Project Links
Fire Management Planning
Moores Creek National Battlefield » Fire Management Planning » Document List
Executive Summary
National Park Service (NPS) policy requires that any NPS unit with combustible vegetation must prepare a Fire Management Plan. Policy also directs the management of hazardous wildland fuels. Three alternatives were considered for Moores Creek National Battlefield's Fire Management Plan – Alternative 1 - No-Action, suppression of any wildland fires, prescribed fire treatment for the 12 acre savanna unit, and conducting mechanical thinning and hazard tree removal projects on selected areas where hazardous fuels are present and pose a threat to park infrastructure and the local community; Alternative 2 - NPS preferred action that would adopt a fire management program of response to wildfires for resource and protection objectives while using prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and chemical treatments for fuels management and restoration of cultural landscape; and Alternative 3 – Response to wildfire for resource or protection objectives coupled with mechanical and chemical treatment for fuels management. Suppression operations in each alternative would quickly respond to wildland fires and achieve effective control to protect human life and property with the least amount of damage to the park's natural and cultural resources.
This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes impacts to firefighter and public safety; vegetation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; air quality; wetlands; soils; cultural resources; visitor experience, and park operations; and describes the effects of each alternative. None of the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of the proposed action are considered major for any of the impact topics.
Note to Reviewers and Respondents:
Reviewers should provide the NPS with their comments on the EA during the review period. This will allow NPS to analyze and respond to comments at one time, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers are encouraged to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Comments on the EA should be specific and should address the adequacy of the analysis and the merits of the alternatives discussed.
If you wish to comment on this EA you can do so through the National Park Service's Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) web site platform. Comments on this EA must be entered into this system no later than July 30, 2012. The following website address is available for this purpose:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mocr
Important Notice.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service (NPS) policy requires that any NPS unit with combustible vegetation must prepare a Fire Management Plan. Policy also directs the management of hazardous wildland fuels. Three alternatives were considered for Moores Creek National Battlefield's Fire Management Plan – Alternative 1 - No-Action, suppression of any wildland fires, prescribed fire treatment for the 12 acre savanna unit, and conducting mechanical thinning and hazard tree removal projects on selected areas where hazardous fuels are present and pose a threat to park infrastructure and the local community; Alternative 2 - NPS preferred action that would adopt a fire management program of response to wildfires for resource and protection objectives while using prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, and chemical treatments for fuels management and restoration of cultural landscape; and Alternative 3 – Response to wildfire for resource or protection objectives coupled with mechanical and chemical treatment for fuels management. Suppression operations in each alternative would quickly respond to wildland fires and achieve effective control to protect human life and property with the least amount of damage to the park's natural and cultural resources.
This environmental assessment (EA) analyzes impacts to firefighter and public safety; vegetation; wildlife and wildlife habitat; threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; air quality; wetlands; soils; cultural resources; visitor experience, and park operations; and describes the effects of each alternative. None of the direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts of the proposed action are considered major for any of the impact topics.
Note to Reviewers and Respondents:
Reviewers should provide the NPS with their comments on the EA during the review period. This will allow NPS to analyze and respond to comments at one time, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers are encouraged to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Comments on the EA should be specific and should address the adequacy of the analysis and the merits of the alternatives discussed.
If you wish to comment on this EA you can do so through the National Park Service's Planning, Environment, and Public Comment (PEPC) web site platform. Comments on this EA must be entered into this system no later than July 30, 2012. The following website address is available for this purpose:
http://parkplanning.nps.gov/mocr
Important Notice.
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.