supplies, hand lines and other means". We are concerned with t e
possible use of toxic chemical fire retardants as "other means" to
extinguish fires especially in the water systems of Quartz Creek,
Cooper-Kenai Lake, Resurrection Creek, Trail River, and East Fork Creek
where salmon in their varying age classes are known to occur either near
and/or downstream from the proposed control burn areas. Unless the fire
retardant is certified non-toxic to the fish and the organisms in their
food chain. we are totally opposed to its use.
·We are also concerned with the type of suppressant equipment that may be
used.· We recommend that within the aforementioned fish streams there be
no use of tracked or wheeled vehicles for fire suppression purposes
unless the use of s~ch equipment would prevent the loss of human life or
significant private property damage.
128 -
Clay G. Beal -2-June 9, 1977
Even though excessive siltation may not materialize under the proposed
controls it should still be of concern. Other than this and the other
mentioned considerations, we see no problems with the program and wish
it success.
Sincere:__~;::;~
129
Appendix 21
.M I' I. IIAIIIIDMII. IJDIIEIIIHJII
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
flay 12, 1977
l'lr. Lee Culbertson
Chugach :National lt,orest
2221 B. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorac;e, .A.K 99504
Dear Lee:
Alaska D8llt. of Fish 4: Game R E C E V E b.oper Landing, Alaska 99572
MAY J 6 19TI
I'ho.nks for sending the maps of those of your }Jroposed burn areas
which I requested. I am returning them with pertinent Dall sheep
\'linter range (green), mountain goat winter range (yellow), and
mixed goat and sheep winter range (orange) marked in.
As ;you can see, several of your proposed burns will involve goat
range 1md mixe:l goat and sheep range directly, and, if allovred
to burn up into the alpine tundra, will involve sheep ~vinter range •
. Since nobody yet knovJS the effects of burning on sheep and goat
winter ranges, I would advise caution where they could be damaged.
3oth syecies are very limited as to suitable habitat in late win-
ter. Loss of critical 1.;inter habitat could be potentially serious •
.:?ortunc~tely, your pro:posed burns involve very small portions of
winter habitat of both species, and if kept 1'l"i thin your boundar-
ies should do little harm.
However, if the fires 5et out of control, parttcularly if they
burn upslope very much, several vTintering areas could be badly
hurt. I believe the following are the most critical:
._uartz Creek sites 19 and 211
Grant Lake sites 2 and 6
Trail Creek sites 5 and 6
Cooper-I:enai :Lake sites 2,3,4,12,
(most potential danger to goats)
and 13(potential danger to sheep)
In the event you discover during earlier burns that you cannot
prevent fires from burnin~ upslope into the al})ine (and subalf'ine
where goats are concerned), I would recommend that you delete at
least the most critical portions of these proposed burns and
substitute other areas with less possible danger to sheep and
goat vlinter habitats.
It is certainly possible that controlled burning could be bene-
ficial to sheep and, especially, goat winter range. However,
such burns should not be carried out until adequate experimenta-
tion and study demonstrate their effects.
cc: ADF&G Habitat Protection
130
Appendix 22
United States Department of the Interior
ER 77/360
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
U. S. Forest Service
Chugach National Forest
1'. 0. Bm. I :!0
.\rwhoragt·. \lasb !l'JSIO
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Beal:
May 18, 1977
., ...
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement for the
Chugach Moose-Fire Management Program, and offer the following comments
for your consideration:
Page 34, Wildlife Effects on the Kenai National Moose Range: The
statement cites some recent data concerning wildlife recovery on the
1969 Kenai burn. It does not include data or reference to vegetative
studies that may be in process. Studies of wildlife and vegetative
recovery on the Kenai burn would provide significant data on wildlife
effects. A coordination of reference dates for Spencer and Hakala is
needed between the first paragraph and that for Figure 17.
Page 38: We suggest that a map be inserted showing the subunits of Game
Management Unit 7. We believe the tables would be more meaningful with
a map.
Page 45, Favorable Impacts-Vegetation: We feel that the proposed plan
of prescribed burning on the Chugach National Forest, if carried out as
planned, will generally be beneficial in making better quality habitat
available to moose.
Page 59 D, Small Mammals: While some losses of small vertebrates will
undoubtedly occur, we feel these will generally be of short duration and
of relative insignificance compared with the longer term benefits to
moose and other species.
Page 64, Adverse Impacts-Water: Water-quality monitoring of surface-
water resources should be considered, especially for areas containing
131
adjacent burn sites and where burning is to occur on both the lower and
upper reach of drainages.
Page 74, Historical and Archeological: We suggest that the "National
Register of Historic Places" and the Alaska State Historic Preservation
Officer be consulted to determine if sites on, or eligible for, the
National Register will be affected by the proposal. The results of
these consultations should be included in the final statement.
As far as can be determined from the statement, there has been no cultural
resource survey of the project's zone of potential impact. We suggest
that the Alaska State Historic Preservation Officer also be consulted on
need for a survey and to provide guidance in conduct of the investigation.
Thank you for the opoortunity to review and comment on the draft statement.
132
Sincerely yours,
~/----;-:_./~-
c----~ ~t"' ~ ,/.;~
Paul If.V'Gates
Regional Environmental
Officer-Alaska
;::;. If t:~ T Se;( l".:r~VI >··f
c~(,(C-~f' /;n'"'"" ~~r
A-le
Appendix 23
A ~,.,e:,.,r
&f J I tf:,A't.lf If
./1,-c 1/, /lk.
t-~/~o~e~r /',ft??~-t__.., p..., /!/ ~ M~t'ttl:: tf' 1/.tf/JIP. .,..-
/( e./V~I. 'f lvts# rl? t/;lc....tF ~7 t:?i/ti7!,f-tl-s 'f/,tPv~l
oF ~u~
t/t:> II ,--,-
CtrE~4~/?f7
r:r~r :f
T'""r /}vff
/ /"!
~-1;/ J ~-()
Cv,...b'~ttt.. /1Fvtr-v' /.JY /;/~ ,/&f,-,tt'
c Y t:"/f I? s· !-It? TfH' /'~c6~~,
Jyf~.> 6-u /J-4-' k fC/ rf/E /~'-'F;. (j.tt.> !>
W.?' (f/'fv~ Lh-F XJ ;:::;.,.~ -5 /~e;;t.r?l' t,#'t:--c --~ 1 .,__,,,.,,t-.
~C7t. T~~vtr /'fT ? _;/F,If'l'> /ft-L ~;= 7(1-~ A'4~r~
Fa;z.. ,{ rfc:-..-~ typU~ ({/f-lAP /le:-c-' £> ~,u.J#~
133
/1,-
#rrt::-?f
t--l-l·rr
_L
I,...,./-'~ /:7
-
I
.~·
--1 H-I.J $'e-c,,.. p ~ .... ~ ~#clll14) ~ F~",Y /J ~ /f/7//,/'&-...,f~t:'
t:.,.,...,., r""''-
""''~'~" Jf?F-"r ,,c ~~~I; ..
1T:I c;,..,.., tr-r"' #P#' /' $11 •
P~17"'-77' /"?'?ttt'~SF ;.....,
c ,..,._tr ~ vr ,Fe 7:2. 'r I
;r /f""''"" r~rt-~" ~ r
;-;;-er K lf' ,.,"""I ;5
Yt-~ /1-~?:,,r;,.-r, Ar P£Yt. rtf-~ ~ez;,.--d l.'-1111~ ~--r-1
/"'"Y ,~ ~~~Y~r: t£-fr_,-t,. _ .,....,~ ~-;ft-~s;::, £-/%-eL
-"",../ &?1/v?.tft,'-: /if,._~,., ~ ~ ,.,,.,._~r:-e-,.::;-t:~F n""F ~,/p,r
/1.--p /""?,_,_~£_,~,..,-, ~ r# ,. cr~~H'l-A-VHA-/;S J,-t::~'f~/:1
f/ ;f Vt"" /~ /.S~ /H,JPF 0 J?l""i;re T7 t/r" Tfl--11--Ji" I rtra-?t ~-~ /fL -E,.
I w~uc..tJ UAt.~ Y&'"'r rz; ~?-~.f£5s rtrf5 t/JF~ {e/
'/IrE ~c~ e;~r F ~ # r c,.,,..," ,....., rH.--.5 oP /ti,.,I?Yt:i",r-
4-tJ t: .---r-~cc,..,..,~_,-r.:
Ac,_,_ ,_, / ypu /f-A-v~ ,_,y S?f//e,..r ~,( yt'C~"{
/l!cJt-1?~
134
Appendix 24
CALVIN M. FAIR, D.D.S.
P.O. BOX 369
SOLDATNA, ALASKA 99669
~v~\ -1\-'11
vnv-. C\~~ ~.Q.A.l I ~oves-\-s;ev,s'll\"
c.J.u.A.. ~-A-c-k /\.) ~~ ~ A,.' t d'(" .e s -\-
d~;.\\ t... r\)(IV''t\,.Q...r>'\ ~~~k\l {6)\,)d.
$1.-l.,,.'\~ ~ ~D
I+A c.,\,.., c.f'r-~ ~ e , A\ A "!::. "K-A q ~ S D'i
RECEIVED
APR 12 ' I
CHUGACH N.F.
l \...A~ YQ.v,~-ect ~UV\JY +,~~"e M A-1'\~e.~ ~~Y"~
~ tt-~ Q k ~ ~~.-l ~IN' .e~ \-. .A v 12-A \' '-·e -tt-...e.r ~ w l-l \. be
S"""' e P. d """'"' e ';,._, ~A coh , lo ~ "'< tL ~ ~ -\-, ;c M J ,., , ~ >1
\v ' \ \ '-oe '-\1... ~ ~ D "5 S. \ \;' \ _:~ 0'\ ~v'Y"> Q ~ -\v.A.\-~ ~ Moo s -€
~c ~v--\A-\-~--:. Close -.\-o ~,·~~ w~s ,~ :SCJVY'\-e. A-VVLAs.
l. "'-A.~ \~~ ~~\\-~4-\ -L.H-:e \.t ~~~s '\-l~ io~t
~~\\. MA-n~Q.~ ~c\ ~A\\ o<\lo(e -\-o ~rOV\ ~€ A-.--ti
\>"t-..~;~ V\".oo~-e \,v-~~ ~~b .. ~-\-. ~ Qe_~'" ~ ~~~
~ .,.... , \ MA '1t. « •I'M.~\-. """''-"-\ e ""->-& k.v, """ I. ._, ~ ..._. Q d
\~ ~ t-~s..
~ ""-c~-\ A..·~~ t~ M~ s'i' ~~'~"'"* ~.u .~ Th~1 ~ro~~-
135
'S~~j
~h-.~ -
Appendix 24B
Suta Director. Suruu of Laue£ Maa.&g.._c
A:cbor:&£e • .A.U.ka Ma7 '· 1977
··Aree :>ireetor, Fish ADd WUdU!a Sel'V1ce, Anchorace. }.laska
"!teview of dr:1ft cnviron£~ental atatt!!Dent for propos~ lira tf.'lna7:1!11*nt
Progra:n for c;"u;>;:tc:h Hoose -Fire ~''ltUP.e~ent Fro~ra:a 1 Cbugaeh li.ational
Forest. ~en~i Pen1n•al~. ;\l~s~~ (~~-77/Jf.O)
We hcvo reviewed t~o subject st~t~ent as roques-.J in a Remorauduo
ci.lt•=d April 14, 1977. fr~'>"• ~r..~ce ,;;!.:menard. Director, Office of
~~v!ro~ental Project Wcvicw.
we feel that t!u~ prv~-os!ld plan of prescribe.! b'1%rnin~ oc th~ ChuP.aeh
~:..lt.ional l"urcst. if c.:J.r:.ie:l.O o;.~t ns p.l~•:ne.j, uill ?•~nr:,r~uly t..a bcnt;i"icial
in c.Jr.iu~ ~ore L1bit:<t c!: !--~ttar qu.:u;;.t'l ,~v.,il;;.'"le co •· .. oo ... ,.. :.;;dla sc.::·o
lcs~;c:~ of ~ll V·:'t"t<!l;r•·lt•~s • .. ill ttu<lo.l~ .. tt!uly c:..:..:;ur, ~.'<:! L:·~l theg~~ will
£_:£;1.;>.r,jJ.ly t3 vZ s~t,Jrt ;.;~:ri!tion nnd of :t.;:)lativ~ :l."tr.i:·,,if!.::.=.nco co:::p~rt~J
\lith tl.e lcn_~~r tti!.-.:1 Lo:,;>~fits to .-:o4Jf'd and ctl,;;!r r.;:c<:i.?s.
cc: ADF~G, Ju~cau
A!H'E.C, ~ !.r.chornr;a
AOES • AO :tF, ~V.=:S
Br. I:..·w. Cuor.J. :~c
136
...
RIIEIYEI
.. 18111
_QIU&ACH H.F~
-
07 0018
STATE
of ALASKA
I'.,~.. J_ , . ' ·.r. --+-.... J.... " .
TO,~
Supervisor
Appendix 25
11£/JIIJMN/JI/11
APk J R IQ(I
CHUGACH N.F.
Chugach National Forest
Anchorage
DATE April 13, 1977 "o~d~:~r SUBJECT,
Environmental Field Officer
Department of Environmental Conservation
Recent Hearing and Proposed
Burning of Forest Service
Lands
Hello:
Just a note to comment on your recent hearing and on the burning
proposal of Forest Service lands.
I thought that your Forest Service personnel did a fine job in
explaining the project. When I first read about the program in
the news media, I was led to believe that 22,000 acres of land
would be burned over the spring ( '77). If this had been true,
I was a little concerned for the bird life if the burn would
have taken place during the nesting period. However, through
explanation of the project by your personnel, this fear has now
been eliminated.
I support your proposed burning program.
H.R.K.
HRK:ht
137 -
Appendix 26
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
OIIICE OF THEM'S SSIIEr
May 17' 1977
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
Suite 230
2221 E. Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, AK 99504
Dear Sir:
JAYI.-.-
The Division of Game, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, has reviewed
the draft Environmental Statement of the Chugach Moose-Fire Management
Program. We find it a very well-developed and well-written plan, and
can only offer a few suggestions for improvement.
In considering problems of cabins vs burns, the fact that we own a
cabin in Chickaloon River Site 1 was apparently overlooked. This does
not imply, however, that this burn should be curtailed for aesthetic
reasons.
The reference to fisher (Pages 65 and 74) should be deleted, as this
species is not indigenous to Alaska.
Adequate notice to the public is undoubtedly planned, although not
specifically outlined in this Statement. We encourage the Forest Service
to achieve maximum publicity on the program, both to counter the "Smokey
Bear" syndrome, and to decrease public concern (aircraft reporting the
control burns, etc.) at the time of application.
In general, this is one of the better Environmental Statements we have
had the pleasure of reviewing, and we congratulate the Forest Service
for the excellent job of planning for a progressive program. The program
has our unqualified support.
Sincerely,
RECEIVED
MAY 20 JSn
CHUGACH N.F.
138 -
Appendix 27
U. S. E N V I R 0 N M E N T A l P R 0 T E C T I 0 N A G E N C Y
REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
REPlY TO
ATTN OF, 10FA -M/S 623 \
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Boulevard
Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Bea1:
\
He have reviewed the draft environmental statement on the Chugach
Moose-Fire Management Program and can foresee no significant adverse
environmental impacts if the program is implemented.
The Environmental Protection Agency has rated this draft environmental
statement L0-1, LO (Lack of Objections), 1 (Adequate Information).
The rating will be published in the Federal Register in accordance
with our responsibility to inform the public of our views on proposed
Federal actions under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this statement.
Sin cere ly,
Alexandra B. Smith
Director
Office of Federal Affairs
139
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO--Lack of Objections
EPA has no objections to the proposed action as described in the
draft impact statement or suggests only minor changes in the
proposed action.
ER--Environmental Reservations
EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain
aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of
suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked
the originating Federal agency to reassess these aspects.
EU--Environmentally Unsatisfactory
EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of
its potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore,
the Agency believes that the potential safeguards which might be
utilized may not adequately protect the environment from hazards
arising from this action. The Agency recommends that alternatives
to the action be analyzed further (including the possibility of no
action at all).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category !--Adequate
The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental
impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternatives
reasonably available to the project or action.
Category 2--Insufficient Information
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not contain
sufficient information to assess fully the environmental impact
of the proposed project or action. However, from the information
submitted, the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination
of the impact on the environment. EPA has requested that the originator
provide the information that was not included in the draft statement.
Category 3--Inadequate
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately
assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action,
or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonably available
alternatives. The Agency has requested more information and analysis
concerning the potential environmental hazards and has asked that
substantial revision be made to the draft statement.
If a draft impact statement is assigned a Category 3, ordinarily
no rating will be made of the project or action, since a basis does
not generally exist on which to make such a determination.
140
Alaska Chapter,
'I'IIE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
i3 ·' Raspberry Road
Ancl1orage, Alaska 99502
April 29, 1977
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Mr. Beal:
Appendix 2R
-4 ,~.,.,
_QUAQIIlP.'
'I'he Alaska Chapter of the Wildlife Society has reviewed your Environmental
Impact Statement regarding moose habitat improvement within the Chugach
National Forest on the Kenai Peninsula. In addition, I have also discussed
the program with several of your employees involved with the project.
We wish to compliment you on a well planned project and hope you can conduct
the habitat improvement work as planned. We fully support your effort.
We are aware that there will be initial detrimental impacts, particularly on
some birds and small mammal& but the long range effects of creating "edge
habitats" should be beneficial to most forms of wildlife.
Sincerely yours,
, • -fJ f! -:::--1 r ~·{,.(9-t..
--· ,vlY a t~ t>T)
l"iill Troyer
President, Alaska Chapter
The Wildlife Society
cc: Robert Rausch
141 -
REPLY TO: 8400
Appendix 29
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
INF--Fairbanks
susJECT: En vi ronmenta 1 Statement for Moose-Fire
Management Program
March 29, 1977
To: Lee Culbertson M~P '·.
Chugach National Forest
2221 East Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 230
Anchorage, AK 99504
Les and I have gone over the draft of your impact statement and
found it to be a really excellent and thorough piece of work.
It shows a lot of thought and just plain hard work.
The only suggestion we would have centers on evaluation of results
of burning. The only mention of this we could find was one short
paragraph on page 44. In view of the time, effort, and expense
expended on these burns, it would seem that a carefully thought
out program of evaluation should be instituted. If we could be
of any help along these lines, we would be most happy to oblige.
Our new fire scientist, Dr. Rod Narum from Missoula, will be on
board by about the middle of April. We will send him a copy of
the statement and ask him to comment on it •
.N
C. T. DYRNESS
Program Leader
142
,...,. Applndix 30 ~ 00~ U.S. DEPAIITMENT DF COMMERCE ~ /~ Not~onol Ocoo~lc on~ Atm~•phorlc ~dmlnl•tr.tlon
,;.,,."'(If NatLonal Mar1-ne FLsherLes ServLce
P. 0. Box 1668, ,Juneau, Alaska 99802
May 19, 1977 /
RECEIVE I
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Boulevard
Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
, . .
Re: USDA-FS-R10 DES (ADM 77-07 Chugach Moose -Fire
Management Program)
Dear Mr. Beal:
MAV 26 1977
CHUGACH N.F ..
The Environmental Statement for the Chugach Moose -Fire
Management Program, which accompanied your letter of
March 23, 1977, has been received by the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
The statement has been reviewed and we have no comments
to offer.
Sincerely yours,
:\t~; tC~:{':L l l-l' 1 .. J ..,.-
~t\', Harry l. Rietze
Director, Alaska Region
143
....... "' ... Appendix 31
OFFICE OF THE GOVEaNOR
~---.. ,~•ru••··-
,_._ .... , ,..-..u
f
May 11, 1977
RECEIVED
Mr. Clay G. Beal
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 230
MAY .lti 1917
I. Anchorage, Alaska 99504 ,. ........... .
Subject: Chugach Moose-Fire Management Program DEIS
State I.D. No. 77032510
Dear Mr. Beal:
The State Clearinghouse has completed its review of the
subject proposal.
Comments from State agencies indicate the proposed action is
viewed with a too narrow perspective. Impact on resources
which should be addressed include the effect of the proposal
on historic and archaeological sites, water quality and
diversity of vegatation types as well as such recreational
uses as hiking, canoeing, photography, fishing and roadside
sightseeing. Additionally, investigation should be undertaken
to determine the feasibility of logging the selected areas,
prior to burning.
I suggest you contact the following State personnel to
discuss these various issues:
Protection of ~()r!_c__!Yld.cultural properties and recreational
values -the Alaska Division of Parks has a comprehensive
file of historical and archaeological resources, including a
number within the areas proposed to be burned. The person
to contact is Mr. Russ Cahill, Director, Division of Parks,
619 Warehouse Drive, Anchorage, Alaska, Phone: 274-4676;
Erosion control and water auality maintenance coordination
should be maintained withr. Kyle Cherry, Regional Environmental
Supervisor, Department of Environmental Conservation, 338
Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska, Phone: 274-5527.
In addition, coordination should be maintained with State
forestry personnel. Contact can be made through Lawrence A.
Dutton, Manager, Southcentral Land District, Division of
Lands and Water Management, 323 E. 4th Avenue, Anchorage,
Alaska, Phone: 279-5577.
I futher suggest that you convene a meeting of the above
144 ....
Mr. Beal May 11, 1977 2.
named individuals to review their concerns and to coordinate
State efforts with those planned by the Forest Service.
This letter satisfies the review requirements of Office of
Management and Budget Circualr A-95.
cc: Russ Cahill
Kyle Cherry
Lawrence Dutton
145
Sincer~ ~ ~lterman
State-Federal Coordinator
Appendix 32 .. ...
./A, ....... ,_ ....
DEPARTMENT OF BIGMWA't'S --..rtllt:T
• -
.RECEIVED.
APR 4 1~77.
.tHIJGACH N.F •
.:
Forest Supervisor
Chugach National Forest
2221 E. Northern Lights Blvd.
Suite 230
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Dear Sir:
April 1, 1977
Re: Environmental Statement
Chugach Mooee-Fire
Management Program
52-2441
!
The Department of Highways, Central Division has no objection
to the Chugach Moose-Fire Management Program.
Enclosed you will find a copy of our proposed Si~ Year Program
for construction on the Kenai Peninsula. Please note the prox-
imity of some of the proposed burn areas to proposed highway
construction.
If highway construction is in progress during a proposed
burning period, close coordination between the Forest Service
representatives and Mr. Guy Greene, Construction Engineer for
the Central Division will be necessary to avoid any conflict.
If any questions or problems arise, my staff will be available
for assistance.
Attachment:
Six Year Transportation
Construction Program
~ely, Y2U ~;[~RQft •
Central Division Engineer
146