U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge
Environmental Assessment Spatial Fire Management Plan
August 2016
Photo Credit: Meghan Powell/USFWS
Environmental Assessment
Spatial Fire Management Plan
August 2016 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge
Connecticut
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with
others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and
their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.
The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer
a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish,
wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations.
Recommended citation:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Environmental Assessment: Spatial Fire Management Plan for Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Connecticut. August 2016. TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND NEED Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Need ...... 2 Project Area ...... 5 Impact Topics...... 8
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Fire and Fuels Management ...... 11 Prioritization of Treatments ...... 12 Preliminary Alternatives Considered ...... 12 Alternatives Analyzed ...... 14 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 24
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Methodology for Assessing Impacts ...... 25 Vegetation ...... 26 Fire Behavior and Fuels ...... 33 Wildlife and Their Habitats ...... 39 Cultural Resources ...... 51 Public Experience, Health, and Safety ...... 56 Conclusion ...... 63
CONSULTATION AND LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 67
LITERATURE CITED ...... 68
GLOSSARY ...... 72 Fire Behavior ...... 74 Fire Behavior Components ...... 74 Fire Risk and Fire Hazard ...... 75
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Habitat Area by Refuge Management Unit ...... 7 Table 2. Summary of Preliminary Alternatives Considered ...... 13 Table 3. Comparison of Treatment Area by Alternative ...... 16 Table 4. Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures ...... 17 Table 5. Occurrence of Special Status Plant Species and Suitable Habitat by Fire Management Unit ...... 28 Table 6. Invasive Plant Control Areas in 2007 through 2013 as Compared to Target Areas in 2014 and 2015 ...... 29 Table 7. Summary of Current Fuel Models and Fire Tolerance Codes by Fire Management Unit ...... 34 Table 8. Adjective Class for the 40 Fuel Models ...... 35 Table 9. Impacts on Each Fuel Model within the Refuge ...... 36 Table 10. Federally or State Listed Animal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur on Refuge by Fire Management Unit ...... 41 Table 11. Public Uses by Management Unit ...... 58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Stewart B. McKinney NWR Management Units ...... 7
PURPOSE AND NEED
INTRODUCTION
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service, FWS) requires that every area with burnable vegetation has an approved fire management plan (FMP) that describes actions to prepare for and respond to a wildfire (fire suppression); plans for and manages vegetation by management actions, including prescribed fire; and completes other fire management business in accordance with an approved Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP).
The Service has prepared this Spatial Fire Management Plan and Environmental Assessment (SFMP and EA) for the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) located along the Long Island Sound of Connecticut to continue to protect natural and cultural resources, the public, FWS employees and facilities, and comply with Agency and policy direction. This FMP and EA has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as amended [42 United States Code (USC.) 4332(2) (C)]; the implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500-1508.9]; the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI) NEPA regulations (43 CFR Part 46); and Service policies 30 AM 2-3, 550 FW 3, 602 FW 1-3, and the handbook for National Wildlife Refuges (FWS 2014).
The FMP must meet agency policy and direction of the:
• National Fire Plan: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (USDI and U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2001a) • Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment and Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy (also known as the National Fire Plan) (USDI and USDA 2001b) • A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan (an adjunct to the National Fire Plan 2001) (USDI and USDA 2006) • Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 2009) • Federal Land Assistance, Management and Enhancement Act of 2009 (National Cohesive Strategy)
Among other policies, the FMP must provide for firefighter and public safety while it adheres to the USDI policy (620 DM 1) by giving full consideration to the use of wildland fire as a natural process during the fire management planning process.
The Service intends to use the SFMP format to plan and implement fire suppression needs for the refuge in place of the traditional narrative FMP format. This type of planning is a new concept in the United States. Spatial (also referred to as geospatial) refers to a topographically accurate representation of landscape features presented in digital or hardcopy. Fundamentally, geospatial planning moves a lot of information from text descriptions in documents to geospatial representation on maps. The products are a combination of text documents and mapsheets, with the text documents being greatly reduced in volume from the present size. The SFMP provides advantages to the managers, fire fighters, all risk responders, and planners that rely on the
Purpose and Need 1
critical information that is readily accessible in any number of mapsheets, spatially viewed, with limited text to digest. A mapsheet is a collection of one or more maps, tables, and other information on a single page.
The following are important reasons to use the SFMP concept:
• Critical information is more easily accessible to users, management, incident teams, stakeholders, and the public. • The information is updated more easily and kept current as conditions change (for example, fuels projects completed or as wildfires occur). • There is an overall reduction in the cost and time to produce and update documents. • There is a reduced reliance on large, dense text documents that may be difficult to use and reference. • The geospatially represented information from fire management planning becomes straightforward to integrate with other evolving spatially based systems such as the Wildfire Decision Support System and National Fire Plan Operations and Reporting System (NFPORS).
The planning effort will take significant core data from the FWS databases and geographic information systems to create geospatial representations in a coherent map set based upon suppression operations (Operations Map) and current state/future planning (Planning Map).
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the SFMP is to meet the Service’s requirement to have a FMP for every area with burnable vegetation that:
1. Describes the actions to be taken to prepare for and respond to a wildfire (fire suppression); 2. Plans for and manages vegetation by management actions, including prescribed fire; and 3. Completes other fire management business in accordance with an approved CCP.
A FMP for Stewart B. McKinney NWR is need for three primary reasons.
1. Burnable vegetation occurs on each of the refuge’s 10 management units, hereafter referred to as seven fire management units (FMUs). However, the refuge does not currently have an approved FMP that fulfills the requirements listed above. Therefore, a FMP must be prepared for the refuge.
2. No written agreements or records of interagency coordination exist for Stewart B. McKinney NWR regarding emergency response, which means that local emergency response agencies and personnel may not be aware of critical information about the refuge, its resources, or public uses that may be affected in an emergency wildfire response situation. Therefore, development of a FMP for this refuge is needed to promote understanding and cooperation with emergency responders and refuge neighbors that could be impacted or affect the wildfires and fuel loads in the refuge vicinity.
3. Uncertainty remains as to the historical role or cycle of fire in the northeastern United States. However, fire is known to have had an important role in maintaining grasslands
Purpose and Need 2
along coastal regions such as the Hempstead Plains in Long Island, the Connecticut sand plains in New Haven, and the sand plain grasslands associated with the terminal moraine from the Wisconsinan glacial period (https://www.conncoll.edu/media/website- media/green/arbo/greenlivingdocs/Geologic_History_of_Long_Island_Sound.pdf, accessed January 2016).
Frost (1998) estimated that the pre-settlement fire frequency for coastal New England was 7 to 12 years. Davis (1996) reported that fire-related disturbances were the primary force shaping the deciduous forests along the coast. Present-day fire return interval is now estimated at over 1,000 years for coastal Connecticut (Heinselman 1978 and Patterson, personal communication). The low number of wildland fires occurring in the area makes determination of a “typical” fire season difficult, since the historic database that could be analyzed is small. Most wildland fires occur in leaf litter or cured grasses after snowmelt in the spring but prior to green-up, typically between March and early May. A fall fire season may occur after October leaf fall and prior to early snows. Summer fires are very rare but may occasionally occur during drought years. Therefore, the refuge needs a FMP that clearly defines the role of mechanical and prescribed fire in vegetation management.
For this FMP to be considered a success, the following objectives must be met:
Objective 1. Protect human life, property, and the environment inside each refuge management unit from damage caused by wildfire. • All fires within the defined wildland-urban interface will be suppressed with aggressive tactics. • Cultural resources will be avoided whenever possible. • The refuge will work with partners in and around the seven refuge FMUs as directed by the Cohesive Strategy to mitigate wildfire threat to Service values. • Post wildfire restoration will follow departmental policy.
Need Based on Existing and Future Conditions. FWS values need to be protected, and in order to do so, there must be proactive management of natural fuels to reduce the behavior of wildfires, which can threaten lives, resources, and property. The Service has a responsibility to provide for the prevention and management of wildfires, which can cause adverse impacts on natural resources (such as habitat, wildlife, water resources, and soils) and cultural resources (such as historic structures and archaeological sites). Assets include buildings, furnishing, and fixtures; storage sheds and the equipment inside; fences; information kiosks; signs; pedestrian boardwalks and bridges; observation decks; parking areas; public use comfort stations; and utilities (gas and electric - piping, wiring, poles). This list is just a very small sampling of the types of FWS assets that could be at risk from a potentially devastating wildfire
Objective 2. Protect human life, property, and the environment outside each refuge management unit from damage caused by wildfire and fire management activities originating from inside the refuge. • All fires originating within the refuge will be suppressed within the FMUs when tactically possible. • Community values at risk will be protected with aggressive tactics.
Purpose and Need 3
• The refuge will work with partners in and around the seven FMUs as directed by the Cohesive Strategy to mitigate wildfire fires originating from FMUs from threatening community values. • Work with the community to identify and prioritize critical protection areas and potential treatments that could be mitigated from the threat of wildfire.
Need Based on Existing and Future Conditions. There is a need to protect FWS neighbors (including mutual aid zones and private inholdings) by implementing fuel reduction projects on refuge lands that contain heavy and overgrown vegetation or fuel loads. A variety of treatment methods (such as prescribed fire, mowing, mastication, thinning, or some combination) are needed to reduce or remove excessive surface and ladder fuels along refuge management unit boundaries, provide for safe access into and out of the refuge management units, and create firebreaks and defensible space so as to reduce the potential for damaging wildfires. The Service must ensure that properly trained and equipped personnel are prepared to respond to wildfires. Additionally, the Service needs to prepare for changing climate conditions that may contribute to an increase in the potential of damaging wildfires.
Objective 3. Maintain the ecological integrity of native biological communities to support a diversity of wildlife occurring on and near the refuge, with habitats that enhance but are not limited to, populations of herons, egrets, terns, other shorebirds, and wading birds of paramount importance. • Prescribed fire treatments may be implemented to establish proper habitat for endangered species, shorebirds, and long legged waders on refuge island units. • Prescribed fire treatments may be implemented to control invasive species and produce quality low and high marsh habitat. • Prescribed fire treatments may be implemented to control invasive species and manage fuel loads in woodland ecosystems.
Need Based on Existing Conditions. There is a need to maintain and enhance wildlife habitat. Current conditions reflect higher fuel loadings, increased ladder fuels and woody vegetation, and presence of exotic and invasive vegetation not founded in a healthy fire adapted ecosystem. Nesting shorebirds have less available nesting habitat as a result of increased height and density of vegetation as well as increased predation opportunities as woody vegetation becomes established providing perches for predators.
Purpose and Need 4
PROJECT AREA
The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension program analyzed land cover type in Connecticut in 2006. Statewide, the three largest land cover types were forest (59 percent), developed land (19 percent), and grassland (e.g., parks, golf courses, pasture; 17 percent) (http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/landscape/statewide.htm, accessed January 2016). The area closest to the refuge is somewhat more densely developed. In the three cities or towns adjacent to mainland refuge units (i.e., Milford, Stratford, and Westbrook), the three largest land cover types are: developed land (43 percent), forest (32 percent), and grassland (13 percent) (http://clear.uconn.edu/Projects/landscape/your/town.asp?, accessed January 2016).
The purposes for the 1,038-acre Stewart B. McKinney NWR are:
• for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds (16 U.S.C. § 715 et. seq.); • for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources .. (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)); • for the benefit of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, in performing its activities and services. Such acceptance may be subject to the terms of any restrictive or affirmative covenant, or condition of servitude . (16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1)); • to enhance the populations of herons, egrets, terns, and other shore and wading birds within the refuge (Public Law 98-548); • to encourage natural diversity of fish and wildlife species within the refuge (Public Law 98- 548); • to provide for the conservation of all fish and wildlife within the refuge (Public Law 98- 548); • to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States respecting fish and wildlife (Public Law 98-548); and • to provide opportunities for scientific research, environmental education, and fish and wildlife-orientated recreation (Public Law 98-548).
The refuge’s seven FMUs are described below as they occur geographically, from east to west. Refer to figure 1 and table 1 for additional details about habitat areas within each refuge management unit. Approximately 32 acres of the 1,038-acre refuge is considered non-habitat because these areas are occupied by buildings, roads, parking areas, docks, jetties, and revetments.
• The Salt Meadow Unit is the easternmost unit of the refuge, located in Westbrook. The majority of this unit is located on the mainland. Menunketesuck Island is the island portion of the Salt Meadow Unit. The mainland portion of this unit is located on Old Clinton Road. The refuge headquarters and administrative facilities are located here. Menunketesuck Island is located in the Long Island Sound a quarter of a mile from the mainland, at the mouth of the Menunketesuck River. • Falkner Island is a crescent-shaped island that is located approximately 3 miles south of the Guilford town marina. Its sand spit and upland plateau (at 40 feet above sea level) are separated by a steeply sloped bank armored with a riprap revetment to protect the historic Falkner Island Lighthouse. The U.S. Coast Guard (USGC) operates the lighthouse, as it continues to serve as an operational aid to navigation.
Purpose and Need 0
• The Thimble Islands is an archipelago in the Long Island Sound located in and around the harbor of Stony Creek in the southeast corner of Branford. Of the Thimble Islands, Outer Island is the most remote from land. The Service and Southern Connecticut State University jointly manage Outer Island. • The Milford Point Unit is a barrier beach and sandbar complex, located at the mouth of the Housatonic River in Milford. The unit abuts the Charles Wheeler Marsh Wildlife Management Area (WMA) administered by Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP). • The Great Meadows Unit is the largest management unit of Stewart B. McKinney NWR. The unit is bounded by residential development of Stratford to the east; the Sikorski Airport to the north and northeast, across Lordship Boulevard from the unit; warehouse and industrial development to the northwest; and Lewis Gut, a tidal embayment, to the south. • The Norwalk Islands are a 6-mile archipelago, with more than 25 islands located approximately 1 mile off the coast of Norwalk and southwest Westport in Long Island Sound. We would manage Chimon, Sheffield, Peach, and Goose Islands as one FMU. o Chimon Island lies approximately 1 mile south of Calf Pasture Beach, a Norwalk City Park on the east shore of the mouth of the Norwalk River. o Sheffield Island lies approximately 1 mile southwest of Chimon Island. The Norwalk Seaport Association owns the historic Sheffield Island Lighthouse and the surrounding 14 acres. o Goose Island lies approximately 0.7 mile east of Chimon Island. o Peach Island is located in the mouth of the Norwalk River, between Calf Pasture Beach to the east and the community of Harborview to the west. • Calf Island is the westernmost unit of the refuge, located approximately 0.5 mile off the shore of Greenwich and 25 miles from New York City, New York.
Fire History There have been three recorded fires since Service ownership. On August 7, 2002, a 0.3-acre fire was suppressed by Westbrook Fire Department on the Salt Meadow Unit, west of Gatchen Creek. A second fire that destroyed a historic house on Chimon Island in June 2007 took 20 firefighters more than 8 hours to suppress because high winds helped to spread the flames (http://www.thehour.com/news/norwalk/young-men-in-chimon-island-fire-plead- guilty/article_49fbe533-25af-51a9-98b9-af8c7a3f0299.html, https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=20070623&id=p4pIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vAU NAAAAIBAJ&pg=2354,1208112&hl=en). A third fire of 0.1 acres occurred on Outer Island in June 2007. All of these fires were human caused. Human carelessness, railroads, incendiary, and burning debris are the primary causes of forest fires in the State of Connecticut.
The low number of wildland fires occurring in the area makes determination of a “typical” fire season difficult, since the historic database that could be analyzed is fairly small. Most wildland fires occur in leaf litter or cured grasses after snowmelt in the spring but prior to green-up, typically between March and early May. A fall fire season may occur after October leaf fall and prior to early snows. Summer fires are very rare but may occasionally occur during drought years.
Purpose and Need 1
Figure 1. Location of Stewart B. McKinney NWR Management Units
Table 1. Habitat Area by Refuge Management Unit Habitat Area (Acres) Total Refuge Rocky Shore, Maritime Forest Tidal and Freshwater Habitat Management Mudflat, Dune and Early Wetlands & Associated Area Unit Grassland, and Successional Grasslands (acres) Beach Salt Meadow1 211 8 110 329 Falkner Island 5 0.5 1 7 Outer Island 2 0.1 0.3 2 Milford Point 0 18 8 26 Great 16 67 354 437 Meadows Chimon 28 21 33 82 Sheffield 14 28 33 75 Goose 0 7 10 17 Peach 1 0.5 0.2 2 Calf Island 14 8 10 32 Total Habitat 291 158 560 1009 Area (acres) Total Habitat 29 16 55 100 (percent) 1 The Salt Meadow Management Unit includes Menunketesuck Island.
Purpose and Need 0
IMPACT TOPICS
Impact topics are resources of concern that could be affected, either beneficially or adversely, by the alternatives presented in this FMP and EA. The impact topics were identified based on internal scoping (input from FWS staff based on professional knowledge of the refuge resources), current site conditions, Federal laws, executive orders, regulations, and management policies.
The impact topics analyzed in this FMP and EA are listed below. Potential impacts on resources from the proposed alternatives are discussed in “Chapter 3 - Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.” Likewise, a number of potential impact topics were initially considered but ultimately dismissed from analysis in this FMP and EA because
• any potential impacts are not central to the proposed action or of critical importance; • a detailed analysis of impacts is not necessary to make a reasoned choice between alternatives; • the impacts are not a big point of contention among the public or other agencies; or • there would not be significant impacts on resources.
Impact Topics Analyzed in this FMP and EA We identified specific impact topics to address potential natural, cultural, and social impacts that might result from the proposed construction work. We derived impact topics to address Federal laws, regulations and orders, management documents, and knowledge of limited or easily impacted resources. Each impact topic relates to a specific aspect of the refuge and its surrounding community, which are essential to protect.
Vegetation. The Service has a policy that provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System), including the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources in refuge ecosystems (601 FW 3). It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of environmental conditions and restore lost or severely degraded components of the environment. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its ecosystem.
Executive Order 13112 (EO), “Invasive Species,” signed on February 3, 1999, guides Federal management of nonnative, invasive plant species. The EO defines an invasive species as "…an alien (or nonnative) species whose introduction does, or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Exotic species will not be allowed to displace native species if displacement can be prevented. Exotic plant species will be managed—up to and including eradication—if (1) control is prudent and feasible, and (2) the exotic species interferes with natural processes and the perpetuation of natural features, native species, or natural habitats, disrupts the accurate presentation of a cultural landscape, damages cultural resources, or significantly hampers the management of refuge lands.
The presence of invasive plants can have an adverse impact on the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of refuges and other natural areas. The impacts of exotic plants on refuge resources and impacts from proposed fuel reduction actions are analyzed in detail because disturbances, such as wildfire, may promote exotic plant growth. Fire suppression activities may
Purpose and Need 0
introduce nonnative plant species to uninfected areas of the refuge management units via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. Of particular concern to land managers are the impacts of nonnative plants on fuel characteristics and changes to fire regimes. Exotic plants can alter the intensity and structure of wildfires because of an increase in fuel loads and flammable chemicals in leaves and can also facilitate the spread of fire into the forest canopy.
Fire Behavior and Fuels. All living and dead vegetation can potentially serve as fuels during a wildfire. It is important to understand how vegetation type and abundance can affect wildfire behavior and increase wildfire intensity and severity, and it helps fire managers know where to focus fuel reduction treatments, where to create and maintain fuel breaks and defensible space, and where to protect FWS values (such as natural and cultural resources, FWS facilities and assets, and wildland-urban interface areas) before and during a wildfire.
Wildlife and Habitat. The Service’s biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy (601 FW 3) also applies to wildlife and their habitats. Additionally, the Service has a policy that establishes procedures for coordinating and working cooperatively with state fish and wildlife agency representatives on management of units of the Refuge System (601 FW 7). Effective conservation of fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats depends on the professional relationship between managers at the state and Federal level. The proposed treatments would impact, both beneficially and adversely, wildlife and their habitat so this impact topic was retained for analysis.
Cultural Resources. A variety of Federal laws require that the Service identify and preserve its important historic structures, archaeological sites, and artifacts. NEPA mandates consideration of cultural resources in planning Federal actions. Federal agencies are also required by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) to locate and protect historic resources (archaeological sites and historic structures eligible for or listed in the National Register of Historic Places [National Register], and museum property) on their land or on land affected by their activities. In addition, agencies are required to establish a program for these activities and carry out their preservation activities in consultation with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). The Service’s Regional Historic Preservation Office (RHPO) in Hadley, Massachusetts, oversees compliance with these laws and consults with the SHPOs in 14 states. This impact topic was retained for analysis because wildfire and fuel reduction activities could potentially affect historic structures, cultural landscapes, and archaeological resources, which occur in some refuge management units.
Public Experience, Health, and Safety. At the forefront of FWS plans is providing a safe and healthy environment for firefighters and the public. Various Service policies provide guidance on implementing management of quality, wildlife-dependent recreation programs that promote public safety, comply with applicable laws and regulations, minimize or eliminate conflict with fish and wildlife populations or habitat goals and objectives in approved plans, and minimizes conflict with neighboring landowners (e.g., 603 FW 1, 603 FW 2, 605 FW 1). Wildfires and the proposed action and alternatives could potentially result in temporary adverse impacts on refuge staff and visitors to the refuge. Wildfires and the proposed action and alternatives could also affect adjacent landowners and nearby communities and businesses. Thus this impact topic was retained for analysis.
Impact Topics Dismissed from Analysis in this FMP and EA Environmental Justice. EO 12898, “General Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires all Federal agencies to incorporate
Purpose and Need 1
environmental justice into their missions by identifying and addressing the disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental impacts of their programs and policies on minorities and low income populations and communities.” This impact topic was dismissed from analysis because the proposed action and alternatives would not result in disproportionately high and/or adverse human health or environmental impacts on minorities and low-income populations and communities.
Indian Trust Resources. Secretarial Order 3175 requires that any anticipated impacts to Indian Trust resources from a proposed project or action by USDI agencies be explicitly addressed in environmental documents. The Federal Indian Trust responsibility is a legally enforceable obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal lands, assets, resources, and treaty rights, and it represents a duty to carry out the mandates of federal laws with respect to Native American tribes. There are no known Indian Trust resources in the seven refuge management units, and these lands are not held in trust by the Secretary of the Interior for the benefit of Indians due to their status as Indians. Therefore, the impact topic of Indian Trust resources was dismissed from further analysis.
Purpose and Need 2
PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT
Wildfire Management The Federal Wildfire Policy gives fire managers the latitude to determine and implement the appropriate wildfire management actions based on current and expected conditions. Action options range from monitoring, with minimal on-the-ground disturbance, to aggressive initial attack on all perimeters of the fire, to a combination of strategies to achieve confinement.
Wildfire suppression is accomplished by depriving a fire of fuels (such as using hand tools to build a fireline) or by cooling the fire sufficiently to prevent further combustion (such as applying water to the flaming front) using engines and aircraft. The Refuge Manager or designee may approve the use of heavy equipment (such as dozers) if deemed necessary to ensure firefighter and public safety.
Managers may choose to use natural or man-made barriers in a confined strategy to increase firefighter safety, minimize impacts of suppression actions, and lower cost. Appropriate tactics would include burning out from roadways or allowing the fire to burn into areas such as streams, roads, and hiking trails.
Mechanical Treatments For the purpose of the FMP and EA mechanical and manual treatment is defined as any use of hand operated power tools and hand tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous and woody species. Power tools include chain saws, tractors, masticators, excavators, chippers, mowers (such as brush hogs), weed eaters, blowers, and other specialty equipment that are used to produce a desired condition.
Mechanical treatments are generally used to remove or alter concentrations of fuel or invasive species that may not be treated by prescribed fire due to the size, amount, and vertical arrangement of material needing to be removed. Mechanical treatments may also be used in conjunction with prescribed fire treatments as part of the overall treatment process to meet or maintain fire management goals and objectives.
Mechanical equipment is used to create and maintain firebreaks by removing fuel concentrations, mowing “green” fire breaks, grading two-track roads to remove vegetation, and removing single or small groups of trees by hand through use of chainsaws or loppers.
Prescribed Fire Prescribed fire is an intentionally ignited fire that is conducted according to site-specific objectives, prescriptions, and mitigating measures identified in individual prescribed burn plans. Prescribed fire planning and implementation is in accordance with 621 FW 1, FWS Fire Management Handbook, Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, the Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations, and the Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation Procedures Guide.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 3
Prescribed fire is used to reduce the accumulation and arrangement of hazardous fuels and to restore the role of fire in certain vegetation communities that are adapted to and benefit from fire. Prescribed fire is also used to treat areas infested with nonnative plant species and to maintain cultural landscapes and wildlife habitat. The improved habitat that results from the use of prescribed fire is a benefit to wildlife because fire removes dry, dead plant matter that has built up over the years, opening up space for new growth, palatable young shoots, creates younger, shorter cover, and increases food availability by stimulating seed production. Prescribed fire is used to convert cool-season grasses (such as fescue) to native warm-season grasses and to maintain the current fields of native warm-season grasses.
Pile burning may be used as a method to dispose of vegetative material generated from maintenance activities (such as tree trimming), manual or mechanical hazardous fuels reduction, hazard tree removal, or similar activities. Burning may occur during time periods when proper fuel moisture, temperature, and wind conditions exist to provide enhanced safety of operations and meet resource objectives.
Prescribed fire is also used to restore the role of fire in certain vegetation communities that are adapted to and benefit from fire. Fire-adapted vegetation refers to species of plants that have evolved with special traits that contribute to successful abilities to survive fires and thrive in a fire-prone environment at various stages in their life cycles. Those special traits include serotinous cones (those that develop or bloom during the late part of a growing season), fire resistant bark, fire resistant foliage, or rapid growth and development (Oregon State University (OSU), 2015). Fire-adapted vegetation communities are more fire tolerant; that is, they are sustainable and resilient to impacts of wildfire. This resilience allows disturbed areas to return to their ecosystem function faster (Millar et al. 2007).
PRIORITIZATION OF TREATMENTS
Treatment priority, in general, is based on values at risk (such as structures and property), both on and off FWS lands, and natural values such as critical habitat. High-priority projects are those that involve the reduction of wildfire threat to values (such as historic structures, important habitat areas, FWS assets, private property) on and adjacent to the refuge management units. The treatments generally involve the reduction of hazardous fuels through a combination of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire.
Other high-priority projects are those that restore or enhance critical habitat, including maritime shrubland communities, early successional pollinator communities, oak-pine-hickory forest communities; and in circumstances where federally listed (threatened and endangered) plant or wildlife species are or may be present. Treatments may be prioritized based on objectives for the management units, availability of resources and funding, previously completed prescribed fire and mechanical treatment projects, and current climatic and vegetative conditions.
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Table 2 provides a summary of preliminary alternatives considered in this FMP, identifies if each alternative meets the purpose, need, and objectives for developing a FMP for this refuge, and identifies how we addressed each alternative in this document.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 4
Table 2. Summary of Preliminary Alternatives Considered Fuels Management Alternative How Wildfire Management Alternative Techniques Meets Addressed in Meets Naturally Human Prescribed Purpose & This Mechanical Objectives? Preliminary Alternative Ignited Ignited Fire Need? Document A: Wildfire Suppression Only Partially Does Not Suppressed Suppressed None None Analyzed (No-action Alternative) Meets Meet B: Wildfire Suppression and Wildland Fuels Management Using Mechanical and Prescribed Suppressed Suppressed Used Used Fully Meets Fully Meets Analyzed Fire Treatments (Service-preferred Alternative) C: Wildfire Suppression and Partially Mechanical Wildland Fuels Suppressed Suppressed Used None Fully Meets Analyzed Meets Management Only D: Wildfire Suppression and Does Not Does Not Considered but Suppressed Suppressed None Used Prescribed Fire Only Meet Meet Dismissed E: No Wildfire Suppression or Does Not Does Not Considered but None None Fuels Management Meet Meet Dismissed F: Wildfire Use For Resource Does Not Does Not Considered but Managed Suppressed None Benefit Meet Meet Dismissed
Proposed Action and Alternatives 5
ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
Actions Common to All Alternatives Wildfire Management. Managers would continue using natural or man-made barriers in a confined strategy to increase firefighter safety, minimize impacts of wildfire suppression actions, and reduce costs. Suppression actions would continue to include the construction of fireline by firefighters using hand tools, engines, and aircraft. Some suppression actions, such as using heavy equipment or aircraft, would continue to be restricted based on the presence of cultural sites, riparian habitat, waterways, and critical habitat and used only with approval from the Refuge Manager or designee. Tactics, such as burning out from roadways or allowing the fire to burn into areas of natural confinement (such as rivers or rocky areas), may be appropriate as well.
Adaptive Management. Fire management personnel along with refuge staff evaluate fuel and resource conditions each year, results of current and past treatments, and funding availability for fuels management. In this way, the fire program incorporates an adaptive management approach into its planning and program implementation. Requisite consultation is performed on a project- by-project basis where a programmatic agreement has not been developed.
It is possible that, during the annual FMP evaluation and update, changes in refuge management unit conditions or in policy and law may indicate that the FMP is no longer applicable. The fire program staff may propose a multi-year fuels treatment plan that is not consistent with the analysis in this FMP and EA. If FWS staff decide to revise the FMP or multi-year fuels treatment plan in the future, and if those revisions would result in new impacts not considered in this FMP and EA, then such a program change would necessitate additional NEPA analyses.
Please note that additional compliance would be required in order to continue implementing the program, regardless of whether changes are made to the plan, if new regulatory requirements, threatened and endangered species listings, or changes to the environment have occurred since finalization of this FMP and EA. Also, similar projects that are outside the multi-year treatment plan are permissible as long as there would be no additional adverse impacts.
Alternative A: Wildfire Suppression Only (No-action Alternative) The no-action alternative describes how the refuge currently responds to wildfires and manages hazardous fuel loads. Analysis of the no-action alternative is required as part of the NEPA process to provide a basis for the comparison of other feasible alternatives.
Under this alternative, the refuge would continue to coordinate closely on an as-needed basis with local fire responders in the event of a wildfire. FWS policy requires all suppression responses to prioritize the safety of fire fighters and public and plan strategy and tactics which will limit the fire size to the smallest possible acres while employing the most effective and efficient use of resources and overall cost effectiveness. The protection of human life is the single overriding suppression priority. Setting priorities among protecting public communities and community infrastructure, other property and improvements, and natural and cultural resources will be done based on the values to be protected, public health and safety, and the costs of protection. Once people have been committed to an incident, these human resources become the highest value to be protected.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 6
As a result, fire managers/first responders may select a course of aggressive direct attack when safe opportunities are present. Lesser aggressive means of indirect attack which may include burning out control lines, using natural and manmade barriers, or monitoring and allowing a fire to burn itself out, or other viable options may be used.
No fuels reduction efforts would be undertaken on any of the refuge’s seven FMUs.
Alternative B: Wildfire Suppression and Wildland Fuels Management Using Mechanical and Prescribed Fire Treatments (Service-preferred Alternative) As detailed in alternative A, the refuge would continue to coordinate closely on an as-needed basis with local fire responders in the event of a wildfire.
The refuge would manage fuel loads and habitat throughout each of its seven FMUs using a combination of mechanical and prescribed fire techniques as seasonally and situationally appropriate. Prescribed burns are usually targeted for late March through May and September through November, though not exclusively. The fire effects desired and variability of weather and fuels conditions require a different seasonal time frame for successful implementation.
This alternative has been identified as the Service-preferred alternative because it represents the greatest potential for success in meeting management objectives for the proposed management actions on refuge management units.
Mechanical Treatments. Mechanical treatments would be used individually or in combination with prescribed fire to meet refuge objectives across all management units. • An average of 0-10 acres per year would be treated by mechanical methods to reduce fuels. • Mechanical treatments would continue to be used to clear vegetation away from flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources to reduce fire spread potential and increase defensible space. • Mechanical methods would continue to include cutting, mowing, weed-whipping, chopping, sawing, and similar activities using hand-held tools. For example, to increase the defensibility of a wooden structure,
− trees per acre may be reduced to 50 to 90 square feet basal area;
− trees may be limbed to a height of 6 feet to reduce the “ladder fuel” potential for carrying fire from surface vegetation into tree crowns;
− shrub density may also be reduced to slow surface fire spread along the ground; and
− mowing and weed-whipping may be used to reduce the height of vegetation and separation of fuels, thus reducing the potential flame length and proximity of herbaceous fuels to values at risk. • Mechanical treatments would occur primarily near facilities, visitor use areas, and historic structures to create defensible space as well as used as firebreaks for prescribed fire. As a general rule, if creating defensible space is the objective, hazard fuels projects would extend 30 to 50 feet, but not exceed 100 feet, from the protected structure. In other cases, hazard fuels reduction may be associated with reducing the fuel load that has accumulated over time in the absence of fire or fuel loads that are exacerbated by prolific growth of invasive nonnative species such as honeysuckle, bittersweet, or phragmites.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 7
• Woody material would likely be machine masticated followed by a prescribed fire treatment, or manually cut and hand-piled for later burning or offsite removal, or chipped and scattered at the same location or in other locations.
Prescribed Fire. Prescribed fire would be used in combination with mechanical treatments to meet refuge objectives across all management units. • Individual prescribed fires in xeric oak, oak-hickory, and oak-pine understory communities would seldom exceed 10 acres in size for any single burn. Grass and marshland prescribed fires would seldom exceed 50 acres in size. Prescribed fire for shorebird nesting habitat (terns) will likely average 2 to 5 acres every other year with burn units ranging from 1 to 3 acres in size. Pile burning, when used, would occur on various refuge management units on a relatively infrequent, yet opportunistic basis. • Prescribed fire totals for all treatments would likely average 5 to 50 acres annually over a 10-year period. • Prescribed burning may be conducted for fuels reduction, wildlife management, and maintenance of fire-adapted vegetation communities. All prescribed fires would planned and approved consistent with the method and format required by 621 FW 1, the FWS Fire Management Handbook, and all applicable CT DEEP regulations. • As a result of Cohesive Strategy, all prescribed fire and mechanical fuels treatments will be planned and conducted in cooperation with state, local, and municipal partners to the greatest extent possible.
Alternative C: Wildfire Suppression and Mechanical Wildland Fuels Management Only As detailed in alternative A, the refuge would continue to coordinate closely on an as-needed basis with local fire responders in the event of a wildfire.
The refuge would manage wildland fuel loads throughout each of its seven FMUs using mechanical treatments only, as detailed under alternative B. Prescribed fire would not be used to manage wildland fuel loads or habitat anywhere on the seven refuge FMUs.
Comparison of Alternatives Table 3 shows a comparison of hazardous fuel treatment areas for alternatives A, B, and C.
Table 3. Comparison of Treatment Area by Alternative Proposed Ten Yr. Average Area (Acres) Treatment Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Mechanical 0 10 10 Prescribed Fire – Timber Litter 0 10 0 (understory) Prescribed Fire - Grassland/Marsh 0 50 0 Prescribed Fire – Shorebird Habitat 0 3 0 Prescribed Fire - Piles 0 1 0
Alternative A only maintains wildland fire suppression as a means of protecting life, property, and resource values when a wildland fire occurs. This alternative does not provided for reducing wildland fuel loads which accumulate over time resulting in a greater potential of fire behavior, increased severity of damage to property and resource values, and a greater potential for injury
Proposed Action and Alternatives 8
or loss of life to first responders, refuge staff, adjacent property owners, or the public. Short of the suppression action, alternative A does little to ensure protection to off refuge concerns. The alternative is purely reactive versus the increasing levels of a proactive management effort to provide for the life safety, protection of property and resource values, both on and off the refuge, as discussed in alternatives B and C.
Alternative C enhances the ability to suppress wildland fire and limit spread and potential fire behavior on and off the refuge by altering or removing the wildland fuels in strategic locations such as adjacent to structures, property boundaries, or within/adjacent to areas of significant fuel loads. This alternative does little to promote or enhance key natural resources or habitat conditions. This alternative does not allow for management of wildland fuels on all acres of the seven FMUs of the refuge due to equipment limitations, resource conditions, and access. Mechanical options usually demand a high cost per acre thus limiting project sizes. Mechanical methods may or may not reduce the fuel loads, and even increases the available fuels on occasion, but alters the structural arrangement and composition of fuels. This decreases the overall fire behavior and enhances the ability of firefighters to safely and more effectively engage in suppression activities.
Alternative B, the preferred alternative, utilizes prescribed fire and mechanical treatments, often in combination, to reduce and maintain fuel loads and potential fire behavior, promote fire adapted vegetation, combat invasive species, restore key natural processes, and enhance wildlife habitat. Mechanical methods may only alter the wildland fuel load and reduce fire behavior; where as prescribed fire will reduce fuels to a natural level over time, further adding to protection of life, property, cultural and natural resource values. Prescribed fire is usually considered a more cost effective and ecologically sound approach to managing larger wildland fuel and habitat projects in comparison to mechanical only treatments. Alternative B provides the refuge with a greater option of tools, often used in combination to achieved desired management results. Prescribed fire may require some degree of mechanical preparation in advance of implementing a prescribed burn in order to reduce risk and increase safety and operational simplicity. The combination of these tools significantly bolsters the refuges ability to protect life, property, and resource values, both on and off the refuge.
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures The mitigation measures in Table 4 are common to alternatives B and C. The purpose of mitigation measures is to avoid or substantially reduce a wildfire’s or fuel treatment’s adverse environmental impacts on the human and natural environments.
Table 4. Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures General Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures • Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics (MIST), the application of strategy and tactics that effectively meet suppression and resource objectives with the least environmental, cultural and social impacts, would be employed (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/fire/mifo.Par.84862.File.tmp/Appendi ces1-9.pdf, accessed January 2016).
• Refuge staff would be included at all stages of wildfires and prescribed fires (prevention, planning, implementation, restoration). If qualified employees are not available, a Resource Advisor would be ordered through partner agencies or through the Resource Ordering and Status System (ROSS).
• Refuge staff and fire management personnel would plan and implement outreach efforts to inform
Proposed Action and Alternatives 9
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures refuge neighbors and affected community members or groups, as well as maintaining proactive planning, coordination, and communication with emergency services, public utilities, rail services and department of transportation as appropriate.
• Fireline location would avoid sensitive areas wherever possible. Such sensitive areas as identified by the refuge may include cultural or natural resources, pipelines, and other resources or facilities that may be damaged by fire suppression efforts.
• Fireline would be re-contoured and water-barred, as needed, after the end of fire suppression activities.
• No modifications would be made to roadways, trails, water sources, or clearings except for spot maintenance to remove obstructions or excessive fuel hazards. All sites where modifications are made or obstructions removed would be rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions to the extent reasonably possible.
• As a matter of practice, burned areas would not be reseeded unless there are overriding concerns about establishment of invasive nonnative plant species. Any reseeding would be with native species and would only occur with prior refuge manager approval.
• Helicopters may be used to transport personnel, supplies, and equipment. Improvement of landing sites would be kept to a minimum and would include consultation with the assigned Resource Advisor. Helibases and landing sites would be rehabilitated to pre-fire conditions to the extent reasonably possible.
Public Safety Wildfire • Maintain public awareness, understanding, and support for visitors and Prevention neighbors by establishing centralized information points at all visitor centers and Education and headquarters buildings; locating signs, posters or bulletin boards with fire prevention messages in appropriate areas for exhibit; disseminating printed material at the buildings; and including such messages in all park printed material. • Provide printed prevention material to refuge employees and increase prevention awareness through formal presentations, training, and practice. • Contact adjoining property owners and educate refuge neighbors in methods to increase fire safety and promote fire prevention.
Prescribed Fire • Prescribed fires would comply with applicable regulations of the Connecticut (Alternative Forestry and Air Quality Divisions of the Department of Engineering and B only) Environmental Protection would be carried out in accordance with the constraints identified on each park’s spatial FMP maps.
• Agency or local law enforcement may be requested for traffic control if smoke impacts visibility on roads or highways.
• Warning signs would be posted to advise motorists of a prescribed burn in progress and the potential for reduced visibility on roads that may be impacted by a prescribed burn.
• Ample notification would be given to landowners that border the refuge burn units. Notices may also be posted to inform nearby communities of prescribed fires.
• Press releases would be provided, as appropriate, to the local media to inform the public in advance of a prescribed fire. • The Connecticut State Forestry and Air Quality Divisions, the local fire departments, county sheriffs’ offices, and other parties, as identified within the
Proposed Action and Alternatives 10
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures individual burn plan, would be notified prior to implementing prescribed burns.
• Prescribed fires would not be started until all contingency forces are confirmed to be available, as specified in each prescribed burn plan.
• Burns would be implemented so that all ignition operations are completed during the burn period, and heavy fuels have had a chance to substantially burn out prior to the end of the day to minimize overnight smoldering and smoke production. Smoldering of interior fuels overnight in burn units would be allowed.
Firefighter Safety • Identify hazardous snags that may cause safety or control issues prior to burn day and flag the area to be avoided by fire personnel. If snags cannot be mitigated and pose a threat to firefighter or control problems, snags maybe removed with prior consultation with resource management staff.
• Ensure that all holding lines are easily identifiable for incident personnel.
• Monitor weather and fuel conditions in the burn area.
• Conduct final check of control lines (make sure the burn unit is clear of unauthorized personnel).
• Ensure that all notifications were completed prior to ignition.
Wildlife General • Wildfire suppression and any fuel management treatments conducted in endangered or threatened species’ habitat(s) would require prior consultation with refuge staff and Ecological Services (ES) to address allowable tactics and specific species requirements.
• Snags for wildlife benefits would be retained unless felling is required for suppression or safety reasons.
Birds • Prescribed burns in grasslands would usually occur in early spring (March/April) before bird nesting has begun, or in fall (September/October) when nesting is completed. May through August would typically be avoided due to nesting, as some grassland birds might attempt to raise two or three clutches per summer if undisturbed.
• When burning grassland units, consideration would be given to leaving an adjacent unit unburned that year to leave undisturbed nesting habitat in the area.
Bats Mechanical Treatments • Requirements for Federally threatened northern long-eared bat: o Burns would be avoided within 150 feet of known roost trees during June and July. o Burns would not occur at any time within ¼-mile of known hibernacula. o Consult with ES office regarding any additional requirements. • Potential hazard trees would be evaluated by biologists prior to cutting, unless they are designated as hazard trees that need to be cut for firefighter safety or to contain the fire within fire lines. • The preferred time for tree felling is November 15 through March 31, when the northern long-eared bat is hibernating. • The refuge wildlife biologist would ensure that hazard trees that need to be
Proposed Action and Alternatives 11
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures felled before a prescribed burn are not currently being used as maternity roosts by bats. Prescribed Fire • Requirements for Federally threatened northern long-eared bat: o Burns would be avoided within 150 feet of known roost trees during June and July. o Burns would not occur at any time within ¼-mile of known hibernacula. o Consult with ES office regarding any additional requirements. • When possible prior to burns, fuels would be raked away from the bases of standing snags in order to limit ignition of trees, which could serve as maternity roost habitat for northern long-eared bats, or other bat species. • Large snags and trees should be left on the landscape to provide ample maternity roosting habitat for current and future use. • Burns would be implemented so that all ignition operations are completed during the burn period, and heavy fuels have had a chance to substantially burn out prior to the end of the day to minimize overnight smoldering and smoke production. Smoldering of interior fuels overnight in burn units is allowed. Eastern Box • If possible, mowing should be done outside the window of peak activity May Turtles through mid-September. Following guidelines (http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dfg/nhesp/species-and-conservation/mowing- guidelines.pdf, accessed January 2016) for mowing in rare turtle habitat including setting blade heights to 8 to 12 inches above the ground, rotational mowing, and directionality of mowing to avoid herding turtles into the center of the field is recommended. • A visual search of the area to be impacted should be conducted prior to work starting. Any turtles located should be moved out of the area of work and immediately released close by. Box turtles have a small home range and should not be moved far from where they are found. • If mowing is planned for the dormant season (from November 1 through March 1), it is still important to set blade heights to 8 inches or above since box turtles have been known to hibernate just below the surface of the ground or under leaf cover. If mowing is done when the ground is frozen, minimal disturbance will occur to the substrate. • Tilling the ground would be preferable over the use of herbicides. • Tilling should be done during the turtle's active season (March 1through November 1) allowing for the turtles to move out of harm's way (and not tilling up hibernating turtles). Again, a visual search of the till area and path of heavy machinery should be conducted to ensure that turtles are not crushed. • If herbicides are to be used, the minimal dosage required should be used and all manufacturers’ recommendations should be followed carefully. The careful use of herbicides will avoid the loss of the turtle's and other wildlife food sources and minimize the chance of the herbicide entering the food chain. • Basking and foraging turtles are most often encountered during early morning or evening hours so special care should be taken during these time periods. • No heavy machinery should be parked in any turtle habitat. Listed, Sensitive, and Rare Plants Wildfire Suppression, Mechanical Treatments, and Prescribed Fire Treatments
Proposed Action and Alternatives 12
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures • Refuge staff would be consulted on fireline location, or when possible during suppression operations. Preplanning with a SFMP can alleviate most potential conflicts.
• Fire suppression, fuels management, and prescribed fire activities should avoid equipment impacts to riparian zones and potential locations of sensitive species.
• Employ MIST to reduce impacts on rare plants and their associated plant communities, of fire intolerant and non-preference habitats where fire has not been a factor in their evolution. Monitoring • Post-treatment monitoring would be conducted to assess the status and fire effects on special status native plant species. Invasive/Exotic Plants Prevention • MIST would be employed to minimize soil disturbance in fire line construction, off-road vehicle use, and/or otherwise create conditions favorable for the spread of exotic plants. • Fire management operations would be staged away from known exotic plant and noxious weed infestations to the greatest extent possible. • Refuge staff would be consulted so as to avoid fireline construction in known exotic plant and noxious weed areas when possible. • Equipment (such as hand tools, trucks, pumps, tracked equipment, tents) and personal line gear (for example, line packs, Nomex, boots) would be checked for invasive weed seeds and plant parts and cleaned between movement of fire crews. • Vehicles would minimize driving in areas infested with invasive/exotic plants at a time when movement of seeds is likely, and when this is not possible, vehicles and equipment would be cleaned after leaving an infested area. Vehicles and equipment would be considered clean when a visual inspection does not disclose seeds, soil, vegetative matter, and other debris that could contain or hold seeds. • A designated location would be identified for the cleaning described above. This would be in a spot not conducive to exotic weed establishment and would be monitored for incipient weed populations. Control and Monitoring • Post-treatment surveys in treated areas and site-specific evaluations would be conducted to determine appropriate treatment to control any invasive/exotic plants that are located. • Mechanically treated, sprayed, and burned areas would be monitored for invasive/exotic plant establishment. • New noxious weed populations, resulting from project implementation, would be treated and monitored.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 13
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures Cultural Resources General • The refuge’s staff would be contacted concurrent with the detection of wildfires in areas that have or may have cultural resources.
• Protecting structures and features is more important than minimizing refuge acres burned.
• High priority would be given to identifying aboveground cultural resources during suppression.
• Soil compaction would be prevented or minimized by using rubber-tired vehicles or low ground pressure equipment involved in fire suppression, prescribed burning, and mechanical hazard fuels reduction projects to minimize the potential of disturbing archaeological sites.
• Heavy equipment, if used, would be closely monitored in designated areas to minimize adverse impacts on cultural resources.
• Minimize the potential for disturbing archaeological sites by using water and/or natural barriers as much as possible rather than constructing hand lines to contain wildfires.
• Flag out fireline/firebreak locations to minimize contact with known cultural resources.
• Locate control lines away from potential sites when more damage could be anticipated from line construction than from fire impacts.
• Protect historic structures by
− blacklining around structures − treating them with water and fire retardant foam (medium to high expansion Class A foams) to increase defensible space and provide exposure protection − wrapping them with heat-reflective materials − establishing sprinkler systems on and around structures concurrent with wildfire suppression activities
• Determine impacts of heat treatment and fire suppression tactics (such as foams, retardants) on cultural resources at risk (exposed resources).
• Protect character-defining elements of the cultural landscapes.
• Brief suppression personnel about protecting cultural resources.
• Map, mark, or flag cultural resources during wildfire suppression and rehabilitation.
• Employ structural triage, when necessary, in areas containing multiple historic structures and cultural landscapes; consider the following first: 1. Firefighter safety 2. Probability of success in protecting the structure and landscape 3. Value or significance of the structure or landscape
• Develop a post-wildfire data recovery and/or restoration program that is sensitive to cultural resource concerns.
Mechanical • Refuge/Regional Office staff will complete Section 106 consultation with the Treatments Connecticut State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) prior to implementing hazard fuel reduction projects.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 14
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures • The Regional cultural resource specialist would be contacted during planning stages of hazard fuels reduction projects. • Prior to mechanical treatments, an inventory would be conducted of previously un-surveyed areas using an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. • Fire personnel would be briefed about protecting cultural resources. • Cultural resource sites would only be treated, as necessary, if they are at risk of infestation by invasive/exotic plants and if fuel loads on the site would put the resource at increased risk of damage or destruction in the event of a wildfire. • Dispose of slash in areas without cultural resources. • Avoid ground disturbance in areas containing known cultural sites. • The Regional cultural resource specialist would be contacted immediately if previously unrecorded cultural resources are discovered during any mechanical treatments. The cultural resources would be recorded, delineated, and protected by personnel meeting the Secretary of Interior’s standards.
Prescribed Fire • Refuge/Regional Office staff would complete Section 106 consultation with the (Alternative B Connecticut SHPO during preparation of prescribed burn plans. only) • The Regional cultural resource specialist would be contacted during planning stages of prescribed burns. • Prior to prescribed burns, an inventory would be conducted of previously un- surveyed areas, using an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards. • The potential for disturbing archaeological sites would be minimized by using water, foam and/or natural barriers as much as possible rather than constructing hand lines to contain wildfires and prescribed fires. • Fire personnel would be briefed about protecting cultural resources. • The Regional cultural resource specialist would be contacted immediately if previously unrecorded cultural resources are discovered before, during, or after prescribed burns. The cultural resources would be recorded, delineated, and protected by personnel meeting the Secretary of Interior’s standards. Water Resources • Soil disturbance and thus potential for sediment delivery to streams and ponds would be minimized during prescribed burns by using previously prepared vegetated firebreaks or existing barriers such as roads and trails, even if this would result in a slight increase in burned area. • Soil erosion, and thus potential for sediment delivery to streams and ponds, would be prevented or minimized by retaining a high proportion (80 percent or more) of surface cover in vegetation, litter (dead leaves, grass, and other dead plant parts), and fibrous root systems adjacent to the project area. • Heavy equipment would be closely monitored in designated areas to minimize adverse impacts on wetlands and other resources at risk. • Retardants would not be used within 300 feet of any waterway.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 15
Resource Protection and Mitigation Measures Soils and Geology • Appropriate refuge staff would be contacted concurrent with the detection of wildfires and during mechanical and prescribed fire projects. • Prevent or minimize soil erosion by retaining a high proportion (80 percent or more) of surface cover in vegetation, litter (dead leaves, grass, other dead plant parts), and fibrous root systems adjacent to the project area. • Soil disturbance resulting from fireline in prescribed fire and during wildfires would be minimized by using previously prepared vegetated fireline or existing barriers such as roads, trails, and streams, even if this results in a slight increase in burned area. • Soil compaction would be prevented or minimized by limiting vehicles to travel only on designated roads. • Soil compaction would be prevented or minimized by using rubber-tired vehicles or low ground pressure equipment involved in fire suppression, prescribed burning, and mechanical hazard fuels reduction projects. • Vehicles would avoid driving on wet and fragile soils, would stay on surfaced roads when possible, and make broad rather than sharp turns are other means of further reducing ground disturbance. • Earth-moving equipment (such as tractors, graders, bulldozers, or other tracked vehicles) would not be used for fire suppression without prior approval from the Refuge Manager or designee may authorize the use of heavy equipment. • When appropriate, ground disturbed by suppression activities would be rehabilitated.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 16
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY
NEPA requires Federal agencies to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were presented but not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Alternatives to be analyzed should be reasonable. Unreasonable alternatives or elements of alternatives may be those that cannot be implemented for technical or logistical reasons; do not meet mandates; would be in violation of laws, regulations, or policies; are inconsistent with carefully considered, up-to-date refuge statements of purpose and significance or management objectives; have severe environmental impacts; or are unreasonably expensive.
Preliminary Alternative D: Wildfire Suppression and Prescribed Fire Only Wildfire suppression is a required element of a Service FMP to be consistent with Federal policies and regulations for fuels management activities. Not suppressing wildfires would not be protective of human life, property, and the environment within and outside the refuge.
This preliminary alternative also considers the use of prescribed fire without mechanical treatments to reduce fuel loads. Typically, safe prescribed fire treatments include preparation of the site or its perimeter by reducing hazardous fuel loads to a reasonably acceptable level using mechanical treatments to prepare adequate fireline. Ignition of a prescribed fire without ensuring that the fire can be controlled to the maximum extent practicable would be inconsistent with applicable regulations and policies for wildland fuels management and the protection of human health and safety. Therefore, this preliminary alternative was dismissed from further analysis because it does not meet the purpose and need for a FMP.
Preliminary Alternative E: No Wildfire Suppression or Fuels Management This preliminary alternative does not propose a fire management program (no suppression) and would not allow for fuels management activities. The combination of not suppressing wildfires or controlling fuel loads would not be protective of human life, property, and the environment within and outside the refuge. Therefore, this preliminary alternative was dismissed from further analysis because it does not meet the purpose and need for a FMP.
Preliminary Alternative F: Wildfire Use for Resource Benefits The Service does not propose managing wildfires for resource benefits. Managing wildfire for resource objectives refers to a strategic choice to use unplanned ignitions to achieve resource management objectives. A wildfire managed for resource benefits would require that personnel on the ground managing the fire had a clear understanding of specific conditions that would have to be met for personnel to allow the fire to continue or initiate steps to stop the wildfire. No clearly defined, specific resource management objectives that would inform wildfire management for resource benefit exist for this refuge because neither an approved CCP nor Habitat Management Plan exists for this refuge.
Additionally, this wildfire management option is not considered feasible at Stewart B. McKinney NWR due to the shape and small size of the refuge FMUs, the significant degree of wildland- urban interface along refuge boundaries, management of longer term visibility and air quality concerns on the immediate public, presence of cultural and historic concerns, and the lack of available and qualified personnel required for managing these fires. Therefore, this preliminary alternative was dismissed from further analysis because it does not meet the purpose and need for this refuge’s FMP.
Proposed Action and Alternatives 17
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING IMPACTS
Assessments of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are based on previous studies, monitoring information, wildfire, and prescribed fire impacts that have occurred on the refuge or similar vegetation communities, and the expertise and judgment of the fire management team and resource management specialists.
When appropriate, mitigation measures (identified in Table 3) would be employed to offset or minimize potential adverse impacts.
Duration of Impacts
• Short-term impacts are those that generally would last less than a year or season. • Long-term impacts are those that would last longer than a single year or season.
Types of Impacts
• Beneficial impacts are those that would result in a positive change in the condition or nature of the resource, usually with respect to a standard or objective. It is a change that would move a resource toward its desired condition. • Adverse impacts are those that would result in a negative change in the condition or nature of the resource, usually with respect to a standard or objective. It is a change that would move a resource away from its desired condition or detract from its appearance or condition.
Analysis of Cumulative Impacts CEQ regulations define a cumulative impact as “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR 1508.7). Analysis and a concise description of the identifiable present impacts of past actions to the extent they are relevant and useful in analyzing whether the reasonably foreseeable impacts of the agency proposal for action and its alternatives may have a continuing, additive, and significant relationship to those impacts. In determining what information is necessary for a cumulative impacts analysis, agencies should use scoping to focus on the extent to which information is “relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts, is essential to a reasoned choice among alternatives, and can be obtained without exorbitant cost” (40 CFR 1502.22).
Although timber management and other industrial activities occur on lands adjacent to the refuge mainland FMUs, we do not believe implementation of this FMP would contribute to the cumulative impacts of these non-Federal activities. Additionally, prescribed fire use on lands adjacent to the refuge mainland FMUs has been minimal to non-existent in recent years. We are not aware of any proposed use of prescribed fire on lands adjacent to the refuge’s mainland
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 18
FMUs. Therefore, implementation of this FMP would not contribute to the cumulative impacts related prescribed fire in coastal Connecticut.
Development and implementation of the refuge’s CCP is the only present and reasonably foreseeable future action considered relevant to the refuge’s development and implementation of this FMP. The refuge’s CCP is currently being developed and is anticipated to be completed during or by the year 2018. The CCP will serve as the 15-year strategic plan for all aspects of refuge management, ranging from refuge administration, habitat and wildlife management, public use on the refuge, and the role of the refuge in local and regional partnerships. Since the refuge must meet the requirement to develop a FMP in a timely manner, the Northeast Regional Deputy Refuge Chief determined that this FMP would be completed in advance of CCP completion. Members of the CCP development team have been involved in the development of this FMP to ensure that these two separate refuge management plans are complementary to the maximum extent practicable. Once the final CCP has been approved for this refuge, we continue to implement this FMP to accomplish resource management objectives as detailed in the CCP. In the event that management of wildfires or fuel loads is found to conflict in anyway with the refuge’s approved final CCP, this FMP will be amended or a new FMP will be developed.
VEGETATION
Affected Environment Stewart B. McKinney NWR completed a survey to classify its vegetation communities according to the National Vegetation Classification Standard (NVCS) in 2014. Using this data, the staff identified three major habitat types that exist on the refuge: Maritime Forests and Early Successional Habitat; Rocky Shore, Mudflat, Dune Grassland, and Beach; and Wetlands and Associated Grasslands. Maritime Forests and Early Successional Habitat consists of all forested and early successional areas on the refuge including old fields, young forests, and mature forests. Rocky Shore, Mudflat, Dune Grassland, and Beach is composed of coastal areas that are open and include substrate of sand, gravel, and/or mud. Lastly, the Wetlands and Associated Grasslands habitat includes areas that are inundated with water–saline, brackish, or fresh–at differing intervals of time and consist of wetland-dependent plant species.
• Maritime Forests and Early Successional habitat occurs on every refuge unit, except Goose Island in Norwalk. The mainland forest–mostly at Salt Meadow–consists of oak (black, red, and white), hickory, and tulip poplar with sub-canopy species such as sassafras and black cherry. The understory on the mainland is dominated by woody vines (greenbriar and poison ivy), as well as native and non-native invasive shrub species such as spice bush and bush honeysuckle, respectively. Milford Point supports a sparse dune system forest/shrubland of red cedar, tree-of-heaven, bayberry, and beach plum. The island forest typically has a lower canopy height and a different composition of native and non-native canopy/sub-canopy tree species–yet, contains a similar understory composition. Native trees include sassafras, black cherry, staghorn/smooth sumac, and some oaks and maples; while non-native trees include Norway maple, tree-of-heaven, and Japanese pine. Early successional habitat is provided at Salt Meadow and in some forest openings on the other refuge units. This habitat is actively managed at Salt Meadow for the American woodcock, box turtle, and shrubland-dependent bird species like blue-winged warbler.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 19
• Rocky Shore, Mudflat, Dune Grassland, and Beach habitat is located on every refuge unit. Dune communities described by a predominance of tall grass species, such as American beachgrass and panic grass, comprise 25 percent (6.5 acres) of the refuge’s grasslands. This habitat is common in coastal areas and provides critical habitat for rare plant species such as the prickly pear cactus. Invasive species such as spotted knapweed and perennial pepperweed are found in this habitat along the coast.
• Wetlands and Associated Grasslands are the most abundant and widespread habitat type on the refuge and occur on every refuge management unit. The Salt Meadow and Great Meadow Units are large salt marshes located in close proximity to riverine systems, the MenunketesuckRiver/Gatchen Creek and the lower Housatonic River, respectively. They contain brackish/saline tidal communities that are dominated by smooth cordgrass, saltmeadow cordgrass, and wigeongrass. Saltwort dominates the low hypersaline pannes, and a salt scrub (typically of marsh elder, groundsel-tree, switchgrass, and invasives such as phragmites) occurs along this habitat’s boundary with other drier habitats. Some of the islands–Calf and Sheffield–consist of small tidal wetlands with similar habitat to these two units. Most of the other islands and the Milford Point Unit have marshy areas dominated by smooth cordgrass along their sheltered coastlines.
Special Status Native Plants. Each of the refuge’s management units is located within designated natural diversity areas, which represent known locations, both historic and extant, of State listed species and significant natural communities. The Connecticut Endangered Species Act of 1989 (C.G.S. 26-303) recognizes the importance of the State’s plant and animal species and establishes three categories of protected species: endangered, threatened, and species of special concern (http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?a=2702&q=323486, accessed July 2015).
Eight plant species with State protection status have been detected on the refuge (DeBarros 2016 personal communication), and suitable habitat for an additional 18 species occurs on the refuge (table 5).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 20
Table 5. Occurrence of Special Status Plant Species and Suitable Habitat by Fire Management Unit Occurrence by Refuge Management Unit1 State Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status2 Associated Habitats Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island Bayonet grass SC Salt and brackish tidal marshes. SH Present Beach needle grass E Coastal sand dunes, sand flats, sandy woods Present Blazing-star SC Dry sandy soils. SH SH Dillenius’ tick-trefoil SC Dry woods and fields. SH Dioecious sedge SC Open, calcareous seeps on mineral soil. SH Dry, sandy soil or bedrock outcrops along the Eastern prickly pear SC SH SH Present SH SH coast. Featherfoil SC Shallow water and ditches. SH Fragrant sumac3 SC Dry ledges and rock outcrops. SH Dry to moist woods, thickets, thicket borders, Golden alexanders E SH SH and fields. Hairy forked chickweed3 SC Dry woods or openings. SH Fresh and brackish tidal mud, especially Lilaeopsis SC SH under saltmarsh cordgrass. Marsh pink E Salt or brackish marshes. Present Mudwort SC Brackish mudflats; and in tidal creeks/ rivers. SH Panic grass T Sandy coastal beaches and dunes. Present Present Present Parker’s pipewort E Muddy tidal shores of coastal estuaries. SH Red goosefoot3 SC Borders of salt marshes and brackish soil. SH Seabeach sandwort SC Sandy coastal beaches. Present SH SH Sickle-leaved golden aster E Found in dry, open, sandy fields and dunes. Present SH Moist soil, often among rocks, thin soils of Small skullcap E SH SH trap-rock ridges and hills and near the coast. Smooth black-haw T Dry open rocky ground, thickets, and ledges. SH Present Starry champion T Rocky woodlands. SH Dry fields and open woods, coastal sands Stiff goldenrod E SH SH above high tideline. Wooded swamps, alluvial woods, and pond Swamp cottonwood T SH borders. Dry roadsides, pastures and ledges; often on Tall cinquefoil SC SH traprock and marble. Dry woods and prairies. Open, wooded banks and river shores. Dry Yellow pimpernel E SH rocks or gravelly woods and thickets. Found in fields and on the borders of salt Yellow thistle E SH marshes along the coast. 1 Occurrence: Present = Known to occur within refuge management unit; SH = Although suitable habitat exists within the refuge management unit, the species has not yet been documented as present within the refuge management unit. 2 State protection status as of 2015: E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern. 3 Species is believed to be extirpated from Connecticut
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 21
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 22
Invasive Plants. The concern with the presence of some invasive plants is their effect on wildland fuel loads and the associated fire behavior, as well as whether fire or mechanical means will have negative or beneficial effects on invasive plant populations. Inventorying and mapping invasive species has been completed on some, but not all, of the refuge’s management units. Inventorying and mapping invasive species on Chimon, Sheffield, Calf, and Outer Island is a high priority.
Several invasive plants are known to occur in refuge habitats, including but not limited to: • Asiatic bittersweet (also known as • Japanese stilt grass Oriental bittersweet) • Jimsonweed • Autumn olive • Mile-a-minute (species of greatest • Beach rose concern from 2014 to 2015) • Black swallow-wort • Mugwort (Artemisia absinthium) • Burning bush (winged euonymus) • Multiflora rose • Common reed (species of greatest • Norway maple concern from 2005 through 2010) • Perennial pepperweed • European privet • Princess tree • Garlic mustard • Sheep sorrel • Japanese barberry • Spotted knapweed • Japanese honeysuckle • Tree-of-heaven • Japanese knotweed (species of greatest • Wineberry concern from 2011 through 2013)
Refuge staff control invasive species using a combination of manual, mechanical, and chemical methods (typically glyphosate and triclopyr products). In recent years, budgetary shortfalls have impaired the refuge’s ability to conduct invasive plant control (table 6). Reduction in control efforts in recent years means that previously controlled areas may become re-infested.
Table 6. Invasive Plant Control Areas in 2007 through 2013 as Compared to Targeted Areas in 2014 and 2015 2007 through 2013 2014 and 2015 Area Area Management Area Area Management Targeted Controlled Deferred Area Targeted Controlled Deferred Area Habitat (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Uplands 34 to 45 25 to 50 80 to 81 15 0 to 25 100 Wetlands 2 to 3 2 to 3 0 0 0 0
Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives Resulting from Wildfire Suppression Vegetation. Refuge vegetation would likely be most adversely impacted by use of heavy mechanized equipment resulting in soil compaction and trampling, which may have the greatest impact on salt marsh habitat and special status native plants, and the potential spread of invasive plants that may be carried or spread via equipment, clothing, or boots of wildfire suppression personnel. Implementation of MIST (http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/mt/blm_programs/fire/mifo.Par.84862.File.tmp/App endices1-9.pdf, accessed January 2016), such as avoidance or limiting the extent of traffic and weight would minimize the potential to adversely impact the refuge’s native vegetation communities.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 23
Special Status Native Plants. Some special status native plants that may benefit from wildfire occurrences include northern blazing star, beach needle grass, and fragrant sumac (Bowles et al. 1990, Vickery 2002, USFS 2015). These species are all considered fire tolerant in varying degrees, as a result of their rhizotomous nature, benefitting from reduced competition from other vegetation, increased light and nutrient cycling, and the ability to re-sprout following fire.
Potential adverse impacts to some of the refuge’s special status native plants could potentially result from wildland fire activities as a result of excessive trampling of the plants and wet soil substrate they are typically found in. For example, marsh pink and Parker’s pipewort are two wetland species that could be directly impacted by trampling and soil compaction (Hosier and Eaton 1980; http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe, accessed January 2016), though they are unlikely found in areas in which fire would sustain itself or be considered for suppression actions. Prickly pear cactus exhibits a moderate fire tolerance and can readily re-establish when subjected to low to moderate fire impacts, but could be suffer plant loss when subjected to high severity fires in combination with droughty conditions. Smooth blackhaw fire effects are undocumented but viburnum sp. in general is subject to top-kill and usually re-sprouts from underground rhizomes. Root systems are shallow and could be damaged from frequent fires leading to plant mortality. Implementation of the mitigation measures for listed, sensitive, and rare plants as detailed in Table 3 would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on these species.
Invasive Plants. Disturbances, such as wildfire, may promote exotic plant growth by increasing available light and soil nutrients, as well as by decreasing competition from native plants for these resources. Many invasive plant species are adapted to disturbed conditions for germination and growth, fire-induced alterations to the forest floor and canopy could facilitate their establishment.
Fire suppression activities may introduce nonnative plant species to uninfected areas of the seven refuge FMUs via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. The direct and indirect impacts of fire suppression are generally short-term and localized, but the unchecked spread of nonnative plant species may have long-term implications. The use of MIST, including the mitigation measures in Table 3, would be applied as appropriate to minimize the spread of exotic plants into non-infested vegetation communities in all areas of the seven refuge FMUs during a wildfire and following wildfire suppression.
Of particular concern to land managers are the impacts of non-native plants on fuel characteristics and changes to fire regimes. Exotic plants can alter the intensity and structure of wildfires because of an increase in fuel loads and flammable chemicals in leaves. Invasive vines can facilitate the spread of fire into the forest canopy, which can make suppression more difficult. Observations and data from bioregions around the country indicate that changes in fuel characteristics brought about by exotic plant invasions can lead to changes in fire behavior and alter fire regime characteristics such as frequency, intensity, extent, type, and seasonality of fire, and thus adversely affect native plant and animal communities (Zouhar et al. 2008).
For Stewart B. McKinney NWR, such concerns are demonstrated within the refuge in heavy lateral and vertical concentrations of Asiatic bittersweet. The presence of bittersweet in forest canopies may provide ladder fuels that enhance the likelihood of crown fires, particularly in areas where frequent surface fires may otherwise maintain seral oak dominants. Dormant-season fire top-kills live, overwintering, canopy-draped vines, and can also damage or kill root crowns of small, newly established plants. Lack of vegetation as a result of initial fire effects may promote seed establishment from the existing seedbank and lack of native plant competition. Bittersweet
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 24
sprouts from the root crown after fire. It quickly reestablishes following dormant-season fire, in some cases returning to previous levels of dominance by the second post-fire growing season. Because fire may promote bittersweet seed germination, the potential exists for emergence of new plants following burning (U.S. Forest Service 2015)—this would constitute a short- and long-term adverse impact. Similar impacts and considerations apply to most of the other invasives (black swallow-wort, knotweed, garlic mustard, honeysuckle, barberry) found within the seven FMUs and are subject to topkill and ready re-colonization via seedbanks or re-sprouting if not managed proactively, usually by means of pulling, chemical application, repeated mowing and/or prescribed fire. In most cases a persistent combination of repeated treatments and seasonal timing are used to stress or weaken the plants over time.
Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Resulting from Mechanical Fuels Management Vegetation. Adverse impacts to refuge vegetation would vary over the short and long term (USFS 2015). Implementation of appropriate MIST would minimize the potential to adversely impact the refuge’s native vegetation communities. Mechanical fuels reduction would reduce the understory and overstory fuels that can contribute to higher fire intensities and increased fire behavior directly affecting the life safety of fire fighters, public and residential homeowners. Minimizing soil disturbance, limiting compaction of fragile soils, containing potential fuel spills and avoiding mechanical injury to trees and shrubs to be retained would limit adverse impacts to desired vegetation. Retaining a minimum number of snags and larger logs, while removing the greater extent of hazardous fuels would support continued mycorrhizal bacteria and wildlife habitat. Retention of native vines such as Virginia creeper, fox grape, and poison ivy could be impacted, if not excluded or protected, short term on project areas as a result of topkill from fire or mechanical means, but usually reestablishes through re-sprouting or germination of existing seedbanks.
Mechanical treatments associated with sensitive salt marsh substrate would typically occur only as hand mowed fuelbreaks to support prescribed fire operations. Upland sites would be more favorable for mechanical operations with less impacts resulting from mechanical fuels management. Firebreaks can encourage undesired use or access by the public or undesired vehicle activity (e.g., All Terrain Vehicles). These potential impacts are typically designed early and mitigated by use of altering the visual corridor and/or physical access means.
Special Status Native Plants. Marsh pink, prickly pear cactus, and smooth blackhaw are the special status native plants that have the potential to be adversely impacted by mechanical fuels management activities, particularly the cutting of control lines, increased foot traffic, and use of mechanized equipment, though the impacts to sea pink are unlikely due to the sensitive soils/wetland habitat these plants are usually found in. Prickly pear and smooth blackhaw are likely short term adverse impacts and would re-sprout and or colonize within a growing season. Avoidance tactics/line location would limit adverse effects. Positive impacts would be in the form of nutrient recycling and removal of thatch and organic accumulations that occur over time that can lead to less favorable organic soil conditions or unfavorable habitat structure. Use of both mechanical and prescribed fire would allow for better site specific options of tactics best suited to benefit the project site or special status plants that could be affected. Implementation of mitigation measures for listed, sensitive, and rare plants detailed in Table 3 would minimize the potential for adverse impacts on these species.
Invasive Plants. Many of the species of exotic plants throughout the seven refuge FMUs can cause serious adverse impacts on native plant communities and contribute to hazardous fuel loads, potentially increasing the intensity and severity of wildfires.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 25
Mechanical removal of non-native invasive plants, such as black swallow-wort, knotweed, garlic mustard, mugwort, etc., would prevent plant masses from altering the fire ecology and potential habitat of the fire adapted ecosystem by eliminating these species which serve to act as a fire barrier when present in large populations. Additionally species such as phragmites and bittersweet have the opposite reaction creating the potential for large or unusually intense fire behavior as well as damage to high-value resources. Mechanical treatments are often the only way to reduce or remove many species of exotic plants, before other treatment methods can be used effectively. Mechanical treatments would continue to be used to remove prolific invasive plants, such as bittersweet and similar invasive vines serving as ladder fuels, which carry surface fires up to the crowns of trees or shrubs, resulting in increased fire hazard and spread and making fire suppression more difficult.
Alternative B proposes more treatment acres to be completed compared to alternative C, on which invasive plants could be removed. This increase is small, but even treating slightly more acres to reduce hazardous fuels (including invasive plants) would lessen the potential for large or unusually intense fires across a greater portion of the refuge landscape, a beneficial impact over the short and long term (USFS 2015).
Impacts of Alternative B Resulting from Prescribed Fire for Fuels Management Vegetation. Refuge vegetation would likely be most adversely impacted by mechanized equipment when creating prescribed fire breaks, resulting in soil compaction, which may have the greatest potential impact on saltmarsh habitat and special status native plants, and the potential spread of invasive plants that may be carried or spread via equipment, clothing, or boots of wildfire suppression personnel. The use of appropriate MIST, as previously discussed in the section Impacts Common to All Alternatives Resulting from Wildfire Suppression, would minimize the potential to adversely impact the refuge’s habitats. Conversely, positive impacts to refuge vegetation by means of prescribed fire would likely benefit the short and long term health, vigor and palatability of vegetation as a wildlife food source resulting from nutrient recycling and replacement of older woody undergrowth with younger lusher vegetation that is more available as wildlife browse.
Historically, oak-dominated forests were maintained by periodic, low-intensity fires, but over the past century, fires have generally been suppressed, resulting in an increased abundance of understory fire-intolerant species and a decrease in oak abundance (Anderson et al. 2012). Prescribed fire would be used to increase oak regeneration. In addition to prescribed fire, recent research indicates that mechanical thinning (for timber stand improvement) and prescribed fire used in concert increases the regeneration of oak species and suppresses the development of fire- intolerant species (Anderson et al. 2012). The reintroduction of fire into the oak-hickory forests would limit successional loss to fire intolerant species over time. This forest type is fire adaptive, meaning occasional fires actually help oaks compete favorably with shade-loving species such as, maples, basswood, beech, white pine, and yellow buckeye. The use of low intensity prescribed fire will promote and retain oaks, pitch pine, and hickory. Retention of native vines such as Virginia creeper, fox grape, and poison ivy could be impacted, if not excluded or protected, short term on project areas as a result of topkill from fire or mechanical means, but usually reestablishes through re-sprouting or germination of existing seedbanks.
Special Status Native Plants. Northern blazing star and beach needlegrass may benefit from the use of prescribed fire for fuels management (Bowles et al. 1990, Vickery 2002). The rhizomatous nature of the plants along with increased light and nutrient recycling in addition to reduced plant competition from adjacent vegetation and reduced organic soils typically enhance the viability of
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 26
these plants. Implementation of the mitigation measures for listed, sensitive, and rare plants detailed in Table 3 could minimize the potential for adverse impacts on these species with added emphasis on any sensitive salt marsh plants and vegetation as addressed previously.
Invasive Plants. There is the potential for invasive plants to establish or to increase in abundance following the initial topkill effect after a prescribed fire. Most studies, though, have reported only minor changes in the abundance of exotic plants (Hutchinson 2005). Many invasives, unfortunately, are adapted to disturbed conditions for germination and growth, so fire-induced alterations could facilitate their establishment, particularly if invasives are common and fires are of high intensity. To mitigate their spread, prior to burning, invasives could be treated to reduce the likelihood of post-burn establishment. The abundant establishment of invasive species after fire almost surely would have an adverse impact on native herbaceous communities (Hutchinson 2005).
The direct impacts of burning on invasive species are still being researched and documented and may range from reduction or elimination of some nonnatives to stimulation of others; therefore, prescribed fire could result in both short-term minor beneficial to minor adverse impact on invasive nonnative species. Each prescribed burn, which sometimes involves patches of nonnative species, would consider the species present and design the burn to discourage nonnatives and encourage native species. Similar impacts and considerations apply to most of the invasives (black swallow-wort, knotweed, garlic mustard, honeysuckle, barberry, wormwood, etc.) found within the seven FMUs and are subject to topkill and ready re-colonization via seedbanks or re-sprouting if not managed proactively, usually by means of pulling, chemical application, repeated mowing and/or prescribed fire. In most cases a persistent combination of repeated treatments and seasonal timing are used to stress or weaken the plants over time (USFS 2015).
Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives None of the alternatives evaluated in this FMP would contribute to the cumulative impacts of vegetation management on lands adjacent to refuge FMUs. We are not aware of any current projects or proposed activities on adjacent lands that, currently or in the foreseeable future, would degrade the refuge’s native vegetation communities or promote the spread of invasive species.
FIRE BEHAVIOR AND FUELS
Affected Environment All living and dead vegetation can potentially serve as fuels during a wildfire. This section looks at how vegetation type and abundance can affect wildfire behavior and increase wildfire intensity and severity.
Scott and Burgan (2005) developed a modeling system for categorizing vegetation according to six fire carrying fuel types: grass (GR), grass-shrub (GS), shrub (SH), timber-understory (TU), timber-litter (TL), and slash-blowdown (SB). Fuel models were assigned to each of the six fuel types. The refuge contains only three of the six fuel types (i.e., grass, shrub, and timber-litter), and are cross-referenced with the original Anderson fire behavior fuel models (Anderson 1982).
Understanding the current vegetation associations and fuel models across the seven refuge FMUs helps fire managers to know where to focus fuel treatments; where to create and maintain fuel breaks and defensible space; and where to protect human life, property, and the environment before and during a wildfire.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 27
Table 7 summarizes the current fuel models found within the refuge management units and shows the fire tolerance code(s) assigned to each fuel model. Code 0, which represents non- vegetated/non-burnable areas, is not considered in the analysis. It is worth noting that recent hurricane and storm events have created pockets of blowdown and heavier concentrations of woody storm debris on several of the FMUs, but not to the extent which would require a FMU be characterized by a slash fuel model at this point in time. The fuel models are categorized according such factors as fuel load, flame length, rate of spread, moisture content, and type of vegetation. The higher the number of each fuel model, the higher the fire hazard, as well the potential wildfire severity, and greater suppression effort (or resistance to control).
Table 7. Summary of Current Fuel Models and Fire Tolerance Codes by Fire Management Unit Burgan 40 Fuel Model Fire Tolerance Code* GR2 SH3 TL2 TL6 TL9 Fire Management (101) (143) (182) (186) (189) Unit FM1 FM6** FM9 FM9 FM9 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, Salt Meadow 1, 2, 4 4 4 1, 2, 4 1, 4 Faulkner Island 1, 2, 4 --- 2 ------Outer Island 1, 2, 4 --- 1, 2, 4 1, 2, 4 --- Milford Point 1, 2 --- 2, 3, 4 1 --- Great Meadows 1, 2 --- 1, 2 1, 2 --- 1, 2, 3, Norwalk Islands 1, 2 2, 3, 4 4 --- 1, 4 1, 2, 3, Calf Island 1, 4 2, 3, 4 4 ------* Fire tolerance codes: 1 = Fire-Adapted Vegetation; 2 =No Clear Preference for Fire; 3 = Fire Intolerant Vegetation; 4 = Protect from Fire (such as critical habitat, cultural resources). **SH3 reflects fire behavior potential for masticated fuels.
Vegetation communities that have not been subjected to frequent fire have a reduced ability to remain resilient after a wildfire. These areas would require an aggressive suppression effort to limit the potential extent of damage as a result of the increased fuel accumulations that have occurred over the years. Systematic efforts to reduce and maintain wildland fuel levels by use of mechanical and prescribed fire, will serve to maintain the potential fire behavior at a more natural condition. However, some vegetation communities will not readily support fire spread because certain tree species, such as red maple and beech, do not generate a leaf litter fuel bed that is conducive for fire spread under typical fire behavior conditions. These tree species are also associated with fire intolerant vegetation communities.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 28
Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Impacts The adjective classes for rate of spread and flame length shown in Table 8 relate directly to the predicted fire behavior (rate of spread and flame length) displayed for each fuel model described in Table 9. Table 9 describes the impacts of suppression and fuel reduction treatments of each model. It is important to understand how mechanical treatments and prescribed fire are used to reduce fuel loads and ultimately affect future fire behavior. The predicted fire behavior shown in Table 8 can be expected under average spring and fall fire weather conditions. A combination of drought, high wind, low humidity, and high temperatures can create extreme conditions and greatly increase expected fire behavior.
Table 8. Adjective Class for the 40 Fuel Models Rate of Spread Flame Length Adjective Class (chains/hour*)(1ch=66’) (feet) Very low 0-2 0-1 Low 2-5 1-4 Moderate 5-20 4-8 High 20-50 8-12 Very high 50-150 12-25 Extreme >150 >25
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 29
Table 9. Impacts on Each Fuel Model within the Refuge
Fuel Model Number, Title, Relevance to Alternatives and Description, Predicted Impacts of Wildfire Suppression and Fuel Reduction Treatments Fire Behavior A B C Note: Refer to appendices A, B, and C for maps showing the location of the fuel models in each FMU. ROS = rate of spread; FL = flame length GR2 (102)— Low Load, Dry Suppression. GR2 occurs along shorelines, salt meadows, utility and rail corridors, Yes Yes Yes Climate Grass (Dynamic) and upland fields, typically exhibiting a fire tolerance code of 1. The primary carrier of fire is Predicted fire behavior and fuel load are higher than GR1, and wildfires may spread grass, though small amounts of slightly faster. Adverse impacts would vary, depending on fire location, weather fine dead fuel may be present. conditions, and fuel loads in surrounding areas. Fire behavior represents a moderate Load is greater than GR1, and resistance to control. fuelbed may be more continuous. Shrubs, if present, Treatments. This fuel model is considered moderate to high priority for prescribed fire No Yes, both Yes, do not affect fire behavior. treatments tied to maintenance of critical shorebird habitat, and low to moderate for prescribed mechanical ROS: high FL: moderate marshland habitat maintenance, or defensible space maintenance that is adjacent to fire and treatment cultural sites and FWS structures and facilities, which all rank high. Mechanical mechanical only
treatments could be beneficial under certain situations, such as establishing fuel treatments breaks, but would not alter this fuel model significantly. Mechanical treatments alone would not reduce the existing fuel load, just alter the fuel structure.
SH3 (143)—Moderate Load, Suppression. This fuel model occurs primarily in open hardwood or pine stands that Yes Yes Yes Humid Climate Shrub maintain a moderate to high shrub understory, typically found in floodplains, riparian The primary carrier of fire is edges, and mesic woodlands. It is also used to model the fire behavior of cured woody shrubs and shrub litter. masticated fuels. Wildfires should be suppressed regardless of tolerance code. Moderate shrub load, possibly Predicted fire behavior and fuel load are low to moderate, fire may spread slower than with pine overstory or under the grass fuel models. Masticated fuels are considered difficult to control due to herbaceous fuel, fuel bed is the higher radiant heat load, otherwise resistance to control is low to moderate. Adverse depth 2 to 3 feet. impacts would vary, depending on fire location, weather conditions at the time of the ROS: moderate FL: moderate fire, as well as fuel loads and values at risk in the surrounding areas.
Used to reflect fire behavior of Treatments. This fuel model presents a lower resistance to control than the grass fuel No Yes, both Yes, cured masticated (chipped) model despite the higher fuel loading and radiant heat output. Prescribed fire will be prescribed mechanical fuels. used to remove masticated fuels. Options excluding prescribed fire would be to remove fire and treatment masticated chips from the site as landscape material, compost, or biomass fuel if mechanical only available. treatments
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 30
Fuel Model Number, Title, Relevance to Alternatives and Description, Predicted Impacts of Wildfire Suppression and Fuel Reduction Treatments Fire Behavior A B C TL2 (182)— Low Load Suppression. This fuel model occurs in many types of vegetation associations. The Yes Yes Yes Broadleaf Litter areas assigned a fire tolerance code 4 occur in floodplain forests, riparian zones, late The primary carrier of fire is successional stands, and mesic hardwood sites. These areas would be protected from broadleaf (hardwood) litter. Low wildfire, and there would be little resistance to control during a wildfire. load, compact broadleaf litter. The vegetation associations assigned a fire tolerance code of 3 are fire-intolerant, but ROS: very low FL: very low the predicted very low fire behavior and fuel load would not require extensive wildfire suppression efforts. The vegetation associations assigned fire tolerance codes 1 and 2 are fire-adapted. In this fuel model, fire would spread slowly, and resistance to control would be low. Under all codes, adverse impacts would vary, depending on fire location, weather conditions at the time of the fire, seasonality, and fuel loads in the surrounding areas.
Treatments. Fire Tolerance Codes 1 and 2 are considered for fire tolerant species with No Yes, both Yes, very low fire behavior and low fuel loadings. Prescribed fire would be used for prescribed mechanical ecosystem restoration and maintenance, oak hickory regeneration and wildlife habitat fire and treatment objectives, in addition to reducing fuel loads, where needed. mechanical only Mechanical treatments could be beneficial under certain situations, such as establishing treatments fuel breaks and defensible space, but would not alter this fuel model. Moderate load of broadleaf litter would not be reduced under this application and could potentially move fuel loads to TL6, resulting in a slightly greater fire hazard, particularly during extreme fire weather conditions, subjecting fire intolerant species to loss.
TL6 (186)—Moderate Load Suppression. Fuel model TL6 is fire tolerance codes 1and 2. This vegetation Yes Yes Yes Broadleaf Litter association is fire adapted, and low to moderate severity wildfire would result in The primary carrier of fire is beneficial impacts because fire-adapted vegetation depends on fire for their survival. In moderate load broadleaf litter this fuel model, during average weather conditions, fire would spread slowly, and that is less compact than TL2. resistance to control would be low. Major adverse impacts would occur if large amounts ROS: moderate FL: low of trees were lost during high severity wildfire when resistance to control is great and suppression becomes difficult. Adverse impacts would vary, depending on weather
conditions, fire location, and fuel loads in the fire area.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 31
Fuel Model Number, Title, Relevance to Alternatives and Description, Predicted Impacts of Wildfire Suppression and Fuel Reduction Treatments Fire Behavior A B C Treatments. With the predicted moderate to low fire behavior and moderate fuel load, No Yes, both Yes, prescribed fire would be implemented to reduce fuel loads and to maintain oak-hickory prescribed mechanical woodlands and wildlife habitat objectives. The addition of prescribed fire would reduce fire and treatment the fuel load, with some areas potentially moving toward fuel model TL2, which is mechanical only classified as low-load broadleaf litter. Lowering the fuel model would improve the treatments predicted fire behavior without losing the beneficial impacts of fire in these areas. Mechanical treatments, such as fuel breaks, thinning and mastication, would not improve the overall fire behavior potential for these areas. TL9 (189)— Very High Load Suppression. This fuel model describes hardwood stands after leaf fall. High winds Yes Yes Yes Broadleaf Litter can cause higher rates of fire spread than predicted due to spotting from rolling and The primary carrier of fire is very blowing leaves. Concentrations of dead and down material would contribute to torching high load fluffy broadleaf litter. of trees, spotting, and crowning. This is the primary fuel model throughout the fall fire TL9 can also be used to season and during periods of late summer drought. represent heavy needle drape. Fuel model TL9 is fire tolerance code 1 and occurs in the oak-hickory forests. This ROS: moderate FL: moderate vegetation association is fire adapted, and low to moderate severity wildfire could result in beneficial impacts because fire-adapted vegetation depends on fire for their survival. Adverse impacts would occur if large amounts of trees were lost during high-severity wildfire when resistance to control is great and suppression becomes difficult. Impacts would vary, depending on weather conditions, fire location, and fuel loads in the fire area. Treatments. With the predicted moderate fire behavior and very high load broadleaf No Yes, both Yes, litter, prescribed fire would be implemented to reduce fuel loads and to meet prescribed mechanical enhance/maintain oak-hickory woodlands and wildlife habitat objectives. The use of fire and treatment prescribed fire could potentially alter this fuel model, with some areas moving toward mechanical only fuel model TL6, defined as moderate-load broadleaf litter, or TL2, low-load broadleaf treatments litter. Lowering the fuel loading would improve the predicted fire behavior without losing the beneficial impacts of fire in these areas. Mechanical treatments alone would not improve this fuel model.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 32
In summary, the impacts of fire suppression under all alternatives would vary, depending on weather conditions, fire location, and fuel loads in the fire area.
The use of prescribed fire under alternative B would result in the greatest reduction of accumulated fuels and greatest impact on the arrangement of fuel loads than either mechanical treatment only (alternative C) or no use of fuel reduction techniques (alternative A) (Table 3). The use of prescribed fire under alternative B only slightly elevates the potential for fire escape beyond the prescribed burn area. However, the likelihood of fire escape occurring is negligible when careful prescribed burn plans are developed and implemented.
Also under alternative B, adverse impacts would be limited as a result from the combined use of these treatments. Fuels models TL6 and TL9 would directly benefit the most from the application of prescribed fire. The average annual amount of acres of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments under alternative B would reduce the overall fuel load and associated risk to refuge values, with the potential for FM TL9 moving toward FM TL6, defined as moderate-load broadleaf litter; or areas with TL9 and TL6 moving to TL2, low-load broadleaf litter. Hazardous fuel concentrations and structural arrangements (ladder fuels and invasive species) would be removed in key areas. Reducing fuel loading and structural arrangement would directly lessen the predicted fire behavior and potential damage to values at risk without losing the beneficial impacts of prescribed fire in these areas. Beneficial impacts to vegetation, such as nutrient cycling, enhancing/promoting fire adapted species, and reducing invasives and their associated seed banks, could be both short and long term.
Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives None of the alternatives evaluated in this FMP would contribute to the cumulative impacts of fuels management or fire behavior on lands adjacent to refuge FMUs. We are not aware of any current projects or proposed activities on adjacent lands that, currently or in the foreseeable future, would contribute to a worsening of predicted fire behavior in each of the fuel models.
WILDLIFE AND THEIR HABITATS
Affected Environment Stewart B. McKinney NWR is locally, regionally, and internationally important because it:
• Supports one of the few remaining breeding colonies of federally endangered roseate terns and Connecticut’s largest breeding colony of common terns on the rocky shoreline of Falkner Island. • Offers protected habitat at Milford Point and Menunketesuck Island for the federally threatened piping plover and State-threatened least tern to nest, as well as for over 50 species of breeding and migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. • Protects the largest unditched saltwater high marsh remaining in Connecticut to provide nesting and feeding habitat for over 270 species of birds and wintering American black ducks. • Protects one of the oldest maritime forests in the State, which provides important habitat for bat species, such as the red bat (a State Species of Concern), • Is part of the Menunketesuck Greenway, a wildlife corridor linking the Long Island Sound to forest blocks along the Connecticut River. • Offers a variety of upland habitats on the Salt Meadow Unit for feeding coastal birds and migrating landbirds.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 33
• Refuge lands occur within five Important Bird Areas designated by the Audubon Society, as well as two of Connecticut’s three International Shorebird Survey and Program for Regional and International Shorebird Monitoring (ISS/PRISM) focal sites.
Federally or State-listed species of special concern that are known to inhabit or may inhabit each of the refuge’s habitats are listed in Table 10.
The refuge’s maritime forest and early successional habitats support a great diversity of resident and migratory birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Among the most commonly encountered species are white-tailed deer, raccoon, skunk, red fox, American woodcook, and a host of passerines and woodpeckers (e.g., tufted titmouse, black-capped chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, downy woodpecker). Less commonly encountered inhabitants include eastern towhee, red-bellied woodpecker, great horned owl, blue-winged warbler red bat, coyote, grey fox, eastern box turtle, black racer, and redbacked salamander. Among the most noteworthy species known to inhabit this habitat type at refuge’s Salt Meadow FMU are red bats and 47 species of bees (Vagos 2016 personal communication).
The refuge’s rocky shore, mudflat, dune grassland, and beach habitat provides critical breeding habitat for shorebirds and seabirds such as roseate tern, least tern, piping plover, and American oystercatcher. Breeding birds use this habitat typically from April until the end of August annually. Falkner Island supports the State’s only roseate tern colony and the State’s largest common tern colony. Menunketesuck Island, which is part of the Salt Meadow FMU, hosted the State’s largest least tern colony in 2015 and a pair of piping plover. Milford Point usually supports one or two pairs of piping plovers and American oystercatchers annually, while being managed for least tern. The refuge’s rocky shore-beach habitat is also used by nesting diamondback terrapins and spawning horseshoe crabs. Milford Point and Menunketesuck Island are within two of the State’s three horseshoe crab sanctuaries, where hand harvesting of horseshoe crabs is prohibited (http://www.ct.gov/deep/cwp/view.asp?A=2588&Q=378734, accessed January 2016).
The refuge’s wetlands and associated grasslands attract migratory bird species like American black duck and wading birds like great egrets and little blue heron. Additionally, the salt marshes provide critical habitat to salt marsh obligates like the saltmarsh sparrow, clapper rail, and willet. Many species forage in these wetlands including terns, raptors, and wading birds. Additionally, the marsh areas are nurseries to important species like horseshoe crab, diamondback terrapin, and several species of fish.
Table 10 is a comprehensive list of federally or State-listed animal species potentially occurring or known to occur on specific refuge FMUs.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 34
Table 10. Federally or State-Listed Animal Species Potentially Occurring or Known to Occur on Refuge by Fire Management Unit 3 Generalized Refuge Fire Management Units Federal State Refuge Habitat Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status1 Status2 Preferences3 Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island BIRDS Wetlands and American Bittern E associated Present Present Present grasslands Maritime forest and early American Kestrel T Present successional habitat Rocky shore, mudflat, dune American Oystercatcher T Present Present Present Present Present Present grassland, and beach Maritime forest and early Bald Eagle T Present Present successional habitat Wetlands and Barn Owl E associated grasslands Wetlands and Black Rail E associated
grasslands Maritime forest and early Bobolink SC Present Present Present successional habitat Maritime forest and early Broad-winged Hawk SC Present Present Present successional habitats Maritime forest and early Brown Thrasher SC Present Present Present Present Present Present successional habitats Common Loon SC Offshore waters
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 35
3 Generalized Refuge Fire Management Units Federal State Refuge Habitat Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status1 Status2 Preferences3 Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island Maritime forests and early successional Common Nighthawk E habitats; rocky Present shore, mudflat, dune grassland, and beach habitat Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Common Tern SC Present Present Present Present Present Present Present grassland, and beach Wetlands and Glossy Ibis SC associated Present Present Present Historic grasslands Wetlands and Great Egret T associated Present Present Present Present Present Present Present grasslands Wetlands and associated grasslands; Horned Lark E maritime forest Present Present and early successional habitats Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Ipswich Savannah Sparrow SC Present Present grassland, and beach Wetlands and Least Bittern T associated Present grasslands Rocky shore, Least Tern T mudflat, dune Present Present Present grassland, and
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 36
3 Generalized Refuge Fire Management Units Federal State Refuge Habitat Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status1 Status2 Preferences3 Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island beach Wetlands and Little Blue Heron SC associated Present Present grasslands Maritime forest and early Long-eared Owl E Present successional habitats Maritime forest and early Northern Harrier E Present Present successional habitats Maritime forest and early Peregrine Falcon T Present Present Present Present Present Present Present successional habitats Wetlands and Pied-billed Grebe E associated Present Present Present grasslands Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Piping Plover T T Present Present Present grassland, and beach Wetlands and Purple Martin T associated grasslands Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Red Knot C Present Present Present Present Present Present grassland, and beach Maritime forest and early Red-headed Woodpecker E Present Present Present successional habitat Roseate Tern E E Rocky shore, Present Present Present Present
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 37
3 Generalized Refuge Fire Management Units Federal State Refuge Habitat Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status1 Status2 Preferences3 Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island mudflat, dune grassland, and beach Wetlands and Saltmarsh Sparrow SC associated Present Present Present grasslands Wetlands and Seaside Sparrow T associated Present Present Present grasslands Wetlands and Sedge Wren E associated Present Present Present grasslands Wetlands and Short-eared Owl T associated Present Present grasslands Wetlands and Snowy Egret T associated Present Present Present Present Present Present grasslands Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Upland Sandpiper E Present Present grassland, and beach Maritime forest and early Whip-poor-will SC Present Present successional habitat Wetlands and Yellow-crowned Night-Heron SC associated Present Present Present Present
grasslands MAMMALS Maritime forest and early Hoary Bat SC successional habitat Maritime forest Least Shrew E and early
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 38
3 Generalized Refuge Fire Management Units Federal State Refuge Habitat Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status1 Status2 Preferences3 Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island successional habitat; Wetlands and associated grasslands Maritime forest and early Little Brown Bat E successional habitat Maritime forest and early Northern Long-eared Bat T E successional habitat Maritime forest and early Red Bat SC Present successional habitat Maritime forest and early Silver-haired Bat SC successional habitat REPTILES Atlantic Hawksbill E Offshore waters Rocky shore, mudflat, dune grassland, and Diamondback Terrapin SC beach; Present Present Present
wetlands and associated grasslands Maritime forest and early Eastern Box Turtle SC Present successional habitat Wetlands and Eastern Ribbon Snake SC associated
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 39
3 Generalized Refuge Fire Management Units Federal State Refuge Habitat Salt Falkner Outer Milford Great Norwalk Calf Common Name Status1 Status2 Preferences3 Meadow Island Island Point Meadows Islands Island grasslands Green Sea Turtle T T Offshore waters Kemp's Ridley Turtle E E Offshore waters Leatherback E E Offshore waters Loggerhead Sea Turtle T T Offshore waters Wetlands and Smooth Green Snake SC associated Present grasslands Maritime forest and early Wood Turtle SC successional habitats FISH Atlantic Sturgeon T Offshore waters Blueback Herring SC Offshore waters Present Present Present Shortnose Sturgeon E E Offshore waters INVERTEBRATES Maritime forest and early American Burying Beetle E SC EX successional habitats Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle T SC EX grassland, and beach Rocky shore, mudflat, dune Puritan Tiger Beetle T E grassland, and beach 1 Federal T&E: Federal Endangered Species List. E - Endangered; T - Threatened; C – Candidate. 2 State T&E: Connecticut Endangered Species List. E - Endangered; T – Threatened; SC – Special Concern; EX – Believed Extirpated. 3 Species Occurrences by Refuge FMUs: Present = Species known to occur at refuge FMU; Historic = Historical documentation exits that species occurred at refuge FMU, but current status on the refuge is uncertain; blank = Species has not yet been detected at refuge FMU.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 40
Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives Resulting from Wildfire Suppression The beneficial impacts of wildfire in habitat (such as oak, oak-hickory, and pine communities) include rejuvenation of the burned stands. Regeneration of fire-adapted species would result in an increase in mast production. Low-severity surface burns would also render the communities less vulnerable to a high intensity fire, and fire-intolerant species would diminish in abundance.
The potential adverse impacts on habitat from a wildfire include an indeterminate amount of loss. Many factors can affect the type and level of adverse impacts, such as the fuel model and predicted fire behavior in the fire area, weather conditions (average or extreme), moisture content of vegetation, and resistance to control, which determines the extent, duration, and intensity of wildfire impacts. All components of an ecosystem may be affected either by direct exposure to a fire’s flames or indirectly through interactions with the changed environment as a site recovers from fire.
Stewart B. McKinney NWR provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species many of which may thrive on the occurrence of wildfire. Fire can regenerate habitat for wildlife species, as well as increase foraging opportunities. The grasses, seedlings, shrubs, and trees that reestablish burned areas provide an ideal environment for many small seed-eating mammals and birds, such as voles and sparrows. This abundance of small prey attracts predators like fox, hawks, and weasels. This cascading effect can positively influence biological diversity in the areas after a fire occurs.
However, the impacts of fire suppression activities may be greater than those impacts attributed to wildfire itself in the long term. The exclusion of wildfire from fire-adapted communities (e.g., oak, oak-hickory, pine) may result in changes in species composition and distribution, resulting in a more homogenous, less diverse habitat, which may be more susceptible to high severity fire. With high-severity fire, subsequent fire impacts may be outside the normal range of variation (for example, rather than the existing vegetation community regenerating itself, an entirely new community may result).
Wildfire suppression activities would likely impact refuge wildlife and their habitats in the short- term. The intensity of impact would be dependent on the types of equipment used and tactics employed to suppress the fire. Suppression actions alone, based on the type of equipment used and tactics employed by responding fire fighters, can limit damage to habitat and wildlife through use of MIST (table 3).
Birds. Wildfire suppression may directly or indirectly impact birds through food availability and predation (Alexander et al. 2004). At the refuge, shrub and ground nesting birds (e.g., American woodcock, eastern towhee, ovenbird, blue-winged warbler, and brown thrasher) would likely be most impacted by wildfire and suppression activities involving mechanical equipment because of changes to the vegetation structure. Research has shown that due to the changes that occur in the structure of vegetation, areas that are burned tend to have a lower abundance of these species than unburned areas (Aquilani et al. 2000). The changes in structure reduce cover and increase nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird. Wildfires and suppression activities that occur during the non-breeding season would have fewer impacts on shrub and ground nesting birds than activities during the breeding season.
Species that inhabit the refuge’s rocky shore, mudflat, dune grassland, and beach habitats (e.g., roseate tern, common tern, piping plover red knot) would likely be unaffected by wildfire
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 41
suppression activities if mitigation measures detailed in table 3 are successfully implemented. For example, involvement of refuge staff at all stages of wildfire suppression response planning and implementation would be the most effective means of avoiding adverse impacts on federally listed species nesting on the refuge’s beaches.
Mammals. Wildfire suppression activities in the refuge’s maritime forest and early successional habitats would have the greatest potential to adversely impact bats. According to Perry (2012), impacts to bat species will differ in accordance with their natural history, and direct effects of fire on individual bats is “likely dependent on the season and intensity of the fire, sex, and age of that bat.” In most cases, stand-replacing fires will have a negative effect on these species, at least in the short-term. Red and hoary bats may use the refuge’s maritime forests for summer roosting, as shelter during migration, or as a winter roost site, while silver-haired, northern long-eared, and little brown bat all seek the shelter of tree cavities or bark during their summer roosting period. Fires that occur during the growing season may affect males more than females of these species, as the males roost lower to the ground. However, in general, fire effects on these species are dependent on variables such as where they roost (under bark or in cavities) and how high they roost. Little brown and northern long-eared bats typically hibernate in caves or mines for the winter and would likely not be affected by winter burns. The silver-haired bat can be active during the winter–and like the foliage-roosting bats–choses roost sites closer to the ground during colder weather. Dormant season burns may negatively affect this species. Additionally, fire may have undesirable effects on these species by reducing the availability of their chosen roost sites like snags or dense understory structure; however, in the long-term fire can create this habitat as well (Perry 2012).
Reptiles and Amphibians. There are few reports of fire-caused injury to reptiles and amphibians, and little is known about emigration and immigration of these taxa after fire (Russell et al. 1999). The USFS’s fire effects information system (FEIS; http://www.feis-crs.org/beta) states that the “fire mortality of the eastern box turtle is highly variable.” Although this species burrows in the ground, research has shown that these burrows do not always allow the turtles to escape mortality or injury. Box turtles do not easily escape fire and usually incur some type of burn injury. According to FEIS, fire at any time of the year could be detrimental to this species. Therefore, wildfire suppression activities would be beneficial for box turtles if those activities successfully limited burn injuries or loss of individual box turtles.
None of the aquatic turtles of conservation concern would be impacted by wildfire suppression activities unless their offshore aquatic habitat was substantially disrupted or modified.
Fish. The impacts of wildfire and suppression activities on fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates are mostly indirect in nature (Bisson et al. 2003). Fire typically improves habitat conditions for aquatic species over the long term. However, fires that result in longer-term changes in stream temperature, ash-laden slurry flows, increases in flood peak flows, and sedimentation due to increased soil erosion can have adverse impacts on aquatic organisms. Any direct and indirect impacts would be localized and short-term. Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring, and shortnose sturgeon would not be affected by wildfire suppression activities unless offshore habitats were substantially disrupted or modified.
Invertebrates. The vulnerability of insects to fire depends on their location at the time of fire (Lyon et al. 2000). When conducting fire management activities, it is important to reserve some pollinator habitat as a refuge for bees. This practice allows insects to recolonize adjacent burned
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 42
areas in years following a fire (Black et al. 2011). Additionally Black et al. recommend that management not occur during the “critical foraging stage” of any target pollinator.
Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Resulting from Mechanical Fuels Management There would be no adverse impacts on habitat from mechanical fuel reduction treatments when considering the locations where the treatments would typically take place and why; that is, to clear vegetation away from flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources to reduce fire spread potential and increase defensible space. The purpose of mechanical treatments is to reduce fire potential, limit fire behavior and spread, and increase safe defensible space adjacent to these sites. Beneficial impacts on habitat would result from a reduction in accumulated wildland fuels, which would limit the potential for severe wildfire impacts on grasses, shrubs, and trees used as habitat by wildlife species that may dwell in or near the treated areas.
In most cases, mechanical fuel management activities would likely displace wildlife from the immediate treatment site in the short and long term. The small acreage proposed to be treated mechanically under alternatives B and C would result in minimal adverse impacts on any wildlife species. Wildlife in or adjacent to the treatment area would be temporarily disturbed or displaced due to human presence and noise from mechanical equipment such as mowers or chain saws. All wildlife species (including species of conservation concern [Table 10]) that may be in areas where mechanical treatments are occurring would temporarily flee the area or escape to burrows, but they would return once the activities and noise cease. Successful implementation of the mitigation measures detailed in Table 3 would minimize adverse impacts on wildlife and their habitats.
Birds. Shrub and ground nesting birds (e.g., American woodcock, eastern towhee, ovenbird, blue- winged warbler, and brown thrasher) would likely be most impacted by mechanical fuel management activities because of changes to the vegetation structure. These species may be adversely impacted if mechanical fuels management includes disturbing habitat during the nesting season or removing habitat during the non-nesting period without leaving areas of scrub- shrub for refuge. The creation of fire lines may also increase the edge effect of a shrubland area and therefore, increase depredation of nests. The changes in structure reduce cover and increase nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird. Although direct effects can be avoided by scheduling treatments during the non-breeding season, reducing the amount of cover and structure can be detrimental to shrub and ground nesting species.
Species that inhabit the refuge’s rocky shore, mudflat, dune grassland, and beach habitats (e.g., roseate tern, common tern, piping plover red knot) would likely be unaffected by mechanical fuel management if these activities were scheduled to occur during the non-breeding period (generally, September through April). Mechanical fuels management treatment during the non-breeding period would benefit common terns directly on Falkner Island if those treatments result in a more open upland habitat that is suitable for common tern nesting.
Mammals. The short- and long-term beneficial impacts of mechanical treatments on bats include habitat enhancement and protection when fuel loads around roost trees and understory clutter are thinned. Adverse impacts on bats from mechanical fuel reduction projects would result in temporary disturbance or displacement due human presence and noise from mechanical equipment such as masticators or chain saws. However, impacts of mechanical fuels management are likely to be minimal because a small acreage would be treated annually and the mechanical fuels management activities would not occur in or immediately adjacent to known bat habitat.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 43
Reptiles and Amphibians. Mechanical fuels management activities may adversely impact box turtles inhabiting vegetation near flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources to reduce fire spread potential and increase defensible space. The use of heavy equipment during mechanical fuels treatments in known box turtle habitat may adversely impact these turtles. Therefore, successful implementation of mitigation measures detailed in Table 3 would reduce the potential for adverse impacts on box turtles.
None of the aquatic turtles of conservation concern would be impacted by mechanical fuels management unless their offshore aquatic habitat was substantially disrupted or modified.
Fish. Mechanical fuels management would not likely impact fish unless their habitats were substantially disrupted or modified.
Invertebrates. Mechanical fuels management activities may adversely impact bees inhabiting vegetation near flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources to reduce fire spread potential and increase defensible space. It is important to reserve some pollinator habitat as a refuge for bees. This practice allows insects to recolonize adjacent burned areas in years following a fire (Black et al. 2011). Additionally Black et al. recommend that management not occur during the “critical foraging stage” of any target pollinator.
Impacts of Alternative B Resulting from Prescribed Fire for Fuels Management Adverse impacts on habitat resulting from a prescribed burn are likely to be less severe and more beneficial than wildfire because of the degree of control over prescribed fire behavior. Prescribed fire allows for a more predictable result based on these predetermined factors that typically deliver an acceptable range of results as defined by the refuge habitat objectives. The careful application of prescribed fire can alter woody biomass, increase nutrient recycling, alter structural arrangement of vegetation horizontally and vertically, and increase or enhance fire adapted species requirements, lessening the vulnerabilities of fire-adapted communities from wildfire.
Fire is recognized as an integral process in oak or mixed oak-pine systems. The refuge plans to use prescribed fire in fire adapted forest habitats as an effort to abate their replacement by more shade-tolerant trees that lack the hard mast (acorns and hickories) necessary to sustain many species of wildlife. The short- and long-term beneficial impacts of prescribed fire are numerous with regard to wildlife habitat. Prescribed fire would be used to maintain oak-hickory habitat and fuel loads at a natural level within the appropriate refuge management units. These areas provide feeding, resting, breeding, and wintering habitat for a diversity of native forest-dwelling birds, large and small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates.
The actions taken to protect, restore, and maintain the woodland and forests areas would provide long-term benefits to wildlife, including various species of conservation concern (Table 10). A shift in forest tree species composition from oaks to other trees (such the maples, yellow-poplar, or beech) can have serious implications for many wildlife species in hardwood forests. Acorns (hard mast) from oaks represent a significant food source for numerous mammals and birds, especially for fall and winter diets when sufficient food is critical for survival. Wildlife, including deer, bear, wild turkey, quail, grouse, squirrel, mice and many songbirds, depend on acorns for part of their diet (USFS 2005). Oak mast failures have been linked to winter mortality of deer, decreased productivity, and summer fawn mortality (Masters and Waymire 2012). During late fall and winter, deer preferentially select hard mast and only turn to browse and herbage in appreciable amounts when acorns are unavailable (Masters and Waymire 2012).
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 44
Across oak forest landscapes, fire is used to improve the herbaceous layer (the understory or ground-layer vegetation), which harbors the great majority of plant diversity and provides habitat and food for numerous wildlife species, ranging from arthropods to large mammals (Hutchinson 2005). The same effect is seen in grasslands managed with fire. The presence of forbs in managed grasslands is important because they diversify structure and invertebrate resources. Fire has been shown to increase species richness and diversity in the herbaceous layer (Hutchinson 2005). Native grasses and forbs have greater seed production, germination, and establishment because burning allows plant nutrients to be returned to the soil and used again. Fire removes dry, dead plant matter that has built up over the years, opening up space for new growth and creating thicker, younger cover and increasing food availability for wildlife by stimulating seed production.
Many bird species are most abundant in fields with a strong forb component. The improved habitat that results from fire is a benefit to wildlife because it attracts ground-nesting birds, provides better nesting cover, and provides improved brood-rearing habitat by increasing the amount and variety of food available for young birds. Plant diversity increases food sources, such as seeds, in addition to increasing the number of different insects that use a grassland area, and insects are an extremely important food source for young birds as they begin to grow and fledge (FWS 2012).
Other wildlife species that inhabit grassland areas would also benefit from a greater abundance of native warm-season grass and forb species. Protecting, restoring, and maintaining native plant species would help provide the diverse structure in grass fields that creates cover and nesting sites for an array of grassland-dependent wildlife that already inhabit the refuge management units.
Any adverse impacts from prescribed fire would be temporary, lasting only as long as it takes to complete the action. Generally, impacts would include brief disturbance or displacement of large and small mammals and ground-nesting birds or temporary displacement of individuals—the same as would occur during a wildfire. It is unlikely that any wildlife (including listed species and species of concern) would be permanently displaced. Direct mortality of individual animals is thought to be relatively rare, but may depend on the species’ behavior, fire behavior, and season of burn (USFS 2014). Adverse impacts on all wildlife would be minimized by planning spring burns early enough to avoid the breeding and nesting season of most wildlife and by implementing the mitigation measures listed in table 3.
Birds. Shrub and ground nesting birds (e.g., American woodcock, eastern towhee, ovenbird, blue- winged warbler, and brown thrasher) would likely be most impacted by the use of prescribed fire because of changes to the vegetation structure and their proximity to the ground and flame lengths. These species may be adversely impacted if prescribed fire fuels management includes disturbing habitat during the nesting season or removing habitat during the non-nesting period without leaving areas of scrub-shrub for refuge. Prescribed fire during the nesting season would result in habitat loss, disturbance; machinery may crush nests or cause adult mortality. Research has shown that due to the changes that occur in the structure of vegetation, areas that are burned tend to have a lower abundance of these species than unburned areas (Aquilani et al. 2000). The changes in structure reduce cover and increase nest parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird. Although direct effects can be avoided by scheduling treatments during the non-breeding season, reducing the amount of cover and structure can be detrimental to shrub and ground nesting species. These species need some of the habitat to remain dense and with a minimal edge effect.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 45
Species that inhabit the refuge’s rocky shore, mudflat, dune grassland, and beach habitats (e.g., roseate tern, common tern, piping plover red knot) would likely be unaffected by prescribed fire activities if mitigation measures detailed in Table 3 are successfully implemented. For example, involvement of refuge staff at all stages of wildfire suppression response planning and implementation would be the most effective means of avoiding adverse impacts on federally listed species nesting on the refuge’s beaches.
Mammals. Prescribed fire fuel management activities in the refuge’s maritime forest and early successional habitats would have the greatest potential to adversely impact bats in the short-term and beneficially in the long term.
In the short-term, the concern for bats is direct take or habitat disturbance within a ¼-mile radius of bat hibernacula (areas used for shelter during winter) or 150 feet of known bat maternity roosts. Fire may affect bats directly through heat and smoke during the burning process or indirectly through modifications in habitat. These potential impacts likely differ for each species or roosting guild of bats and may also vary by season and reproductive condition. Prescribed burns on this refuge would generally occur from late March into May and late August through November, though not exclusively. To avoid or minimize the potential to adversely impact bats, prescribed fire treatments in bat habitat would not be conducted within 150 feet of known roosting areas from June through July, which is the peak season for mothers roosting in trees and raising their pups. Direct adverse impacts would be mitigated by implementing strategies and tactics that minimize fire behavior (intensities and scorch heights) and smoke impacts to bat roost areas. The refuge wildlife biologist would ensure that any hazard trees that need to be felled before a prescribed burn are not currently being used as bat maternity roosts.
Red and hoary bats are categorized as foliage-roosting bats. These bats roost high in trees, somewhere between 45 to 57 feet above the ground. Perry (2012) concludes that prescribed fires during the growing season would likely not have any effect on these species due to the height at which they roost and because the fires are controlled to a certain area leaving the bats the opportunity to seek out another roost site. However, dormant season fires may effect these bat species negatively as they seek out roost sites on the ground in the leaf litter or in smaller trees/shrubs and it takes longer for the bat to arise and escape (Perry 2012).
In the long term, fire generally has beneficial impacts on bat habitat and the use of fire is commonly advocated as a way of improving habitat through snag production for roosting (Perry 2012). Prescribed fire would be used to reduce understory and mid-story vegetation, thus benefitting bats by creating more open stands for better foraging and increased insect abundance and diversity (Joint Fire Science Program 2010; FWS 2015; Perry 2012) and improving habitat through snag production for roosting. Bats may spend over half their lives in roosts, and roosts provide protection from predators and the weather (Perry 2012). Therefore, adequate roost sites are critical to the persistence of bats.
Reptiles and Amphibians. There are few reports of fire-caused injury to reptiles and amphibians, and little is known about emigration and immigration of these taxa after fire (Russell et al. 1999). The USFS’s FEIS (http://www.feis-crs.org/beta) states that the “fire mortality of the eastern box turtle is highly variable.” It goes on to show that in one study after a prescribed fire in a grassland habitat half of the turtles were dead and half were alive. This species burrows in the ground– however, research has shown that these burrows do not always allow the turtles to escape mortality or injury. Box turtles do not easily escape fire and usually incur some type of burn injury. According to FEIS, fire at any time of the year could be detrimental to this species.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 46
None of the aquatic turtles of conservation concern would be impacted by prescribed fire fuels management unless their offshore aquatic habitat was substantially disrupted or modified.
Fish. The impacts of prescribed fire fuel management on fish and aquatic macroinvertebrates are mostly indirect in nature (Bisson et al. 2003). Fire typically improves habitat conditions for aquatic species over the long term. However, fires that result in longer-term changes in stream temperature, ash-laden slurry flows, increases in flood peak flows, and sedimentation due to increased soil erosion can have adverse impacts on aquatic organisms. Any direct and indirect impacts would be localized and short-term. Atlantic sturgeon, blueback herring, and shortnose sturgeon would not be affected by prescribed fire fuel management activities unless offshore habitats were substantially disrupted or modified.
Invertebrates. The vulnerability of insects to fire depends on their location at the time of fire (Lyon et al. 2000). When conducting fire management activities, it is important to reserve some pollinator habitat as a refuge for bees. This practice allows insects to recolonize adjacent burned areas in years following a fire (Black et al. 2011). Additionally Black et al. recommend that management not occur during the “critical foraging stage” of any target pollinator.
Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives None of the alternatives evaluated in this FMP would contribute to the cumulative impacts of wildlife and habitat management on lands adjacent to refuge FMUs. We are not aware of any current projects or proposed activities on adjacent lands that, currently or in the foreseeable future, would degrade the refuge’s native wildlife and their habitats.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Affected Environment National Register Eligible and Listed Properties. Within the refuge’s approved acquisition lands, 13 previously recorded sites and numerous areas with high potential for undocumented pre- and post-contact period resources exist. Until eligibility for listing on the National Register has been evaluated, each of these sites and areas is treated as if eligible. The most significant known historic properties within or immediately adjacent to the refuge are listed below: • Falkner Island FMU: The Falkner Island Lighthouse, built in 1802 as the nation’s 23rd lighthouse and dedicated by President Thomas Jefferson, continues to serve as a solar- powered, unmanned aid to navigation in Long Island Sound (http://www.uscg.mil/d1/antlis/files/lights percent percent5Cfil.asp, accessed March 2015). The lighthouse was constructed in the typical masonry light-tower design codified by the Treasury Department in the early 19th century (Doucette and Elam 2012). Falkner Island Lighthouse is the second oldest of 12 lighthouses in Connecticut still under Coast Guard Jurisdiction, and the only one in the thematic group which has an island setting. Falkner Island is significant as the site chosen in 1865 and in 1902 for tests of different kinds of fog- signal apparatus, one of the most important fields of technological experimentation for New England coastal navigation (National Register 1985). The site was added to the National Register on May 29, 1990 (NRIS Reference Number 89001467; http://pdfhost.focus.nps.gov/docs/NRHP/Text/89001467.pdf, accessed March 2015) and it is currently the only refuge site to be listed. The 1902 fog signal engine house, located south of the light tower, and a frame boathouse, located at the boat landing area on the western shore, are the only other light station structures that remain standing on the Island. The
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 47
USCG retains responsibility for maintaining the light tower, the docking structure, and the rest of the navigational facilities
• Salt Meadow FMU: The Murdock Hill Complex is located within the mainland portion of the Salt Meadow FMU. The Murdock Hill Complex comprises features that are eligible or for listing (National Register 1986). Numerous structures were constructed.
o Lape-Read Summerhouse: Constructed by Esther Lape and Elizabeth Read in 1929, the Lape-Read summerhouse is a two-story Manor House constructed of cut granite/field stone materials. Lape’s donation of the estate to the Service in 1971 resulted in the creation of the first unit of the present-day Stewart B. McKinney NWR. Today, the house is used as the refuge headquarters building. The Lape- Read house is considered eligible for listing on the National Register, with much of its historic fabric intact, both inside and out.
o Murdock Farmhouse: Constructed by Enoch Murdock in the mid-18th century (ca. 1750), the Murdock farmhouse is two and a half-story Colonial Cape with a basement. The field stone veneer added over the original exterior in 1929 to match the Lape-Read summerhouse is among its noteworthy features. Today, the Murdock farmhouse serves as a refuge residence. The Murdock farmhouse was considered eligible for listing on the National Register in 1986, but subsequent alterations to the interior of the building (1990) may impact this eligibility.
o Another significant historic structure on the site is a rustic cabin, built at the direction of Elizabeth Read in 1939-40. The cabin was likely used by the women and their guests, including Eleanor Roosevelt, for socializing and for sleeping. The building is considered eligible for listing on the National Register.
• Outer Island FMU: The Elizabeth Hird House was constructed in 1964 on the stone chimney of the original house that is reported to have burned down in the 1880s. The stone chimney is purported to contain the largest hearth in Connecticut. Hird gifted Outer Island, including the house, to the United States in 1995. The house is managed by the refuge in cooperation with the Connecticut State University System and has been used to host conservation meetings on Outer Island. The Elizabeth Hird House is considered eligible for listing in the National Register.
• Norwalk Islands FMU: The historic Sheffield Island Lighthouse, also known as the Norwalk Island Lighthouse, is located on private property between two parcels of refuge land. The late Victorian, stone lighthouse was constructed in 1868 and is significant as a well-preserved example of late 19th century lighthouse engineering. It was built to aid navigation in the Long Island Sound, especially for the commercial boating activities that were a vital part of Norwalk’s economy. The land immediately surrounding the lighthouse is open from the north to south shore. A summer cottage is located to the southwest. The lighthouse was added to the National Register on January 19, 1989 (NRIS Reference Number 88003222; http://focus.nps.gov/NRHP/AssetDetail?assetID=220ec748-2e87-4a84- a05f-85244fefd674, accessed January 2016).
Cultural Landscapes. Formal documentation, evaluation, and registration of the refuge’s cultural landscapes have not been completed. Numerous islands and properties within the present-day wildlife refuge were used for recreational purposes and as summer havens, beginning in the
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 48
Colonial Period until acquired by the U.S. Government. Therefore, the potential for significant historic landscapes exists on the refuge.
Archaeological Resources. Four professional archaeological surveys have been conducted at Stewart B. McKinney NWR, the most recent of which was an overview conducted in 2015 (Wiegand 2015). Very little is known about the archaeological record of refuge lands. Native American sites that are known date to at least the Early Archaic Period (ca. 10,000 years before present [ybp]) (Doucette and Elam 2012). The refuge’s location and records from adjacent properties indicate that the refuge has a moderate to high pre-European contact and post- European contact archaeological sensitivity.
Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives Resulting from Wildfire Suppression Federal legislation, such as the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, has been established to protect cultural resources due to recognition of the fragility of those resources and the concern of members of the general public, agency officials, tribal members, lawmakers, and researchers. The legislation regulates the ways that cultural resources are handled as well as the activities of fire workers in areas containing cultural resources. It is generally understood that fire will have little to no impact on buried archaeological resources unless ground disturbance occurs while putting the fire out. Whereas above ground resources would obviously be greatly impacted. Both wildfire suppression plans and prescribed fire plans are required to include provisions to protect cultural resources.
Wildfires are generally more destructive to cultural resources than prescribed fire, since it includes both uncontrolled fire effects and effects of fire suppression. (Hanes 2001; Duke et al. 2003) Cultural resources are nonrenewable, so their protection is a crucial component of fire management and a concern for resource managers before, during, and after a fire. Resource advisors (typically an archaeologist) would, with the assistance of fire personnel, work to protect cultural resources to preserve their value as markers of social identity and scientific data.
Wildfire can change the value of cultural resources. The ability of researchers to interpret the significance of archaeological sites for a previous or current society is diminished anytime it is altered by fire (Lissoway and Propper 1990). In cases where individual artifacts within a site are damaged, it might complicate the discovery or interpretation of the site as a whole. Rearranging the spatial relationship of materials within a site, as when the soil is disturbed, diminishes the ability of researchers to interpret human thought and behavior. The sites that are or that contain cultural resources and the environment surrounding a resource are the contexts for artifacts, structures, ceremonies, and other meaningful objects and activities (ibid.).
Many cultural resources within the refuge management units are aboveground wooden-frame or wooden-frame-stone/brick reinforced structures. A significant direct adverse impact of wildfire on buildings and other historic structures would result from complete destruction during a wildfire, or varying degrees of adverse impacts (damage) would result if fire damages parts of structures. Direct adverse impacts of fire suppression on historic structures would be limited to potential damage by contact with firefighting equipment. Given the infrequent fire occurrence and historically small fire size in the refuge, the likelihood of such adverse impacts is slight.
Historic structures might not always be directly impacted by fire, but they could still be adversely impacted by smoke. Impacts from smoke would come from either the smell permeating the structure interior or blackening or greying exterior and interior walls and objectives inside the
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 49
structure. Burnt wood, cotton, or paper products produce natural odors, and the residues are typically gray to black and usually powdery. Smoke may seem to dissipate quickly after a fire, but the rapid cooling of the particles of incomplete combustion leave a film and odor that penetrates throughout buildings and collections. The acidic nature of the film causes discoloration, corrosion, and overall damage (Chicora Foundation 2015).
Cultural landscapes could be adversely impacted by firefighting activities and equipment used in wildfire suppression. The direct and indirect adverse impacts of wildfire and suppression activities on cultural landscapes would depend on fire location, size, and intensity. Indirect adverse impacts include the possibility of damaging the historic integrity of a cultural landscape.
Due to the relatively short fire return intervals in fuel types on the refuge management units, wildfires might have burned over archaeological resources many times since their original deposition. Most vegetation communities in the three units are relatively young, so fire behavior and fire intensity associated with future fires would likely not be high during average fire weather conditions.
Low-intensity wildfires would have minimal adverse impacts on archaeological resources that are at or below ground level. Heat from typical surface fires would be insufficient to damage artifacts and other archaeological materials in subsurface settings even if they are buried only a few centimeters below the ground surface. The direct adverse impacts of fire on archaeological resources would generally be negligible.
In contrast, severe wildfires—those that burn in heavy fuel loads and exhibit long residence time and a substantial downward heat pulse—may damage buried organic and inorganic materials. In heavy continuous fuels, temperatures at the soil surface may be sufficient to damage stone or ceramic resources by scorching, fracturing, charring, and spalling (breaking).
Some impacts of wildfires on archaeological sites may be beneficial and useful for archaeologists. When vegetation is removed, sites may become evident, and accurate inventory and mapping can be completed. Unfortunately, the sites may be more vulnerable to erosion.
Significant damage could be inflicted on archaeological resources during suppression activities. The use of heavy equipment and other vehicles during fire suppression could cause adverse impacts by displacing surface materials, exposing buried archaeological materials during handline construction, or disturbing materials immediately below the surface.
Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Resulting from Mechanical Fuels Management Mitigation measures (Table 3) would be implemented under alternatives B and C to avoid adverse effects on known cultural resources and minimize the potential for adverse effects on areas that may have cultural resources.
For compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the refuge staff would consult the Service’s RHPO during the early planning stages of proposed fuels management activities that may include ground-altering activities and comply with standard terms and conditions agreed to by refuge staff for fuels management. We would provide a description and location of projects, activities, routine maintenance, and operations that affect ground and structures, details on requests for compatible uses, and the range of alternatives considered. The RHPO would analyze those undertakings for their potential to affect historic and prehistoric sites, and in concert with refuge
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 50
management consult with the SHPO and other parties as appropriate. We would notify the State and local government officials to identify concerns about the impacts of those proposed undertakings.
The best method of protecting vulnerable aboveground cultural resources is through a continuing hazardous fuel reduction program along with proper advanced identification and/or clearance of project areas. Mechanical treatments would reduce fuel loads and create defensible space around historic structures and in areas known to contain archaeological resources.
The short- and long-term beneficial impacts of mechanical treatments would be reduced vegetation density and fire hazard and increased protection of irreplaceable cultural resources. Other beneficial impacts of mechanical treatments would result from the reduction or elimination of vegetation encroachment of historic structures and preserving more historic scenes at the sites. The direct adverse impacts of mechanical treatments would be exposure of materials due to ground disturbance from trampling during treatments or by vehicles associated with the activities. With avoidance of known archaeological resources and implementation of mitigation measures (Table 3), we aim to minimize the potential for adverse effects on cultural resources.
Impacts of Alternative B Resulting from Prescribed Fire Fuels Management For compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the refuge staff would consult the Service’s RHPO during the early planning stages of proposed fuels management activities that may include ground-altering activities and comply with standard terms and conditions agreed to by refuge staff for fuels management. We would provide a description and location of projects, activities, routine maintenance, and operations that affect ground and structures, details on requests for compatible uses, and the range of alternatives considered. The RHPO would analyze those undertakings for their potential to affect historic and prehistoric sites, and in concert with refuge management consult with the SHPO and other parties as appropriate. We would notify the State and local government officials to identify concerns about the impacts of those proposed undertakings.
With preborn planning and strict adherence to the mitigation measures for cultural resource protection (Table 3), we anticipate that the potential for adverse effects on cultural resources would be minimized. We would not conduct prescribed burns near historic structures unless pre- burn planning could ensure their protection.
Prescribed fires can have beneficial impacts by enhancing resources valuable to contemporary cultures. Prescribed fires can be used to maintain or restore some cultural landscapes or geographic areas meaningful to a cultural or community (Hanes 2001).
Some cultural sites would be treated, as necessary, if they are at risk of infestation by nonnative invasive plants and if fuel loads on the site would put the resource at increased risk of damage or destruction in the event of a wildfire. Creating buffers around cultural sites and reducing hazardous fuels in the vicinity of the sites would be a beneficial impact in the protection that is offered. Extensive damage to or destruction of a cultural resource would be a permanent and significant adverse impact.
Most burned areas would “green up” within the same season or, at the latest, the next spring. Regrowth would then diminish the possibility of artifacts being eroded or stolen. Thus, the adverse impacts of prescribed burning would be localized and short-term. The likelihood of a prescribed burn escaping the planned boundary and then resulting in a high-severity fire would be
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 51
minimal due to the high level of planning prior to each burn and the fuel types in the refuge FMUs.
The primary potential for adverse effects on cultural resources would be to those not yet discovered or inventoried in the prescribed burn areas. Under this alternative, the proposed 10- year average area treated with mechanical and prescribed fire fuels management would be 74 acres. The mitigation measures for prescribed burns (Table 3) would be implemented before and during the burns to eliminate or reduce the potential for adverse effects on unknown cultural resources.
Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives We anticipate that the refuge’s wildfire suppression activities would not contribute to the cumulative impacts on cultural resources occurring lands adjacent to refuge FMUs. We are not aware of any current projects or proposed activities on adjacent lands that, currently or in the foreseeable future, would have a potentially adverse effect on refuge cultural resources.
Section 106 Summary of Impacts Common to All Alternatives After applying the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation criteria of adverse effects, the Service concluded the implementation of any of our alternatives, including the no action alternative, would have the potential to result in an adverse effect on cultural resources that may be eligible for listing in the National Register. As described above, we would use management practices that avoid or resolve adverse effects on cultural resources, in accordance with the NHPA.
PUBLIC EXPERIENCE, HEALTH, AND SAFETY
Affected Environment Stewart B. McKinney NWR is the only national wildlife refuge entirely within Connecticut, providing a diverse range and numerous opportunities for rural, suburban, and urban visitors to connect with Connecticut’s rich natural and cultural history in a variety of coastal settings. This urban refuge is as an oasis for wildlife and humans temporarily distancing themselves from the densely populated and developed areas, as well as bustle of major transportation corridors on land and waterways.
Stewart B. McKinney NWR meets the Service’s definition of an urban refuge because it is located within a 25-mile radius of a metropolitan area with at least 250,000 people (Director’s Order 208). As such, the refuge is to provide public use benefits associated with fish and wildlife resources that include, but are not limited to, bird watching, fishing, scientific research, environmental education, open space in an urban setting, and protection of cultural resources (http://americaswildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Urban-Initiative-Fact-Sheet.pdf; accessed November 2013).
The refuge is open to five of the six priority wildlife-dependent public uses defined in the Refuge System Improvement Act: environmental education, interpretation, wildlife observation, photography, and hunting. Environmental education and interpretation are the two uses of greatest emphasis for the refuge’s public use program. Currently, all three mainland units and four island fire management units are open to some public recreational use (Table 11). Stewart B. McKinney NWR attracts over 27,000 visitors annually (based on 2014 Regional Annual
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 52
Performance Planning database (RAPP)). The following sections describe recreational opportunities currently offered and public means of access by refuge unit.
The air quality in coastal Connecticut is designated as in attainment; that is, not exceeding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for five of the six criteria pollutants: particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen dioxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The entire state of Connecticut is classified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)as a nonattainment area for the 8-hour ozone standards of 1997 and 2008 (http://www.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/ancl.html, accessed March 2015). High ozone concentrations typically occur on hot summer days with winds from the southwest at the surface and from the west at higher altitudes. Such weather conditions transport ozone precursors (emitted in auto exhaust, from evaporation of gasoline and oil during transfer, and by many paints, solvents and cleaners) from the large metropolitan areas of the Mid-Atlantic Coast and large power plants of the Ohio Valley to Connecticut, often at levels that exceed the health standard at Connecticut’s upwind boundaries. Emissions from transportation, industrial and commercial sources in Connecticut then further contribute production of ground-level ozone. Sources of air pollution in Connecticut include both mobile sources (primarily motor vehicles) and stationary sources (such as power plants and industrial facilities). The greatest concentration of sources in the refuge vicinity is the New York City, located approximately 25 southwest from the refuge’s Calf Island Unit in Greenwich.
Environmental Consequences Impacts Common to All Alternatives Resulting from Wildfire Suppression Direct adverse impacts on the public would come from wildfire smoke, which could degrade air quality at varying degrees, depending on the size and location of the fire. Impacts on public health include release of particulates and smoke into the airshed and the potential for a slight (not measurable) increase in fugitive dust from suppression activities. The level and duration (ranging from several hours to several days) of adverse impacts from smoke are unpredictable and contingent on variables that affect fire size and controllability; some of those variables are fuel loading and moisture content of fuels, topography, temperature, wind direction, and precipitation levels (regardless of season). Adverse impacts from smoke could be greater if a wildfire occurred during extreme fire weather conditions or in areas with higher fuel loads. Mitigation would include rapid suppression and extinguishment of remaining smoke from heavy fuels.
The fire occurrence on the refuge or adjacent ownership is negligible. Smoke impacts on the public from these wildland fires have been minimal, and if the wildfire trend continues, it is expected that impacts would be no greater than what has been experienced in the past. Any trend toward drier conditions could potentially increase fire hazard, fire occurrence and severity, and produce a greater potential for increased levels and longer duration of adverse impacts.
Adverse impacts from air emissions could include smoke trapped by an inversion, reduced visibility along roadways and scenic vistas due to drift, reductions in recreation values due to smoke haze, smoke and odors, and possible health impacts on sensitive receptors, such as residents and visitors. Given the proximity three mainland refuge management units to private landowners and communities, all wildfires could have the potential to adversely impact public interests and values outside the refuge boundaries. Individuals with breathing problems may decide to temporarily leave their homes if smoke starts moving toward or settling in their location.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 53
Table 11. Public Uses by Management Unit Management Uses Allowed Annual Operations Access Route Facilities Partnerships Additional Unit Information Mainland Units Salt Meadow Wildlife Year-round, daily Old Clinton Rd via Headquarters, Potapaug Audubon None Observation, from ½-hour before Horse Hill Rd, U.S. Visitor Contact provides volunteers Photography, sunrise to ½-hour Route 1 Station, for 1-2 interpretive Environmental after sunset informational kiosk, programs annually Education, observation and occasionally Interpretation, platform, wayside partners on other Research by Non- exhibits, 2 miles of projects at this unit. Service Personnel trails, public parking for 16 vehicles and 2 buses (plus overflow areas) Great Meadows Waterfowl Hunting, Year-round, daily Lordship Boulevard 1.5 miles of trails, New Haven Bird None Wildlife from ½-hour before (Route 113) photo blind, public Club partners to Observation, sunrise to ½-hour parking for 20 host a volunteer Photography, after sunset vehicles stewards program Environmental at this unit Education, Interpretation, Research by Non- Service Personnel Milford Point Wildlife Year-round with Milford Point Rd Viewing platform Connecticut Pedestrian Observation, seasonal closures Audubon Coastal access only via Photography, for piping plover Center maintains Connecticut Environmental nesting, daily from wayside exhibits, Audubon Society Education, ½-hour before observation Coastal Center at Interpretation, sunrise to ½-hour platforms, and Milford Point; Research by Non- after sunset public parking for Provides anglers Service Personnel 20 vehicles. access to adjacent State lands not otherwise accessible by land
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 54
Management Uses Allowed Annual Operations Access Route Facilities Partnerships Additional Unit Information Island Units Falkner Island Wildlife Closed to public Private vessel Dock, wayside Faulkner’s Island None Observation, access except exhibit, temporary Light Brigade Photography, during annual open exhibits for open assists in the Environmental house in September house week operation of the Education, open house, Interpretation, generally held Research by Non- during the first week Service Personnel of September Outer Island Wildlife Southern portion of Thimble Islands Dock signage, Connecticut State Public dock for Observation, the island is open to Ferry, commercial wayside exhibits, University System private motor Photography, visitation from mid- boat charter from two observation MOU; Friends of vessels, charter Environmental May through mid- Stony Creek Harbor decks, and Outer Island. Both vessels and ferry; Education, September (when private vessel environmental groups assist with paddle craft may Interpretation, docking facility is in education center public programming land on gravel Research by Non- place) from 8 a.m. with indoor and and volunteer beach on Service Personnel to dusk. Northern outdoor classroom recruitment, and southeastern portion of the island space they support the portion of island is closed to protect refuge management breeding and activities with foraging habitat for advice, labor and American modest financial oystercatcher and assistance various long-legged wading birds Goose Island None Closed to visitation Private vessel No public use None None except by Special facilities Use Permit Chimon Island Wildlife Only West Beach is Private vessel No public use None None Observation, open; open hours facilities Photography, are year-round, Environmental daily from ½-hour Education, before sunrise to ½- Interpretation, hour after sunset Research by Non- Service Personnel
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 55
Management Uses Allowed Annual Operations Access Route Facilities Partnerships Additional Unit Information Sheffield Island Wildlife Year-round, daily Private vessel, Sheffield Island Norwalk Seaport None Observation, from ½-hour before Norwalk Seaport Lighthouse and Association Photography, sunrise to ½-hour Association’s ferry dock (privately operates a ferry Environmental after sunset service from owned and from late May Education, Seaport Dock (mid- operated by through the end of Interpretation, May through mid- Norwalk Seaport September in Research by Non- September, when Association (.5-mile support of public Service Personnel docking facility is in interpretive walking visiting privately place) trail, wayside owned and exhibits, operated Sheffield observation Island Lighthouse platform, restroom and refuge property Peach Island None Closed to visitation Private vessel None None None except by SUP Calf Island Wildlife Year-round, daily Private vessel Covered pavilion, Calf Island Non- Observation, from ½-hour before informational kiosk, Conservancy has governmental Photography, sunrise to ½-hour wayside exhibits, constructed 10 organizations may Environmental after sunset restroom wayside exhibits on use island for Education, island in overnight youth Interpretation, cooperation with the environmental Research by Non- refuge; the group education Service Personnel has also partnered programs, subject to restore forest to curriculum habitat and control approval and invasive plants issuance of special use permit
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 56
Wildfire suppression activities could potentially impact refuge operations, public uses and experiences, and aesthetic resources. Suppression would require the presence of additional personnel, engines, and other mechanized equipment, which could result in a temporary distraction to people’s enjoyment of the refuge experience, depending on the location of the fire. When necessary, the adverse impacts on refuge visitors from smoke and odor would be mitigated through refuge closures, which would create temporary adverse impacts (inconveniences) on visitors.
Newly burned areas could be within view from roads and trails, and that would also lend another aspect to the natural scene. The presence of burned areas would not affect the enjoyment and use of the refuge by some members of the public, while others may not want to look at a burned landscape when they expect to see green, lush vegetation. The burned areas could also provide an interpretive opportunity for FWS personnel to explain to the public the benefits of fire on the landscape, how fuels management is important in managing fuel loads, and how most areas burned would “green up” during the same season or, at the latest, the next spring.
There could be a temporary exceedance of air quality standards (especially particulates) during a wildfire, resulting in temporary adverse impacts on air quality and visibility on roads inside and outside the affected refuge FMU, thereby affecting public safety. Mitigation would include temporary road closures.
Impacts Common to Alternatives B and C Resulting from Mechanical Fuels Management Some air pollutants would be generated when using gasoline-powered equipment during mechanical treatments. The direct adverse impacts of these pollutants on air quality, given the small amount of area treated would be localized, temporary, and likely not measureable.
Mechanical treatments would continue to be used to reduce fuels around historic structures and facilities. Minor public annoyance from noise created by mechanical equipment used to manage fuel loads. Noise impacts on refuge visitors and FWS staff would be localized and temporary, and the level of impact would depend on the location and duration of mechanical treatments and each person’s sensitivity to noise.
In the long term, beneficial impacts derived from mechanical treatments would result in reduced fuel loads and fire hazard, which would contribute to safer conditions for FWS staff, visitors, and neighbors. Impacts of Alternative B Resulting from Prescribed Fire Fuels Management
Portions of trails might be used as controls lines, so the Refuge Manager may temporarily close segments of trails in affected FMUs during prescribed burns. Temporary adverse impacts on public experience may include minor displacement of some visitor activities during prescribed burn operations for a few hours each year. Smoke may be visible, depending on a person’s location on a refuge, but under average weather conditions, it would not be dense enough to alter the veiwshed. We do not anticipate that smoke would have a noticeable effect on interpretation or understanding of refuge resources.
Smoke from prescribed fire under this alternative would not result in long-term adverse impacts on public health, but there could be temporary minor impacts on sensitive individuals visiting the refuge management unit during a prescribed burn. Given the proximity of three of the seven refuge FMUs to private landowners and communities, prescribed burns could adversely, albeit
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 57
temporarily, impact public interests and values outside refuge boundaries. Safety could be an issue if smoke settled in an area, reducing visibility on roads. Mitigation measures (Table 3) would be implemented during each burn to ensure the safety of refuge visitors and neighbors and FWS staff. With the limited number of acres of annual burning proposed, it is reasonable to assume that smoke associated with prescribed fire would be short-lived and dissipate well before it could impact neighbors and local communities.
Risks associated with prescribed fire, such as escape of fire beyond the planned burn boundary, would be minimized or avoided by the high level of planning that occurs prior to each burn. For example, prescriptions (desired fire behavior, ignition patterns, and timing) would be designed to contain the planned burn and minimize smoke production and subsequent smoke exposure to firefighters, FWS staff, and refuge visitors and neighbors. Alternative B could pose risk of a burn escaping the planned boundary, but the potential for this to occur would be minimal because there would be the high level of planning prior to each prescribed burn. The mitigation measures (Table 3) and additional guidance contained in the FMP and annual prescribed burn plans require that personnel conducting prescribed burns take all necessary safety precautions to protect themselves, FWS staff, and refuge visitors and neighbors.
Cumulative Impacts Common to All Alternatives During a wildfire, a temporary exceedance of air quality standards (especially particulates) may occur. Some air pollutants would be generated when using gasoline-powered equipment during wildfire suppression. On a regional basis, adverse impacts on air quality would be negligible and temporary as quantities of pollutants, primarily particulates from smoke, are released to the atmosphere and disperse well beyond refuge boundaries and neighboring communities. Timely and effective response to wildfires would help to reduce the potential to contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS. Given the refuge’s fire history of few small wildfires, we believe that wildfire suppression activities would not contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS.
Cumulative Impacts of Alternative A, Wildfire Suppression Only Under this alternative, our lack of fuels management as a preventative measure has the potential to contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS, especially if wildfire suppression could not be accomplished in a timely or effective manner. Without fuel reduction activities on the refuge, the refuge has the potential to contribute to wildfire risk in the refuge vicinity.
Cumulative Impacts of Alternative B, Wildfire Suppression and Wildland Fuels Management using Mechanical and Prescribed Fire Treatments Some air pollutants would be generated when using gasoline-powered equipment during fuel management activities using mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. The direct adverse impacts of these pollutants on air quality, given the small amount of area treated, under all three alternatives, would be localized, temporary, and likely not measureable. Therefore, implementing mechanical wildland fuels management activities would not contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS.
The small number of acres proposed to be burned annually under alternative B would not contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS. The amount proposed to be burned annually (74 acres) under alternative B is 0.05 percent of the total acres (1375) for the seven refuge FMUs. This would not contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS because individual burns would be relatively small in size and short in duration.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 58
Prescribed fire implemented by other organizations has been minimal to non-existent, and this trend is likely to continue. There could be temporary minor adverse cumulative impacts on sensitive individuals if the FWS and another entity conducted prescribed burns on the same day and in proximity to each other. The chance of this occurring is slight due to the minimal amount of burning that occurs outside of the refuge boundaries.
Cumulative Impacts of Alternative C, Wildfire Suppression and Mechanical Wildland Fuels Management Only Some air pollutants would be generated when using gasoline-powered equipment during mechanical fuel management treatments. The direct adverse impacts of these pollutants on air quality, given the small amount of area treated, under all three alternatives, would be localized, temporary, and likely not measureable. Therefore, implementing mechanical wildland fuels management activities would not contribute to nonattainment (exceedance) of NAAQS.
CONCLUSION
Alternative A: Wildfire Suppression Only (No-action Alternative) Under this alternative, we would continue to suppress wildfires throughout the refuge as needed and not manage wildland fire fuel loads.
In the event of a wildfire, we would meet the objective to protect human life and Service values within the refuge management units from damage by suppressing wildfires as they occur. Based on the refuge’s past wildfire history, we anticipate that future wildfires would not likely result in significant adverse impacts on the refuge or adjacent properties. Our wildfire suppression activities may introduce nonnative plant species to uninfected areas of the refuge via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. Our wildfire suppression activities may be unsuccessful at preventing or minimizing destruction of known cultural resources (e.g., buildings eligible for the National Register) by contact with firefighting equipment. Given the limited information available about the refuge’s archaeological resources, impacts to unknown archaeological resources may result from the use of heavy equipment and displacement of surface or buried materials during handline construction.
We would not be able to fully meet the objective of protecting human life, property, and the environment outside each refuge management unit from damage caused by wildfire and fire management activities originating from inside the refuge. In the absence of fuels management efforts, refuge management would remain concerned about the potential for wildfire within and adjacent to the refuge. Invasive plant infestations would continue to contribute to changes in fuel characteristics and fire regimes.
We would not be able to fully meet the objective of protecting native biological communities to support a diversity of wildlife occurring on and near the refuge because the duration of our wildfire suppression activities would determine the intensity and duration of adverse impact to wildlife habitats and wildlife, most notably for mammals and ground-nesting birds. Wildfire suppression activities have the greatest potential to adversely impact special status native plants; promote the spread of invasive plants; and adversely impact shrub and ground nesting birds (e.g., American woodcock, eastern towhee, ovenbird, blue-winged warbler, and brown thrasher), bats, and eastern box turtles.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 59
Alternative B: Wildfire Suppression and Wildland Fuels Management Using Mechanical and Prescribed Fire Treatments Under this alternative, we would continue to suppress wildfires throughout the refuge as needed and use mechanical and prescribed fire treatments on approximately 74 acres over the next 10 years. Using a multitude of mitigation measures (see Table 3) provides the maximum benefit to wildlife, their habitats, cultural resources, and public safety practicable.
In the event of a wildfire, we would meet the objective to protect human life and Service values within the refuge management units from damage by suppressing wildfires as they occur. Based on the refuge’s past wildfire history, we anticipate that future wildfires would not likely result in significant adverse impacts on the refuge or adjacent properties. Our wildfire suppression activities could introduce non-native plant species to uninfected areas of the refuge via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. This alternative includes the use of mechanical and prescribed fire treatments as preventative measures to reduce fuel loads on the refuge. In the event of a wildfire, areas with reduced fuel loads would be easier to control and wildfire suppression activities would likely be effective at preventing or minimizing destruction of known cultural resources (e.g., buildings eligible for the National Register) by contact with firefighting equipment. Prescribed fire treatments would not be applied near historic structures unless adequate planning would ensure their protection. Given the limited information available about the refuge’s archaeological resources, impacts to unknown archaeological resources may result from the use of heavy equipment and displacement of surface or buried materials during handline construction. We would use specific mitigation measures (Table 3) to eliminate or reduce the potential for adverse effects on cultural resources and the spread of nonnative plants during wildfire suppression activities.
We would meet the objective of protecting human life, property, and the environment outside each refuge management unit from damage caused by wildfire and fire management activities originating from inside the refuge. Mechanical fuels reduction treatments near flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources would reduce the risk of fire spread and increase defensible space to the maximum extent practicable. Refuge management’s concern about invasive plant infestations alteration of fuel characteristics and fire regimes would be reduced by using a combination of herbicides, mechanical, and prescribed fire treatments. This combination of wildland fuels management treatments would offer the greatest potential to minimize the risk and spread of wildland fire on the refuge. Wildfire suppression and fuel management treatments would have temporary adverse impacts on public experience, health, and safety. The intensity and duration of those impacts would vary and could impact the natural soundscape, scenic views, airshed, visibility, public access to some areas, and the presence of blackened areas within natural vistas. We expect that the impact of prescribed fire treatments would be limited to a few hours per year and smoke emissions not dense enough to alter the viewshed. However, sensitive individuals may experience temporary impacts to their health if visiting or nearby an FMU during a prescribed fire treatment. Prescribed fire would not result in exceedance of NAAQS.
We would meet the objective of protecting native biological communities to support a diversity of wildlife occurring on and near the refuge. Wildfire suppression activities and fuels management activities may disturb or displace native wildlife, but they would be expected to return once the activities and noise cease. Wildfire suppression and fuels management activities may also result in the introduction or spread of invasive plant species to uninfected areas of the refuge via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. We would use specific mitigation measures (Table
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 60
3) to eliminate or reduce the potential for the spread of nonnative plants during wildfire suppression activities. We anticipate that the duration of our wildfire suppression activities would determine the intensity and duration of adverse impact to wildlife habitats and wildlife, most notably for mammals, as well as shrub and ground nesting birds. The potential for a prescribed fire to escape beyond a planned burn area would be minimized by implementing various mitigation measures listed in Table 3. Beneficial impacts on wildlife would most likely result from wildfires of low to moderate severity. The combination of suppressing wildfires and using both mechanical and prescribed fire fuels management techniques would generate the greatest short- and long-term benefits for forested and grassland habitats, as well as associated wildlife species.
Alternative C: Wildfire Suppression and Mechanical Wildland Fuels Management Only Under this alternative, we would continue to suppress wildfires throughout the refuge as needed and use mechanical fuel management on approximately 10 acres over the next 10 years. Using a multitude of mitigation measures (see Table 3) would help reduce the potential for adverse impacts on wildlife, their habitats, cultural resources, and public safety practicable.
In the event of a wildfire, we would meet the objective to protect human life and Service values within the refuge management units from damage by suppressing wildfires as they occur. Based on the refuge’s past wildfire history, we anticipate that future wildfires would not likely result in significant adverse impacts on the refuge or adjacent properties. Our wildfire suppression activities may introduce non-native plant species to uninfected areas of the refuge via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. This alternative includes the use of mechanical treatments as a preventative measure to reduce fuel loads on the refuge. In the event of a wildfire, areas with reduced fuel loads would be easier to control and wildfire suppression activities would likely be effective at preventing or minimizing destruction of known cultural resources (e.g., buildings eligible for the National Register) by contact with firefighting equipment. Mechanical fuels reduction treatments near flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources would reduce the risk of fire spread and increase defensible space. Given the limited information available about the refuge’s archaeological resources, impacts to unknown archaeological resources could result from the use of heavy equipment and displacement of surface or buried materials during handline construction. We would use specific mitigation measures (Table 3) to eliminate or reduce the potential for adverse effects on cultural resources and the spread of non-native plants during wildfire suppression activities.
We would meet the objective of protecting human life, property, and the environment outside each refuge management unit from damage caused by wildfire and fire management activities originating from inside the refuge. Mechanical fuels reduction treatments near flammable structures, cultural resources, and other high-value resources would reduce the risk of fire spread and increase defensible space to the maximum extent practicable. Refuge management’s concern about invasive plant infestations alteration of fuel characteristics and fire regimes would be reduced by using a combination of herbicides and mechanical treatments. This combination of management treatments would offer to reduce the risk and spread of wildland fire on the refuge. Wildfire suppression and fuel management treatments would have temporary but limited adverse impacts on public experience, health, and safety. The intensity and duration of those impacts would vary and impact the natural soundscape, scenic views, airshed, visibility on roads, public access to some areas, and the presence of blackened areas within natural vistas. Sensitive individuals may experience temporary impacts to their health if visiting or nearby an FMU during a prescribed fire treatment. Prescribed fire would not result in exceedance of NAAQS.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 61
We would meet the objective of protecting native biological communities to support a diversity of wildlife occurring on and near the refuge. Wildfire suppression activities and fuels management activities may disturb or displace native wildlife, but they would be expected to return once the activities and noise cease. Wildfire suppression and fuels management activities may also result in the introduction or spread of invasive plant species to uninfected areas of the refuge via seeds carried by humans and firefighting equipment. We would use specific mitigation measures (Table 3) to eliminate or reduce the potential for the spread of nonnative plants during wildfire suppression activities. We anticipate that the duration of our wildfire suppression activities would determine the intensity and duration of adverse impact to wildlife habitats and wildlife, most notably for mammals and ground-nesting birds. Beneficial impacts on wildlife would most likely result from wildfires of low to moderate severity. The combination of suppressing wildfires and using mechanical fuels management techniques would generate moderate short-term benefits for forested and grassland habitats, as well as associated wildlife species.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 62
CONSULTATION AND LIST OF PREPARERS
CONSULTATION
The refuge’s Zone Fire Management Officer (FMO) spoke with the CT DEEP, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the National Park Service concerning the FWS proposal to develop an EA, spatial FMP, Stafford Agreement and prescribed burn plan for the purpose of gathering information and initiating coordination efforts.
LIST OF PREPARERS
Becky Brooks National Fire Planner for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service
Patricia Kusmierski Biological Science Technician for Stewart B. McKinney NWR
Richard Potvin Refuge Manager for Stewart B. McKinney NWR
Meghan Powell Natural Resources Planner for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Northeast Region Refuges
Shaun Roche Park Ranger/Visitor Services Specialist for Stewart B. McKinney NWR
Jerry Szymaniak Fire Planner (GIS Support)
Kristina Vagos Wildlife Biologist for Stewart B. McKinney NWR
David Walker Fire Management Specialist for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Northeast Region
Consultation and List of Preparers 63
LITERATURE CITED
Alexander, J.D., C.J. Ralph, B. Hogoboom, N.E. Seavy, and S. Janes. 2004. Understanding effects of fire suppression, fuels treatment, and wildfire on bird communities in the Klamath-Siskiyou Ecoregion. Proceedings of the Second Conference on Klamath-Siskiyou Ecology. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/ralph/psw_2004_ralph(alexander)001.pdf.
Anderson, H.E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior (NFES – 1574). Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-122. Ogden, Utah: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22p. Access at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr122.pdf.
Anderson M., E.J. Holzmueller, C.M. Ruffner, and J.W. Groninger. 2012. Growth and Response of Mature Oaks Following TSI and Prescribed Burning Treatments. In Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. USDA Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-102, pp. 215-216. October. Accessed at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p- 102.pdf.
Bisson, P.A., B.E. Rieman, C. Luce, P.F. Hessburg, D.C. Lee, J.L. Kershner, G.H. Reeves, and R.E. Gresswell. 2003. Fire and aquatic ecosystems of the western USA: current knowledge and key questions. Forest Ecology and Management 178: 213-229.
Black, S.H., M. Shepherd, and M. Vaughnan. 2011. Rangeland management for pollinators. Rangelands 33(3): 913. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2111/1551- 501X-33.3.9.
Bowles, M.L., M.M. Demauro, N. Pavlovic, and R.D. Hiebert. 1990. Effects of anthropogenic disturbances on endangered and threatened plants at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Natural Areas Journal 10: 187-200. Accessed January 2016 at http://plantconservation.us/BowlesDeMauro1990.pdf.
Chicora Foundation. 2015. What is Smoke? Accessed October 2015: http://chicora.org/fire.html.
Duke, P., D. Cave, and R. Kimmick. 2003. The Effects of Fire on Cultural Resources. USDA Forest Service, San Juan National Forest, Challenge Cost Share Agreement 11021300-071.
Hanes, R.C. 2001. Chapter VIII - Cultural Resources. In Fire Impacts Guide. The National Wildlife Coordinating Group Fire Use Working Team. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xnifc/documents/text/idc012441.pdf.
Hosier, P.E. and T.E. Eaton. 1980. The impact of vehicles on dune and grassland vegetation on a south-eastern North Carolina barrier beach. Journal of Applied Ecology 17(1): 173-182.
Literature Cited 64
Accessed January 2016 at http://www.jstor.org/stable/2402972?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Hutchinson, T. 2005. Fire and the Herbaceous Layer of Eastern Oak Forests. In Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a Conference, November 15-16. Northern Research Station GTR-NRS-P-1, pp 136-149. Accessed at http://www.oakfirescience.com/fire-gen-tech-reports.
Joint Fire Science Program. 2001. Burning and bats: Fire’s impact on the endangered Indiana bat. Fire Science Brief, Issue 109. Project Number 05-2-1-24. May. Accessed at https://www.firescience.gov/projects/briefs/05-2-1-24_FSBrief109.pdf.
Lissoway, J. and J. Propper. 1990. Impacts of fire on cultural resources. In Impacts of Fire Management on Southwestern Natural Resources: Proceedings of the Symposium, November 15-17, 1988, Tucson, Arizona. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-191. Fort Collins, Colorado: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, pp. 25-30.
Lyon, J.L., E.S. Telfer, and D.S. Schreiner. 2000. Chapter 3: Direct impacts of fire and animal responses. J.K. Smith, ed. In Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Impacts of Fire on Fauna. Ogden (Utah): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. pp. 17-23.
Masters, R.E. and J.R. Waymire. 2012. Oak Savanna Restoration: Oak Response to Fire and Thinning Through 28 Years. In Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. USDA Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-102, pp 69-91. Accessed at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-102.pdf.
Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145–2151. Accessed at http://www.werc.usgs.gov/ProductDetails.aspx?ID=3521.
Perry, R.W. 2012. A review of fire impacts on bats and bat habitat in the eastern oak region. In Proceedings of the 4th Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. USDA Research Station, General Technical Report NRS-P-102, pp. 170-191. Accessed at http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_nrs-p-102.pdf.
Russell, K.R., D.H. Van Lear, and D.C. Guynn. 1999. Prescribed fire impacts on herpetofauna: Review and management implications. Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(2): 374-384. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3783904?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents.
Schlobohm, P. and J. Brain. 2002. Gaining an Understanding of the National Fire Danger Rating System. PMS 932/NFES 2665. Access at http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/MasterGaining.pdf.
Literature Cited 65
Scott, J.H. and R.E. Burgan. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Fire Spread Model, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-153. Accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr153.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDI and USDA). 2001a. National Fire Plan: A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. Accessed at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/7-19-en.pdf.
---. 2001b. Managing Impacts of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment and Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire Adapted Ecosystems – A Cohesive Strategy. Accessed January 2016 at http://nevadarangelands.org/images/Documents/usda_fs_2000.pdf.
---. 2006. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/10- yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Windom Wetland Management District, About the Refuge, Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.fws.gov/refuge/Windom_WMD/about/faq.html.
---. 2014. NEPA for National Wildlife Refuges: A Handbook. Accessed at http://www.fws.gov/policy/NEPARefugesHandbook.pdf.
---. 2015. Fact Sheet: Northern Long-Eared Bat, Myotis septentrionalis. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/NLEBFactSheet01April2015.pdf.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2005. Why Sustain Oak Forests? by D.W. Smith. Fire in Eastern Oak Forests: Delivering Science to Land Managers. Proceedings of a Conference, November 15-16. Northern Research Station GTR-NRS-P-1, pp 62-71. Accessed at http://www.oakfirescience.com/fire-gen-tech-reports.
---. 2014. Prescribed Fire in Upland Hardwood Forests. Accessed January 2016 at http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/products/marketing/cards/prescribed_fire.pdf.
---. 2015. Fire Effects Information System (FEIS), last updated December 2, 2015. Accessed January 2015 at http://www.feis-crs.org/beta.
Vickery, P.D. 2002. Effects of the size of prescribed fire on insect predation of northern blazing star, a rare grassland perennial. Conservation Biology 16(2): 413-421. Accessed January 2016 at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00494.x/full.
Literature Cited 66
Wiegand, Ernest. 2015. Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey, Norwalk Seaport Association Shed Site, Steward B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge, Sheffield Island, Norwalk Connecticut.
Zouhar, K., J. Kapler Smith, S. Sutherland, and M.L. Brooks. 2008. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Fire and Nonnative Invasive Plants. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, Utah: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. pp. 61-89. Accessed at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr042_6.pdf.
Literature Cited 67
GLOSSARY
Backing Fire 1. Fire spreading, or ignited to spread, into (against) the wind or downslope. A fire spreading on level ground in the absence of wind is a backing fire. 2. That portion of the fire with slower rates of fire spread and lower intensity normally moving into the wind and/or down slope.
Blackline / Blacklining Pre-burning of fuels adjacent to a control line before igniting a prescribed burn. Blacklining is usually done in heavy fuels adjacent to a control line during periods of low fire danger to reduce heat on holding crews and lessen chances for spotting across control line. In fire suppression, a blackline denotes a condition where there is no unburned material between the fireline and the fire edge.
Environmental A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the National Assessment Environmental Policy Act, which briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact.
Fire Behavior The manner in which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography. See more specific information about fire behavior at the end of this Glossary.
Fire Management All activities for the management of wildfires to meet land management objectives. Fire management includes the entire scope of activities from planning, prevention, fuels or vegetation modification, prescribed fire, hazard mitigation, fire response, rehabilitation, monitoring, and evaluation.
Fire Management Plan A plan that identifies and integrates all wildfire management and related activities within the context of approved land / resource management plans. A fire management plan defines a program to manage wildfires and plan fuel reduction actions (mechanical treatments and prescribed fire). The plan is supplemented by operational plans, including but not limited to preparedness plans, preplanned dispatch plans, prescribed fire burn plans, and prevention plans. Fire management plans ensure that wildfire management goals and components are coordinated.
Fire Suppression All work and activities connected with control and fire-extinguishing operations, beginning with discovery and continuing until the fire is completely extinguished.
Head Fire A fire spreading or set to spread with the wind. Synonymous with “advancing fire.”
Minimum Impact The application of strategies and tactics that effectively meet Suppression Techniques suppression and resource objectives with the least environmental, cultural, and social impacts.
Glossary 68
Mutual Aid Zone A geographical area between two or more jurisdictions into which those agencies would respond on initial attack of a wildfire. Also called mutual response zone or initial action zone.
Prescribed Fire Any fire intentionally ignited by management actions in accordance with applicable laws, policies, and regulations to meet specific objectives.
Spatial Fire Management Spatial (also referred to Geospatial) refers to a topologically accurate Plan representation of landscape features and their relationships presented in digital or hardcopy. A spatial fire management plan moves a lot of information from text descriptions in documents to geospatial representation on maps.
Wildfire An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire including unauthorized human- caused fires, escaped wildland fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, and all other wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out.
Wildland An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, powerlines, and similar transportation facilities. Structures, if any, are widely scattered.
Wildland Fire Any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels. Wildland fire includes prescribed fire and wildfire.
Wildfire Decision Support This system assists fire managers and analysts in making strategic and System tactical decisions for fire incidents.
Wildland Urban Interface The line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Describes an area within or adjacent to private and public property where mitigation actions can prevent damage or loss from wildfire.
Glossary 69
FIRE BEHAVIOR
Fire behavior describes how a fire burns, where it burns, how fast it travels, how much heat it releases, and how much fuel it consumes. It is important to understand what controls fire behavior and how to predict it because this knowledge helps predict wildfire risk and fire impacts and how to control wildfires and conduct prescribed fires.
Flame Length
Flame length is measured in feet, from the base of the flame to the tip of the flame. Longer flame lengths increase resistance to control and the likelihood of torching events and crown fires in forest areas. Flame length is influenced by fuels, weather, and topography and presence of volatile resins or oils in living vegetation. As illustrated in the below table, increasing flame lengths above 4 feet may present serious control problems to firefighters because they are too dangerous to be directly contained by hand crews (Schlobohm and Brain 2002; Anderson 1982). Flame lengths over 8 feet are generally not controllable by ground-based equipment or aerial retardant and present serious control problems, including torching, crowning, and spotting.
Flame Length Description Less than 4 feet Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks by firefighters using hand tools. A hand line should hold the fire. 4 to 8 feet Fires are too intense for direct attack at the head with hand tools. A hand line cannot be relied on to hold the fire. Bulldozers, engines, and retardant drops can be ineffective. 8 to 11 feet Fire may present serious control problems, such as torching, crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the head will probably be ineffective. Greater than 11 feet Crowing, spotting, and major fire runs are probable. Control efforts at the head of the fire are ineffective. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2004)
Rate of Spread
Rate of spread is the horizontal distance that the flame zone moves per unit of time (feet per minute) and usually refers to the head fire segment of the fire perimeter. It is directly related to the amount of heat received by the fuels ahead of the flaming zone. Rate of spread is strongly influenced by fuels, winds, and topography—it generally increases with increasing wind speed, slope, and amount of fine fuels.
FIRE BEHAVIOR COMPONENTS
Fire behavior is controlled by three interacting components: fuels, weather, and topography.
• Fuel is all living and dead plant material that can be ignited by a fire. Fuel characteristics strongly influence fire behavior and the resulting fire impacts on ecosystems. Fuel load is measured in tons-per-acre of dead and down woody fuels. Components of fuel loading include fuel sizes and their proportion, arrangement, and continuity.
Glossary 70
• Of the three fire behavior components, weather is the most likely to fluctuate. Accurately predicting fire weather remains a challenge for forecasters, particularly during drought conditions. As spring and summer winds and rising temperatures dry fuels, particularly on south-facing slopes, conditions can deteriorate rapidly, creating an environment that is susceptible to wildfire. Fine fuels (grass and leaf litter) can cure rapidly, making them highly flammable in as little as one hour following light precipitation. Low live fuel moistures of shrubs and trees can significantly contribute to fire behavior in the form of crowning and torching. Coastal mainland areas are subject to the sea breeze effect that occurs when air and water temperature differences suddenly take effect causing an unpredicted wind shift. • Topography is the third component and is important in determining fire behavior. Steepness of slope, aspect (direction the slope faces), elevation, and landscape features can all affect fuels, local weather (by channeling winds and affecting local temperatures), and rate of spread of wildfire. Aspect and slope can assert significant influence on fire behavior, so where topography does fluctuate, flame lengths and rate of spread can vary considerably. Other topographic features that could be significant are arroyos and tributaries that may funnel fire and intensify fire behavior. Narrow river channel width and presence of vegetated islands are also topographic features that could influence fire spread.
FIRE RISK AND FIRE HAZARD
The likelihood of future fires causing unacceptable resource damage is influenced by two factors: fire risk and fire hazard. Fire risk is the probability of a fire occurring on any of the seven refuge FMUs and is based on historic fire records. Fire hazard, on the other hand, is dependent upon fuel conditions, including the accumulation of dead and living vegetation and fire weather. Under historic fire return intervals, fuel accumulation would be considerably less than current levels. A particular area may have a low historic risk of fire occurrence, but the fuel hazard, and thus fire severity, may be high enough to result in unacceptable lethal levels of vegetation mortality (lethal impacts are those where fires result in greater than 70 percent mortality of vegetation) (USFS 2000).
Glossary 71