agriculture longleaf ecosystem restoration...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service February 2005

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project

National Forests in Alabama Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District Tuscaloosa, Hale, Bibb, and Perry Counties

Big SandyBig Sandy

AffoneeAffonee

FivemileFivemile

ElliottsElliotts

Private LandForest OwnershipWatersheds

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

Final Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District

Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

Tuscaloosa, Hale, Bibb and Perry Counties, Alabama

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: None

Responsible Official: Cynthia Oliver Ragland 9901 Highway 5, Brent, AL 35034

For Information Contact: Jim Shores, Project Leader 9901 Highway 5, Brent AL 35034 (205) 926-9765

Abstract: The USDA Forest Service proposes a five-year project to begin restoration of the native longleaf ecosystem on appropriate upland sites within four watersheds on the Talladega National Forest – Oakmulgee District. The Project Area consists of approximately 87,000 acres of National Forest System lands within the northwest portion of the District in Tuscaloosa, Hale, Bibb, and Perry Counties, Alabama. The Proposed Action is designed to target four specific areas of concern and includes treatment of concern and establishes a prescribed fire regime across the Project Area. Approximately 13,037 acres are considered for treatments within the Areas of Concern. These treatments include a series of restoration efforts on about 7,393 acres of native upland longleaf sites that are currently forested in loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and pine mixed with hardwoods. These sites have been attacked by southern pine beetle (SPB) and/or are experiencing other serious forest health problems with mortality expected within 10 years. Loblolly and shortleaf trees on these sites would be cut and longleaf seedlings would be planted. Additional treatments include thinning on 2,813 acres of loblolly, shortleaf, and mixed pine/hardwoods that are currently overcrowded and at risk for SPB infestations. Thinning would serve to mimic the structure of the native longleaf ecosystem, improve the health of the remaining trees, and reduce the associated forest health risks until these sites could be restored to longleaf in the future. Thinning would also occur on about 2,831 acres of existing longleaf sites that are overstocked and not exhibiting the structure of the native longleaf ecosystem. The trees on these sites are too dense and are not characteristic of the historic, open, park-like conditions of native longleaf. In this overcrowded condition, these sites are not providing suitable habitat for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker. A prescribed burning regime would be maintained and enhanced across the Project Area to encourage restoration of the native understory species associated with the longleaf ecosystem. The other alternatives considered in this document vary in quantity and/or method of treatment.

i

Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project Final Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District Environmental Impact Statement

Table of Contents Summary........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................ 6 Document Structure ...................................................................................................................... 6 Background.................................................................................................................................... 7 The Project Area............................................................................................................................ 9 Purpose of and Need for Action ................................................................................................. 12 Proposed Action........................................................................................................................... 17 The Planning Acres vs. Actual Treatment Acres...................................................................... 18 Other Actions in the Project Area.............................................................................................. 19 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 19 Public Involvement...................................................................................................................... 20 Issues............................................................................................................................................. 21 Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the proposed action .................................................... 25 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 25 Alternatives Considered in Detail .............................................................................................. 25

Alternative A - No Action .................................................................................................... 26 Alternative B - The Proposed Action ................................................................................... 27 Alternative C - No Herbicide/Less Prescribed Burning (Modified PA)............................... 32 Alternative D - Low Impact Harvests................................................................................... 34 Alternative E - Less Restoration and Less Thinning ............................................................ 36 Alternative F - The Most Restoration ................................................................................... 38 Management Standards Common to All Alternatives .......................................................... 40

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study................................... 46 Alternative G - Thinning Only.............................................................................................. 46 Alternative H - No Commercial Harvests............................................................................. 46

Comparison of Alternatives........................................................................................................ 47 Chapter 3: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ............................... 49

3.1: Soil Resources ............................................................................................................. 49 3.2: Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 66 3.3: Overstory Vegetation ................................................................................................. 93 3.4: Understory Vegetation ............................................................................................. 117 3.5: Wildlife Resources.................................................................................................... 136 3.6: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW)........................................................................ 147 3.7: Air Resources............................................................................................................ 168 3.8: Scenery ...................................................................................................................... 178 3.9: Recreation Resources ............................................................................................... 186 3.10: Heritage Resources................................................................................................. 194 3.11: Economic Comparison of Alternatives................................................................. 202

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ........................................................................ 204 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.................................................................................................... 204 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................................................... 205 Other Required Disclosures...................................................................................................... 205

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................ 206 Preparers and Contributors ..................................................................................................... 206 ID Team Members: ................................................................................................................... 206 Federal, State, and Local Agencies: ......................................................................................... 207 Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ................................................. 207 Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement.................................................. 208 Glossary__________________________________ ............................................................209

ii


Appendix A - Planned Schedule of Treatments by Alternative Appendix B - Biological Assessment Appendix C - Biological Evaluation Appendix D - Sample Herbicide Contract Specifications Appendix E - Access Needs Appendix F - Public Comments and Responses

iii


List of Figures

FIGURE # NAME PAGE Figure 1-1: Oakmulgee Today – At a Glance 7 Figure 1-2: Longleaf in Need of Restoration 9 Figure 1-3: Project Area: Watersheds 10 Figure 1-4: Revised Forest Plan – Prescription Map 11 Figure 1-5: Project Area – Age Class Distribution 12 Figure 1-6: AOC 1 – Representative Condition 13 Figure 1-7: AOC 2 – Representative Condition 14 Figure 1-8: AOC 3 – Representative Condition 15 Figure 1-9: AOC 4 – Representative Condition 15 Figure 1-10: Summary Table 16 Figure 2-1: Range of Alternatives 25 Figure 2-2: Alternative A – General Location Map 26 Figure 2-3a: Alternative B – Proposed Treatments Map 31 Figure 2-3b: Alternative B – Proposed Treatments Table 31 Figure 2-4a: Alternative C – Proposed Treatments Map 33 Figure 2-4b: Alternative C – Proposed Treatments Table 33 Figure 2-5a: Alternative D – Proposed Treatments Map 35 Figure 2-5b: Alternative D – Proposed Treatments Table 35 Figure 2-6a: Alternative E – Proposed Treatments Map 37 Figure 2-6b: Alternative E – Proposed Treatments Table 37 Figure 2-7a: Alternative F – Proposed Treatments Map 39 Figure 2-7b: Alternative F – Proposed Treatments Table 39 Figure 3.1-1: Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Access 52 Figure 3.1-2: Potential Soil Compaction – Thinning 53 Figure 3.1-3: Potential Soil Compaction – Restoration 54 Figure 3.1-4: Potential Soil Erosion – Thinning 54 Figure 3.1-5: Potential Soil Erosion – Restoration 55 Figure 3.1-6: Site Preparation and Release Treatments 57 Figure 3.1-7: Alternative C – Mechanical Site Preparation – Slope

Suitability 58

Figure 3.1-8: Average Soil Erosion Potential Increase Over Baseline by Alternative

63

Figure 3.2-1: Basins and 4th and 5th Level HUCS 66 Figure 3.2-2: Map of the Watersheds within the Affected Environment 67 Figure 3.2-3: Alabama Department of Environment Management Water

Use Designations 68

Figure 3.2-4: Thinning to Restore and Mimic Longleaf Structure 69 Figure 3.2-5: Thinning to Restore and Mimic Longleaf Structure by

Watershed 69

Figure 3.2-6: Restoration Cuts – Acres 70 Figure 3.2-7: Restoration Cuts by Watershed 70 Figure 3.2-8: Temporary Roads 71 Figure 3.2-9: Temporary Roads by Watershed 71

iv


Figure 3.2-10a: Site Preparation Using Herbicide 72 Figure 3.2-10b: Release Using Herbicide 72 Figure 3.2-10c: Mid-story Control Using Herbicide 72 Figure 3.2-11a: Site Preparation and Release: Herbicide by Watershed 73 Figure 3.2-11b: Mid-Story Herbicide by Watershed 73 Figure 3.2-12: Site Preparation Burns 74 Figure 3.2-13: Prescribed Burns 74 Figure 3.2-14: Release Burns 74 Figure 3.2-15: Mid-story Control Burns 75 Figure 3.2-16: Site Preparation: Burns by Watershed 75 Figure 3.2-17: Prescribed Burns by Watershed 76 Figure 3.2-18: Release Burns by Watershed 76 Figure 3.2-19: Mid-Story Control Burn by Watershed 77 Figure 3.2-20: Release Using Hand Tools 77 Figure 3.2-21: Mid-Story Control Hand Tools 78 Figure 3.2-22: Release: Hand Tools by Watershed 78 Figure 3.2-23: Midstory: Hand Tools by Watershed 79 Figure 3.2-24a: Mechanical Site Preparation – Drum Chopping 79 Figure 3.2-24b: Shear and Rake Site Preparation 80 Figure 3.2-25a: Site Preparation: Drum Chopping by Watershed 80 Figure 3.2-25b: Site Preparation: Shear and Rake by Watershed 81 Figure 3.2-26: Re-establishing Longleaf – Planting 81 Figure 3.2-27: Hand Planting by Watershed 82 Figure 3.2-28: Average Percent Increase Over Baseline by Alternative 87 Figure 3.2-29: Average Percent Increase Over Baseline By Alternative By

Year 88

Figure 3.2-30: Average Percent Increase Over Baseline By Watershed 88 Figure 3.3-1: Environmental Effects to Overstory Vegetation by

Alternative 93

Figure 3.3-2: Progress Towards Meeting Revised Forest Plan Objectives by Alternative

95

Figure 3.3-3: Major Forest Types and Their Overstory Species Composition

95

Figure 3.3-4: 2003 Forest Type Age Class Distribution 96 Figure 3.3-5: 2003 Age Class Distribution – Alternative A – No Action 97 Figure 3.3-6: Loblolly Decline Cycle 98 Figure 3.3-7: Prioritizing Management Strategies in AOC 1 100 Figure 3.3-8: Prioritizing Management Strategies in AOC 3 102 Figure 3.3-9: Average Trees per Acre and Spacing for Leave Trees 108 Figure 3.3-10: Alternative B – Forest Composition Changes 2004-2014 –

Numerical Estimate (Acres) 112

Figure 3.3-11: Alternative B – Forest Composition Changes 2004-2014 - 113 Figure 3.4-1: Botanist’s Management Recommendations 118 Figure 3.4-2: Common Species in Herbaceous Layer Before Treatment 119 Figure 3.4-3: Virgin pine forest 3 or 4 miles SE of Blocton, Bibb Co.

February 15, 1906 120

Figure 3.4-4: Stereoscopic View looking N into small ravine. June 19, 1911

121

v


Figure 3.4-5: Stereoscopic view about 6 ¾ miles S of Pearson May 13, 1911

121

Figure 3.4-6: Two big pines and sundry smaller ones in Bibb Co May 13, 1911

122

Figure 3.4-7: Looking NW down another valley. May 13, 1911 123 Figure 3.4-8: Patch of Osmunda cinnamonea on hill of longleaf pines

about 23 miles SE of Tuscaloosa May 13, 1911 124

Figure 3.4-9: Treatments by Alternative 128 Figure 3.5-1: Management Indicator Species 137 Figure 3.5-2: Age Class Distribution in 2003 139 Figure 3.5-3: Longleaf Stand Not Burned for Eight Years 141 Figure 3.5-4: Properly Managed Longleaf Stands 142 Figure 3.5-5: Range of Alternatives 143 Figure 3.5-6: Expected Population Trends of Wildlife Resources by

Forest Health EIS Alternatives 146

Figure 3.6-1: Existing Conditions (2003) of Active Clusters, RCWFAT Analysis

147

Figure 3.6-2: Summary of RCW FAT Analysis of Existing Conditions in Active RCW Cluster Foraging Partitions

149

Figure 3.6-3: Cluster 405 Does Not Meet Recover Plan Guidelines 150 Figure 3.6-4: Cluster 125 Meets Recovery Plan Guidelines 150 Figure 3.6-5: Summary of Effects of Proposed Actions 152 Figure 3.6-6: Projected Effects of Proposed Action on Active RCW

Cluster Foraging Partitions 153

Figure 3.6-7: Proposed Actions Improves Cluster #382 154 Figure 3.6-8: Proposed Action Treatments Effects on RCW Habitat

Condition within Active Partitions 155

Figure 3.6-9: Effects of PA and RCW Habitat Improvements 157 Figure 3.6-10: Projected Effects of Proposed Actions + Newly Identified

Treatments 158

Figure 3.6-11: Example of Proposed Actions & Other Habitat Improvements for RCW Foraging Cluster #86

159

Figure 3.6-12: LDRM Sustainability Analysis Cluster 86 161 Figure 3.6-13: Comparison of Alternatives 163 Figure 3.6-14: Expected Population Trends (RCW) by Alternative 165 Figure 3.7.1: Summary of Statistics of Maximum Daily 8-Hour Ozone

Concentrations 171

Figure 3.7.2: Summary Statistics of 24 Hour PM 2.5 Concentrations 171 Figure 3.7.3: PM10 and PM 2.5 Trends a select Jefferson County

Monitors and at a Rural Site 175

Figure 3.8-1: VQO – SIO Crosswalk 178 Figure 3.8-2: Acres of Affected Selected SIO – Alternative B 181 Figure 3.8-3: Acres Affected - Forest Land by Alternative 181 Figure 3.8-4: Acres of Affected Selected SIO – Alternative C 182 Figure 3.8-5: Acres of Affected Selected SIO – Alternative D 182 Figure 3.8-6: Acres of Affected Selected SIO – Alternative E 182 Figure 3.8-7: Acres of Affected Selected SIO – Alternative F 183 Figure 3.9-1: Hunter Use Days (Deer) OWMA 187

vi


Figure 3.9-2: Fastest Growing Outdoor Recreation by Percent Change 188 Figure 3.9-3: Demand for Activities Especially Suited by National

Forests 188

Figure 3.9-4: Environmental Effects by Alternative 189 Figure 3.9-5: Project Effects on Recreation 189 Figure 3.10-1: Knowledgeable elder being interviewed at his father’s

sharecropper site 196

.

vii

SUMMARY The lands currently managed as the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District (District) were part of what was once the South’s most prevalent forest – the longleaf ecosystem. These District lands lie on the northern limits of the range of Alabama’s native longleaf. The topography is rolling allowing a mosaic of forest types to exist intermingled with upland sites that were historically stands of open park-like longleaf forest. Today, for a variety of reasons, many of these native longleaf sites have been converted to loblolly and shortleaf pines, and in some areas, hardwoods within these sites exist at levels that classify those sites as mixed pine-hardwood. This shift in the natural balance is producing symptoms of die-off and decline within these loblolly and shortleaf stands. This weakened condition also makes these stands highly susceptible to insect and disease infestation. Compounded within these symptoms, associated short-term and long-term impacts are affecting processes and functions of the overall longleaf ecosystem, specifically the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) which is a key indicator species.

In addition to the imbalance in the natural distribution of tree species, much of the understory condition is one of shrubs and bushes, crowding out the native grasses. Although the District has been actively prescribed burning these areas for the past 20 – 30 years, the stands have been allowed to become too dense with trees that much of the burning is ineffective. This combined with the difficulty of burning during the same season as natural fires (spring and summer), much of the District’s understory is considered significantly altered. The role of grassy understory in the longleaf ecosystem is not fully understood, however evidence points to a strong correlation between the grasses and insect production which is known to drive many of the food chains for a variety of plant and animal populations

In October, 2003 the District documented an 18% decline in the known active RCW cluster sites. (Cluster sites are the nest and/or roost trees that represent a home area for an individual social group of RCW.) This documentation does not speak to population size or breeding potential, however there is antidotal evidence that indicates the over all District population is most likely declining. The unfortunate paradox of this apparent decline is that it very well may be exacerbated by the stressed and diseased loblolly stands. For the past 20-25 years the District has been directed to retain many of these loblolly stands to serve as foraging and nesting habitat for the RCW. While, in the past, these stands may have exhibited suitable RCW habitat characteristics, today the stress of being “off-site” and at an age beyond their predicted lifespan is causing these areas to become so encroached with hardwoods and dying trees they are no longer suitable habitat for the RCW.

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) takes a critical look at how to begin restoring the native longleaf ecosystem and all the attributes of a healthy forest, while balancing the other environmental concerns such as RCW habitat, soil compaction, and water quality. The goals and objectives of this project were developed in concert with the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Revised Forest Plan) for the National Forests in Alabama, which encompasses the management guidelines outlined in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan, Second Revision, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2003 (RCW Recovery Plan), and the Final Environmental Impact


Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forest Lands in the Southern Region, 1995 (RCW EIS). These documents provide a means to describe a healthy longleaf ecosystem and their guidelines have been incorporated into this EIS as a means to quantify the steps towards restoration.

For the purpose of this analysis, it was determined that the project area would be defined within the context of designated watersheds. By using watersheds the effects analysis was put into a context that greatly facilitated its interpretation especially the soil and water parameters. Out of the 11 watersheds on the District, Affonee, Big Sandy, Elliotts, and Fivemile watersheds were chosen as the top priority because they contain the greatest concentration of forest health concerns as well as the largest number of known active RCW cluster sites. The project area is defined as the 87,336 (CISC, approximate) acres of National Forest System lands within these four watersheds and is located within Tuscaloosa, Hale, Bibb and Perry Counties, Alabama.

Within this project area, four distinct situations were identified to guide the analysis and better explain the current conditions. These four categories represent specific areas of immediate concern based on age and stand condition. Throughout this document, these will be referred to as Areas of Concern or AOC. Collectively, about 13,037 acres are designated within the four Areas of Concern.

Area of Concern 1: Loblolly, shortleaf, & pine/hardwood dominant on upland landforms/native longleaf sites and exhibiting signs of mortality, loss of vigor, and at considerable risk for decline. These sites are greater than 40 years of age. The primary intent is to restore species composition relative to site characteristics. Within these AOC 1 sites an estimated 1,000 – 1,200 acres will be determined as better suited to hardwoods and other unique habitats.

Area of Concern 2: Remnants of loblolly pine dominated sites present on upland landforms/native longleaf sites that have been severely attacked by SPB. The primary intent is to restore species composition relative to site characteristics. These sites are between 20 – 40 years of age.

Area of Concern 3: Loblolly, shortleaf, and pine/hardwood present on upland landforms/native longleaf sites, and in some cases on lowland landforms, in overcrowded conditions and at risk for SPB infestations. The primary intent is to mimic the structure of native longleaf, while lessening the risk to SPB. These sites are between 20 – 40 years of age.

Area of Concern 4: Longleaf present on native sites that are not currently in optimum conditions for RCW habitat and in close proximity to the sites listed above.

In addition to these distinct categories a prescribed burning regime, across the entire project area, is proposed and analyzed as a means to complement and sustain these restoration efforts. Fire has a natural role in restoring and maintaining healthy ecosystems, especially the fire-dependent longleaf ecosystem and will be an important component of this longleaf restoration project.

The specific goals of this project are:

• To manage the existing upland longleaf pine ecosystem to restore, enhance, and/or maintain native communities to provide the desired composition, structure, and function

2


• To contribute to the conservation, recovery, and sustainability of the RCW by establishing sustainable habitat and moving the Oakmulgee population toward the Revised RCW Recovery Plan goal of a secondary core population.

• To reestablish a prescribed fire regime sufficient to restore and maintain the fire-dependent longleaf community.

• To allow native hardwood sites formerly planted to loblolly or shortleaf to naturally re-establish hardwood trees and associated understory plants.

• To lower the risk of SPB infestation in those areas where the trees are exhibiting a decline in vigor and disease resistance due to their lack of suitability to the area.

As a corollary to this formal document the District is working to involve the public and build partnerships to help bring additional insight to the implementation of this project. Formal public involvement and scoping has been conducted for this analysis since 2001. Scoping was done by the interdisciplinary (ID) team to identify agency and public concerns and issues related to the proposed action. Complete scoping documentation is located in the project file at the Oakmulgee District Office. The following summarizes this information:

• Since October 2001, this project has been included in each edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Oakmulgee Ranger District. These updates are published quarterly in The Tuscaloosa News and mailed quarterly to a list of individuals, groups, and agencies. In 2001 that list contained 59 addresses, today it has over 300 members.

• On February 15, 2002, a brochure entitled Forest Health and Restoration Initiative on the Oakmulgee Ranger District was distributed to 750 individuals, groups, and agencies. This was intended to give an early notice and seek input before formulating a proposed action. One letter and two phone calls were received.

• The NOI was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2002. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent 754 copies of the NOI along with a cover brochure to individuals, groups, and agencies. Also, a legal notice was published in The Tuscaloosa News on June 24, 2002. Thirteen responses were received.

• The first public tour of the areas proposed for treatment was given on July 20, 2002. Two people attended that tour and one person submitted comments.

• The second public tour of the areas proposed for treatment was given on November 1, 2002. The primary purpose of this tour was to build a support base of concerned private citizens. Approximately 75 people attended that tour.

• A third public tour of the proposed treatment areas was given on April 14, 2003. Approximately 75 people attended that tour. This tour was widely publicized in the surrounding papers, with both the Tuscaloosa News and Birmingham News attending and publishing articles after the event.

3


• A summary of this proposed project was presented at the First Montane Longleaf Alliance Conference, October 15-17, 2003, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama.

• Ongoing partnership development incorporates this proposed action as a key component. Potential partnerships includes; the Rural Studio (Auburn University) in utilizing products from this project as structural material for low-cost housing, University of Alabama - Office of Archeological Research in exploring the under-developed cultural resources of the District, and the “Bio-mass Alliance”, a newly formed alliance looking at rural economic development through the creation of bio-based industries.

Through comments provided by individuals and groups throughout the public involvement process and an ongoing dialog with partners, the community, and resource professionals the interdisciplinary team has continued to identify and clarify the issues relevant to this project. The issues that identified as relevant to the decision making process are as follows:

1. Understory Vegetation: The proposed treatments may have an effect on reestablishment and sustainability of native understory species associated with the longleaf pine ecosystem.

2. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW): The proposed treatments may have both beneficial and adverse effects on the RCW population in or near the proposed project area. The long-term goal of the proposed treatments is to increase the acres of longleaf pine, thus sustainable RCW habitat. The short-term effects are that some of the proposed treatments may remove existing habitat, albeit non-sustainable habitat, from the current RCW population.

3. Economics: The proposed treatments may have effects on the local economies and the District budget, including direct returns (i.e., timber sales) and cooperative work (Knutson-Vandenberg) for sale area improvement.

4. Soil and Water: Proposed treatments on the upland areas may cause potential loss of nutrients, soil erosion, and soil compaction.

To respond to these issues and provide a range of alternatives to support the analysis the following alternatives were developed.

Alternative A - No Action

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Alternative C - No Herbicide, Mechanical Site Preparation and Midstory Removal, Less Prescribed Burning

Alternative D - Low Impact Harvest

Alternative E - Less Restoration and Less Thinning

Alternative F - Most Restoration

The decision to be made is what treatments, if any, should be implemented over the next five years. Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences to determine the following:

4


The acceptable risk to short-term RCW habitat availability that may occur through the implementation of a 5-year schedule of work that reestablishes longleaf pine to certain aspects of its native range; allows hardwoods to naturally reestablish on native hardwood sites; and lowers the risk to SPB infestation.

Whether to, and to what extent to reestablish a historic burning regime.

Whether to, and to what extent to improve certain areas of RCW foraging habitat.

5


CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

Document Structure ___________________________________ The Forest Service, Talladega National Forest – Oakmulgee District, has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters:

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded.

Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a

more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a comparative table relevant to the significant issues.

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers

and agencies consulted during the development of this EIS. A reference and glossary are included.

Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the

analyses presented in the EIS.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Oakmulgee District Office.

6


Background __________________________________________

Figure 1-1: Oakmulgee Today - At a Glance

Pine-hardwood on Lowland Landforms -

17,455 acres11%

Hardwoods - 45,985 acres30%

Loblolly & Shortleaf on Upland Landforms

- 30,000 acres19%

Pine-Hardwood on Upland Landforms -

1,000 acres1%

Restored Longleaf - 20,000 acres

13%

Other (Roads, water, etc) - 717 acres

0%

Historic Longleaf - 41,000 acres

26%

The lands currently managed as the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District (District) are part of what was once the South’s most prevalent forest – the longleaf ecosystem. Today, only an estimated 3.5% of Alabama’s historic longleaf remains (Outcalt and Sheffield, 1996). Throughout its historic range, longleaf has declined from

an estimated 91 million acres to an estimated 3 million acres. For a variety of reasons, many historic longleaf sites within the District were converted to loblolly and shortleaf pines, and in some areas, hardwoods within these sites exist at levels that classify those sites as mixed pine-hardwood. It is currently estimated that one-third (31,000 acres) of the District’s native longleaf sites (estimated at 86,400 acres to 92,000 acres) are dominated by loblolly, shortleaf, and mixed pine and hardwood. While historic evidence indicates that loblolly and shortleaf pines were a component of the native longleaf ecosystem, these pine types were never dominant on the upland landforms (Reed, 1905). It is this un-natural condition that is the underlying source of several forest health problems and sets the stage for the restoration project addressed in this document.

Cross-hatched area represents approximate

acreage for historic longleaf Actual acres range from

87,000 to 92,000

Reports of problems with the loblolly-dominated stands on upland sites first surfaced in 1959, and in 1966 a systematic study of 24 one-quarter acre plots was established. Follow-up evaluations of the 24 plots were continued until 1976. This study confirmed a definite reduction in loblolly growth by age 50 and concluded that site conditions combined with other factors caused decline and mortality. Recommendations, at that time, were reduce the rotation ages of these loblolly stands 70 to 60 years, reduce

7


stocking rates, and convert these sites to longleaf pine. (Correspondence, Loblolly Pine “Die-Off” Oakmulgee RD, Robert C. Loomis, Forest Insect and Disease Management, 1976)

To convert these sites, once the loblolly had been harvested, to longleaf pine was the first challenge. Through the remainder of the 1970s and into the 1980’s the District, as well as the forestry profession, tried to reestablish longleaf pine but struggled with getting longleaf seedlings to survive. Beginning in 1985, through applied research, the availability of containerized seedlings, and experience, managers became successful at planting longleaf pine with the expectation of adequate survival. Today over 20,000 acres have been reestablished in longleaf, and seedling survival now averages 85-90%. The longleaf pines on these acres are currently 20 years of age and younger.

With the challenge of longleaf seedling survival successfully addressed, the District’s attention now focuses on a range of issues concerning longleaf restoration – that is restoration of the full composition and structure of the longleaf ecosystem. The proposed action found within this document addresses restoring the species composition of some areas previously converted to loblolly and shortleaf, mimicking the longleaf structure in other areas previously converted to loblolly, and restoring the structure of some areas of historic longleaf. Restoring the historic role of fire as a restoration and maintenance tool is a key component of the proposal as well. This document also addresses health risks and associated diseases, insect relationships, and age-related stresses that often occur when a species is forced to live under non-native conditions. The red-cockaded woodpecker is identified as an indicator species for a healthy longleaf system, and the guidelines for longleaf structure and composition found in the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Recovery Plan, Second Revision, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2003 (Revised RCW Recovery Plan) is used as a touchstone for restoration.

The Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Background and Relevance

The Oakmulgee District hosts Alabama’s largest RCW population and is listed in the Revised RCW Recovery Plan as a secondary support population which has a target population of 250 breeding clusters. In October 2003, the District documented an 18% decline in the known active clusters as compared to a 1993 inventory. While cluster status is never static, the District’s known active clusters are estimated to be slightly less than 25% of the population goal (394 active clusters) and in “severe risk” of extirpation based on the four management intensity levels presented in The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its Habitat on National Forest Lands in the Southern Region, 1995 (RCW EIS). While RCW will utilize loblolly and shortleaf for both nesting and foraging habitat, these species when present on upland land forms on the Oakmulgee District do not provide sustainable long-term RCW habitat. Many of these

8


areas already have deteriorated to the point where they lack the attributes of RCW habitat and are considered “non-habitat”, although both the Revised RCW Recovery Plan and the RCW EIS indicate differently. Through this EIS, the Oakmulgee District will document the need to move the older unhealthy loblolly and shortleaf areas toward the native longleaf condition in order to develop a sustainable ecosystem that utilizes a recovered RCW population as a measure of success.

The Project Area ______________________________________ Current inventory and mapping indicates approximately 92,000 acres presently managed as the Oakmulgee District are better suited to a native longleaf forest. Within that acreage, approximately 31,000 acres are mapped as loblolly, shortleaf, or loblolly and hardwood on native longleaf sites. Experience has shown that these inventory and mapping efforts were often too coarse to recognize certain native hardwood sites or micro habitats and that these acres are over estimated by 15% - 18%. A more realistic estimate of native longleaf sites in need of restoration is 26,420 acres, with the balance of 4, 650 to 5,580 acres suited to hardwood, mixed hardwood – pine, or other unique sites such as cane brakes. Thus the total acres suited to longleaf within the current District land-base is estimated at 87,000 acres.

Figure 1.2: Longleaf in Need of Restoration The District Perspective

This Project: Return to

Hardwoods2%

31,000 acres

Restored Longleaf

20,000 acres

Historic Longleaf

41,000 acres

Remaining Needs: Longleaf

Restoration 22%

Remaining NeedsReturn to

Hardwoods5%

This Project: Longleaf

Restoration7%

This project does not attempt to address all the longleaf restoration needs on the District, rather it makes a strategic first step and attempts to balance restoration needs with the health risks associated with non-native conditions and the need to provide a flow and distribution of longleaf habitat within various age classes and conditions. Within the approximately 31,000 acres currently mapped as loblolly and shortleaf dominated stands

on native upland longleaf pine sites, this project addresses restoration of species composition on approximately 7,393 acres. Once the project is implemented an estimated 6,000 – 6,300 will actually be re-established to longleaf. The remaining 15%-18% will return to hardwoods or unique habitats. The 6,100 – 6,300 acres addressed in this project document represents roughly 7.2% of the total amount of the District acreage deemed native longleaf habitat. (Reference Figure 1.2) Of the 31,000 acres currently

9


mapped as loblolly, shortleaf, or pine-hardwood on upland land forms, this project address approximately 24% of those acres. This analysis and proposed actions found in this document are the result of a systematic approach to address a District-wide need for longleaf restoration. The project area is defined within the context of designated watersheds. Affonee, Big Sandy, Elliotts, and Fivemile watersheds were chosen because they contain the greatest concentration of forest health concerns as well as the largest number of active and inactive RCW cluster sites. The project area is defined as the 87,336 (CISC, approximate) acres of National Forest System lands within these four watersheds.

The remaining longleaf restoration needs will be assessed and proposals developed through a variety of processes. This document and the process it directs will serve as a prototype for future efforts and provide the basis for an adaptive management process allowing managers to better understand the effects of actions, and to adapt those actions to better shape the results.

This document is developed within the framework and direction found in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (Revised Forest Plan). Using the Revised Forest Plan framework, the project area is further defined by four Management Area Pre gement Area has a certain emphasis that will direct managementproject the following areas and emphasis are f

Management Area #4 - Special Areas o Emphasis Area 4.B.1 - Existing R

Research Natural Area is found witscientific research. It is to be left incomparison with other forest enviro

Management Area #7 - Recreation/Sceo Emphasis Area 7.D - Concentrate

managed to provide the public withvisually appealing and environmentproject area are Payne Lake RecreaSites, locally referred to as hunter cuser groups.

o Emphasis Area 7.E.2 - Dispersed Management: Management directidispersed recreation opportunities, iand enhance visitor experiences in ahealth and diversity of the land.

10

scriptions. Each Mana

Figure1-3. Project Area Watersheds: Affonee, Big Sandy, Elliotts, and Fivemile

activities on that piece of land. Within the ound:

esearch Natural Areas: The Reed Brake hin the project area and is designated for an undisturbed state as a baseline nments.

nic Emphasis Areas d Recreation Zone: These areas are a variety of recreational opportunities in ally healthy settings. Specific to this tional Area, and two Concentrated Use amps although they are often used by other

Recreation Area with Vegetation on for these areas is to provide a variety of mprove the settings for outdoor recreation, manner that protects and restores the


Management Area #8 - Landscape Habitat Emphasis Areas

o Emphasis Area 8.D.1 - Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Areas: These areas are managed to provide suitable to optimal habitat for conditions for RCW.

Management Area #9 – Ecosystem Restoration/Maintenance Areas

o Emphasis Area 9.D - Restoration of Coastal Plain Longleaf Pine Forests: The direction in this area is designed to restore and maintain native longleaf forest communities in the coastal plain region of Alabama.

o Emphasis Area 9.G – Maintenance and Restoration of Upland and Bottomland Hardwoods: In these areas management will restore and maintain bottomland and upland hardwoods and mixed pine-hardwood forest communities.

0 5 Miles

Private Land

Revised Forest Plan Prescriptions

Reed Brake RNAConcentrated Recreation ZoneDispersed Recreation AreaRCW Management AreasRestoration of Coastal Plain LL Pine ForestsMaint. and Rest. of UL and BL Hardwoods

N

EW

S

Figure 1-4: Revised Forest Plan Management Prescriptions

11


Purpose of and Need for Action __________________________ A restored longleaf ecosystem provides a healthier, more productive, and more diverse forest system that is closer to the natural balance of flora and fauna that once defined this complex ecosystem. A restored healthy longleaf ecosystem also provides an array of societal benefits that include clean air and water, as well as direct benefits such as increased recreation activities. The purpose of the Proposed Action defined by this project document is to outline key steps to begin moving the District toward a restored longleaf system. Through the tasks outlined in the Proposed Action the ecosystem components of species composition, structure, and function will be addressed on certain acres within the Project Area. The areas of loblolly, shortleaf, and pine-hardwood present on upland forms (native longleaf sites) were examined based on age and extent of unhealthy conditions. Figure 1-5 displays two distinct age classes of loblolly. One class consists of sites that were planted from the mid 1930’s through the mid 1960’s when the District operations were directed toward soil stabilization and fire prevention. These sites are now 40-70 years old and are exhibiting signs of deterioration and decline. The other age class results from sites planted in the 1970’s and up until the late 1980’s prior to the development of the technology to achieve acceptable survival of planted longleaf seedlings. These areas are now, on the average, 20 – 40 years old and have greatest risk to southern pine beetle (SPB) infestation due to the stress of being located on upland land forms and the un-natural density that these areas were planted.

Figure 1-5: Project Area - Age Class Distribution

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

(0-10) (11-20) (21-30) (31-40) (41-50) (51-60) (61-70) (71-80) (81-90) (91-100)

Acres

100+

LoblollyShortleafPine-Hwd

n disease,

The development of this document occurred concurrent to the continuation of forest health research designed to determine the biological specifics of the decline of loblolly onative longleaf sites. Previously the declining loblolly was diagnosed as littleleafa forest health problem associated with the Phytophthora fungus. However through the investigations of USDA Forest Service Forest Health specialist and Louisiana State

12


University PhD candidate Lori Eckhardt an association with the Leptographium fungwas identified. Through Dr. Eckhardt’s completed PhD dissertation, “Biology and Ecology of

us

Leptographium Species and Their Vectors as Components of Loblolly Pine Decline” the District now has a better understanding of the site specifications and tree conditions associated with the declining loblolly. With field study on the Oakmulgee District, this work documents conflicting management prescriptions for trying to hold loblolly on these sites to an older age, verses management for stand conditions suitable

r RCW. Dr. Eckhardt was also able to digitize her findings into a predictive map e

ative longleaf. Dr. Eckhardt’s work, specifically the Loblolly Decline Risk Map

d ical

based analysis program to contrast and compare existing onditions to the standards set forth in the Revised RCW Recovery Plan. Using the

ined that only 3 of the 91 active RCW clusters Revised RCW Recovery Plan. Although this

is project was initially designed, it is applicable to ucture and composition of existing longleaf areas. It

fy and describe the proposed treatments for restoring

__________________________________

in the current conditions relative to the proposed areas have been established. These four categories concern based on age and stand condition.

will be referred to as Areas of Concern or AOC.

here is considerable hardwood encroachment and the stands are not deemed suitable habitat for RCW. The use of prescribed fire, which is essential to restoring understory

foallowing the District to further document the need to restore the loblolly areas to thn(LDRM), is used extensively as an analysis tool in Chapter 3 of this document. Another analysis tool that was incorporated into this project was the Red-cockadeWoodpecker Foraging Analysis Technique (RCWFAT). The authors of this analyttool are Don Lipscomb and Tom Williams of Clemson University. Working in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RCW Coordinator, Ralph Costa, they have adapted a GIScRCWFAT analysis the District determhave sufficient habitat as defined by theanalysis tool was unavailable when thdeveloping goals for restoring stralso helped the District better quantithese areas. Areas of Concern________________ To guide the analysis and better explaactions four categories of treatment represent specific areas of immediateThroughout this document, these Collectively, about 13,037 acres are designated within the four Areas of Concern. These categories, plus the proposed action for prescribed fire, are summarized in Figure 1-11 at the end of this section. Area of Concern (AOC) 1: It is the loblolly, shortleaf, and pine-hardwood areas over the age of 40 that exist on upland land forms that have the greatest need for restoration. They are in a damaged, deteriorated condition, and the remaining live trees are not likely to persist much longer. T

Figure 1-6: AOC 1 – Representative Conditions

13


vegetation, is documented to increase the risk of loblolly decline (Eckhardt, 2004). These conditions are counter to productive RCW habitat, and a sustainable longleaf ecoThe Proposed Action identifies 6,697 acres to remove the loblolly, shortleaf, and

ngs on the native longleaf sites. Th

nities to provide the desired composition, -wide Objective 1.2 of restoring and Woodland Communities. It also supportst communities to reduce the risk from it is estimated that 1,000 to 1,200 acres wd other unique habitats, thus further est Plan pages 2-9 – 2-10).

, on upland land forms, between the ageso categories; those with previous

ons of the stands, and those that are ato future SPB infestation. AOC 2

system.

hardwoods and re-establish the longleaf seedli is complies with the Forest Plan Goal #1 of managing forest and woodland ecosystems in order to restore and/or maintain native commustructure and function. Specifically the Forestmaintaining Upland Longleaf Pine Forests and s Forest Plan Goal #3 of managing existing foreinsects and disease. Within these AOC 1 sites ill be determined as better suited to hardwoods anadvancing the Forest- wide Objective 1.1. (For Area of Concern (AOC) 2: The loblolly sites of 20 and 40 years were determined to fall into twinfestations of SPB damaging significant porti t risk

a AusHashsms

mFib

1

identifies sites with previous SPB infestations to the point of damaging the continuity of the site. Generally wheSPB infested trees were ha
n the rvested or cut

and left the areas were not re-planted and

ction

s

ted that 100 to 125 acres will e determined as better suited to hardwoods and other unique habitats, thus further dvancing the Forest- wide Objective 1.1 (Forest Plan pgs 2-9 to 2-10)

rea of Concern (AOC) 3: This category represents densely stocked loblolly sites, on pland land forms, between the ages of 20 and 40 years, which have not yet been ubjected to SPB infestations or have had limited SPB outbreaks of limited consequence. owever, these areas are considered to be at high risk for future outbreaks. These sites

re densely stocked loblolly plantations. The tree canopies are touching, preventing any ignificant sunlight from reaching the ground thus limiting understory development to ardwood sprouts and vines. These sites lack both the species composition and the tructure of the longleaf pine ecosystem. Albeit highly unlikely that these trees will live uch beyond age 50-60, once the density is reduced they may be able to provide some

hort-term habitat for the RCW and associated species.

have remained in a fallow condition for the past 3-5 years. The Proposed Aidentifies 696 acres to remove the remaining loblolly and re-establish the longleaf seedlings. This also complies with the Forest Plan Goal #1 and Forest-wide Objective 1.2 of restoring and

aintaining Upland Longleaf Pine Forests and Woodland Communities. It also supportorest Plan Goal #3 of managing existing forest communities to reduce the risk from

nsects and disease. Within these AOC 2 sites it is estima

4


The Proposed Action identifies 2,813

AeOdienW

As2aPma

Pi

acres to remove about half of the loblolly trees and begin mimicking the structure of a longleaf system. This complies with the Forest Plan Goal #1, and in this case it helps the Forest meet the Forest-wide Objective 1.4 (Revised Forest Plan page 2-9) of thinning overstocked stands of species not native to their site. It also supports Forest Plan Goal #3 of managing existing forest communities to reduce the risk from insects and disease. (Revised Forest Plan pg 2-10)
rea of Concern (AOC) 4: This category represents a portion of the existing longleaf cosystem that is not exhibiting historic conditions. Early descriptions of what is now the akmulgee District provide insight to what existed prior to settlement. Reed in 1905 ocumented an average of 49 trees to the acre ranging from 1 inch in diameter to 20 nches in diameter (taken at breast height). Today, the District’s longleaf stands typically xceed that density. In addition, many of these sites have hardwood encroachment at un-atural levels in both the midstory and overstory. hile the Revised RCW Recovery Plan does not list an upper limit for density, it does

discuss the need for grasses and forbs in the understory. Although the Oakmulgee has been implementing growing season burns for the past six years, there has been limited response to the understory vegetation. Current thinking by botanists and fire ecologists is that until these sites have a reduced canopy and the structure of the historic longleaf forest is reestablished, it is unlikely that that fire will have a significant effect on understory vegetation. The Proposed

ction identifies 2,831 acres to remove about half of the longleaf trees, moving these tands toward the structure and function of a historic longleaf system. Within these sites ,420 acres have been identified to remove and treat the pine and hardwood midstory, nd hardwood overstory within the guidelines provided by the Revised RCW Recovery lan. This also complies with the Forest Plan Goal #1, and in this case it helps the Forest eet the Forest-wide Objective 1.5 (Forest Plan pg 2-10) of reducing tree canopy cover

nd restored native herbaceous ground cover.


rescribed Fire: The longleaf ecosystem evolved with and is dependent upon the nclusion of fire. Restoration of this ecosystem cannot be achieved without burning at the

15


frequency and season of historic fires. Current assessments indicate that most of the upland areas of the District are Fire Condition Class 3. Fire Condition Classes are a measure of general wildland fire risk and ecosystem condition defined by the National Fire Plan. Condition Class 3 represents lands that have been significantly altered from their historic fire regime interval. Vegetation composition, structure, and diversity have been significantly altered. Thus a prescribed burning regime is needed to complement and sustain the restoration efforts listed above. Within the Proposed Action approximately 87,000 acres are listed to be treated on a 2-5 year rotation, with emphasis placed on growing season burns, especially those in close proximity to RCW cluster sites. These acres are inclusive of the approximately 13,000 acres listed in Areas of Concern 1-4.

AOC

Figure 1-10: Summary Table

Revised Forest Plan Goals &

Objectives Acres

1. Loblolly, shortleaf, & pine/hardwood dominant on upland landforms/native longleaf sites and exhibiting signs of mortality, loss of vigor, and at considerable risk for decline. These sites are greater than 40 years of age. The primary intent is to restore species composition relative to site characteristics. Within these AOC 1 sites an estimated 1,000 – 1,200 acres will be determined as better suited to hardwoods and other unique habitats.

1.1; 1.2; 3.0; 8.1;12.3;16.2;

16.3 6,697

2. Remnants of loblolly pine dominated sites present on upland landforms/native longleaf sites that have been severely attacked by SPB. The primary intent is to restore species composition relative to site characteristics. These sites are between 20 – 40 years of age.

1.1;1.2; 3.0;12.3 696

3. Loblolly, shortleaf, and pine/hardwood present on upland landforms/native longleaf sites, and in some cases on lowland landforms, in overcrowded conditions and at risk for SPB infestations. . The primary intent is to mimic the structure of native longleaf, while lessening the risk to SPB. These sites are between 20 – 40 years of age.

1.4; 3.0

2,813

4. Longleaf present on native sites that are not currently in optimum conditions for RCW habitat and in close proximity to the sites listed above.

1.5;12.1; 2,831

Prescribed Fire: Treat project area with prescribed fire, striving for a 2-5 year burning rotation with greatest emphasis on growing season burns in areas considered RCW habitat.

12.2; 16.1; 18.1; 19.1

87,000

16


PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES: The specific goals of this project are:

• To manage the existing upland longleaf pine ecosystem to restore, enhance, and/or maintain native communities to provide the desired composition, structure, and function. (Forest Plan: Goal 1).

• To contribute to the conservation, recovery, and sustainability of the RCW by establishing sustainable habitat and moving the Oakmulgee population toward the Revised RCW Recovery Plan goal of a secondary core population (Forest Plan: Goal 12).

• To reestablish a prescribed fire regime sufficient to restore and maintain the fire-dependent longleaf community (Forest Plan: Goal 16).

• To allow native hardwood sites formerly planted to loblolly or shortleaf to naturally re-establish hardwood trees and associated understory plants (Forest Plan: Goal 1).

• To lower the risk of SPB infestation in those areas where the trees are exhibiting a decline in vigor and disease resistance due to their lack of suitability to the area (Forest Plan: Goal 3).

WHY ACTION IS NEEDED: • The loblolly, shortleaf, and pine-hardwood sites listed in AOC1 are not sustainable as

components of a healthy forest, much less as RCW habitat.

• The indicator species for the longleaf pine ecosystem, the RCW, is exhibiting a decline and unstable population characteristics. Only 3 of the known 91 active clusters in the project area currently have adequate foraging as defined by the RCW Recovery Plan.

• The documented decline in the known active RCW cluster sites indicates that the project area now supports 90% (versus a previous 78%) of the known active sites, increasing the importance of this habitat in the future expansion and recovery of this population.

• There are documented results that over 50% of the loblolly present on upland landforms is at high or moderate risk for decline.

• Historic fire regimes within the project area are moderately to significantly altered and key ecosystems are at risk.

• There is a direct correlation to loblolly decline and SPB infestations. In the past 10 years SPB infestations have attacked approximately 1,200 stands of loblolly and shortleaf pine resulting in 1,500 acres of mortality. It is likely that the District will, in the next 10 years, experience significant loss from SPB infestations.

Proposed Action_______________________________________ The Forest Service proposes to implement a five year project to take key steps in accelerating and expanding the restoration of the native longleaf pine ecosystem across the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District. This project in and of itself does not

17


address all the needs of the Project Area. Additional projects will be developed concurrently with the implementation of this project and will address additional needs.

Summary of the Proposed Project To begin restoring species composition of the longleaf ecosystem on AOC 1 and

AOC 2 acres by removing the loblolly and shortleaf trees through commercial timber sales, subsequent site preparation, planting to longleaf, and release treatments.

To reduce the risk of SPB infestations by reducing the tree density of AOC 3 acres through commercial timber sales.

To bring AOC 4 acres closer to native longleaf conditions by reducing tree and shrub density through commercial timber sales, service contracts, and/or other means.

To mimic the historic burning regime within the 87,000-acre project area by implementing a two- to five-year prescribed burning rotation.

To allow approximately 1,477 acres of natural hardwood sites to return to hardwood or hardwood-pine areas.

The Planning Acres vs. Actual Treatment Acres ____________ The acres descriptions for this EIS were derived from the District’s Geographic Information System (GIS). At this time, these are the most accurate acreages available. When the Notice of Intent (NOI) was published it contained acres from the District’s Continuous Inventory of Stand Conditions (CISC) database. GIS acres contained in this document represents a change from CISC acres, albeit insignificant (<3%). The actual areas proposed for treatment have not changed. As stated earlier in Chapter 1, the coarse mapping and inventory techniques used to develop both the GIS and the CISC data layers did not take into consideration many of the inclusions and drains associated with the upland land forms address by this EIS. There are 6 proposed restoration stands, as currently mapped, contain more than 80 acres (C-3, Std 9, C-12, Std 2, C-12, Std 20, C-18, Std 2, C-20, Std 13, and C-53, Std 6). During project implementation accurate relationships to land form will be addressed and state-of-the-art mapping technology such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS) will be used to map and inventory treatment acres as well as protected areas. If necessary, adjustments in stand/cutting unit size will be made during stand layout to keep restoration cut areas below 80 acres. For the purposes of analysis within this document the full mapped acres currently existing in the District’s GIS database were used throughout Chapters 2 and 3. Although not a perfect scenario, this provides an upper threshold to compare alternatives, with the caveat that actual treatment acres will be lower than planned acres.

18


Other Actions in the Project Area Other reasonably foreseeable projects that will be occurring in and around the project area are as follows:

• Harvest activities for the South Sandy Timber Sales - Compartments 15, 25, 29, 35, 38, & 54 (Decision Notice signed July 31, 1998)

• Silvicultural treatments for the South Sandy Timber Sales - Compartments 15, 25, 29, 35, 38, & 54 (Decision Notice signed July 31, 1998) and closed timber sales

• Southern Pine Beetle suppression activities • Westside shooting range construction - Compartment 17 (Decision Notice signed

April 5, 2000) • Payne Lake Improvements • Prescribed burning for fuels control and wildlife habitat improvement • Noxious weed control • Quail habitat enhancement • RCW habitat enhancement (both mechanical and chemical) • Public collection of miscellaneous forest products, including firewood

Decision Framework ___________________________________ The District Ranger of the Oakmulgee District is the public official responsible for deciding, based upon this analysis, what actions will be taken to meet the purpose of and need for action. The decision to be made is to what extent, if any, to implement an accelerated schedule of restoring the longleaf ecosystem on the northwest portion of the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District.

ALTERNATIVES: The options include, in whole or in part, the following alternatives, which have undergone analysis (Two additional alternatives were considered but not developed through the analysis):

Alternative A - No Action

Alternative B - Proposed Action

Alternative C - No Herbicide, Mechanical Site Preparation and Midstory Removal, Less Prescribed Burning

Alternative D - Low Impact Harvest

Alternative E - Less Restoration and Less Thinning

Alternative F - Most Restoration The decision to be made is what treatments, if any, should be implemented over the next five to seven years. Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences to determine the following:

The acceptable risk to short-term RCW habitat availability that may occur through the implementation of a schedule of work that reestablishes longleaf pine to certain aspects of its native range, allows hardwoods to naturally reestablish on native hardwood sites, and lowers the risk of SPB infestation.

19


Whether, and to what extent, to reestablish a historic burning regime

Whether, and to what extent, to improve certain areas of RCW foraging habitat.

The scheduling of potential treatments during the project is not to be a component of this Decision. However, the cumulative effects analysis will be used to guide future scheduling of treatments.

Public Involvement ____________________________________ A variety of public involvement and scoping has been conducted for this analysis since 2001. Scoping was done by the interdisciplinary (ID) team to identify agency and public concerns and issues related to the proposed action. Complete scoping documentation is located in the project file at the Oakmulgee District Office. The following summarizes this information:

• Since October 2001, this project has been included in each edition of the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the Oakmulgee District. These updates are published quarterly in The Tuscaloosa News and mailed quarterly to a list of individuals, groups, and agencies. In 2001 that list contained 59 addresses, today it has over 300 members.

• On February 15, 2002, a brochure entitled Forest Health and Restoration Initiative on the Oakmulgee Ranger District was distributed to 750 individuals, groups, and agencies. This was intended to give an early notice and seek input before formulating a proposed action. One letter and two phone calls were received.

• The NOI was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 2002. The NOI asked for public comment on the proposal. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency sent 754 copies of the NOI along with a cover brochure to individuals, groups, and agencies. Also, a legal notice was published in The Tuscaloosa News on June 24, 2002. Thirteen responses were received.

• The first public tour of the areas proposed for treatment was given on July 20, 2002. Two people attended that tour and one person submitted comments.

• The second public tour of the areas proposed for treatment was given on November 1, 2002. The primary purpose of this tour was to build a support base of concerned private citizens. Approximately 75 people attended that tour.

• A third public tour of the proposed treatment areas was given on April 14, 2003. Approximately 75 people attended that tour. This tour was widely publicized in the surrounding papers, with both the Tuscaloosa News and Birmingham News attending and publishing articles after the event.

• A summary of this proposed project was presented at the First Montane Longleaf Alliance Conference, October 15-17, 2003, Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama.

• Ongoing partnership development incorporates this proposed action as a key component. Potential partnerships includes; the Rural Studio (Auburn University) in utilizing products from this project as structural material for low-cost housing, University of Alabama - Office of Archeological Research in exploring the under-

20


developed cultural resources of the District, and the “Bio-mass Alliance”, a newly formed alliance looking at rural economic development through the creation of bio-based industries.

Comments provided by individuals and groups throughout the public involvement process helped the interdisciplinary team identify and clarify the issues relevant to this analysis.

Issues________________________________________________ An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the projected environmental effects of an activity. Issues may arise at any time during the analysis and originate from any source. During the scoping process, issues were clarified, refined, and classified as either “significant” (relevant to the decision) and deserving of detailed study or “non-significant” and not pertinent to the current analysis. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. See the project file for ID team meeting and issue notes.

Significant Issues The following issues were identified from public and Forest Service employee comments. For each significant issue indicators are provided to measure change relative to the proposed action. These issues were used to assess the environmental consequences of the alternatives. The significant issues for this analysis are as follows:

Issue 1: Understory Vegetation The proposed treatments may have an effect on reestablishment and sustainability of native understory species associated with the longleaf pine ecosystem.

Removal or reduction of the existing overstory pines increases the amount of sunlight to the forest floor, potentially stimulating the growth of existing shrubs and woody brush. This response could increase the amount of shade to the existing longleaf pine-associated understory species. Most of these species are not shade tolerant, and an increase in shrubs and woody brush could limit their habitat within the project area.

• Mechanical disturbance from proposed treatments may have an effect on soil productivity and plant composition.

Indicators: The following indicators will be used to measure the effects of proposed treatments relative to this issue:

• Percent coverage and composition of the treatment area by native grasses and herbs.

• Species-habitat relationships of Management Indicator Species relative to predicted understory responses to treatments.

Issue 2: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) The proposed treatments may have both beneficial and adverse effects on the RCW population in or near the proposed project area. The long-term goal of the proposed treatments is to increase the acres of longleaf pine, thus sustainable RCW habitat. The short-term effects are that some of the proposed treatments may remove existing habitat,

21


albeit non-sustainable habitat, from the current RCW population. The following specific concerns have been identified:

• The projected decline of the loblolly and shortleaf pine stands in the proposed project area may remove available RCW habitat even if those stands are left untreated.

• The short-term negative effects of RCW habitat loss may be offset by the long-term benefits, especially given the likelihood of the eventual loss of habitat without the proposed treatment.

• The proposed restoration cuts may remove foraging habitat at a rate faster than can be replaced by regeneration of the restored longleaf areas or the growth of other nearby pine stands, thus leaving certain RCW clusters without suitable foraging habitat.

Indicators: RCW habitat will be assessed using the criteria in the Revised RCW Recovery Plan.

Each known active cluster within in the project area, will be assessed to determine if it has 120 acres of good quality habitat within a ½ mile foraging partitions, as defined by the Recovery Plan. These habitat areas will be analyzed utilizing RCWFAT. This program will calculate both nesting and foraging areas found within a ½ mile radius of the center of the nesting habitat. Specifically, the program “accepts” or “rejects” a stand based on six reasons that reflect the Recovery Plan parameters. The reasons are:

Reason 1: Lack of large pine - insufficient BA or stems >14” DBH Reason 2: Too young - less than 30 years old/lacking BA or stems >10” DBH Reason 3: Lack of total BA – insufficient BA of >10 trees Reason 4: Pine understory – too many pines <10” DBH Reason 5: Hardwood understory – too many hardwoods <6” DBH Reason 6: Hardwood overstory – Percentage of hardwoods in overstory is too high

The Loblolly Decline Risk Map (LDRM) will help define the severity of the decline

in the loblolly stands proposed for restoration that are also currently defined by the Recovery Plan as good quality habitat. The LDRM defines four levels of risk to loblolly decline:

o Minimal Risk o Low Risk o Moderate Risk o High Risk

For the purposes of the RCW analysis the “Minimal Risk” and “Low Risk” categories will be combined and referred to as “Lower Risk” and the “Moderate Risk” and the “High Risk” categories will be combined and referred to as “Higher Risk”. Stands will be placed into these two “super” categories based on a determination of 50% or more of the stand acreage.

Issue 3: Economics The proposed treatments may have effects on the local economies and the District budget, including direct returns (i.e., timber sales) and cooperative work (Knutson-Vandenberg)

22


for sale area improvement. [The Knutson-Vandenberg (K-V) Act of 1930, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, authorizes the expenditure of certain funds collected from timber sale purchases for improvements within the timber sale areas.] Treatments needed to restore ecosystem functions and processes have generated the following concerns:

• Short-term economic benefits from the proposed action need to be weighed against the possible impacts to wildlife and water quality.

• Requiring certain types of equipment to perform restoration cuts in the proposed project area may affect the cost incurred by the contractor and thus affect the amount paid to the government for the subsequent wood products.

• The amount paid to the government for any available wood products, especially in light of the current depressed short round wood market, may not allow for suitable K-V collections to cover the cost of restoration.

• There may be other ways to achieve restoration cuts than the traditional contract timber sale.

Indicators: The following indicators will be used to measure the effects of the proposed treatments relative to this issue:

• Economic returns from potential timber sale activities compared to returns from wildlife-related recreational activities.

• Potential returns from timber sale activities compared to the cost of restoration treatments.

Issue 4: Soil and Water Proposed treatments on the upland areas may cause potential loss of nutrients, soil erosion, and soil compaction. Timber harvesting, silvicultural treatments and temporary road construction/reconstruction/maintenance may result in sedimentation that might affect water quality and could have cumulative impacts on adjacent lands.

Soil and water resources have measurable characteristics, and those characteristics will naturally vary over time even in undisturbed situations. Land management practices such as those within the proposed actions can affect soil productivity and water quality. Fire effects can either be temporary or permanent. In order for the proposed restoration efforts to be successful, soil and water resources must be protected such that their characteristics stay within an acceptable range of variability. Treatments needed to restore ecosystem functions and processes have generated the following concerns:

• Soil disturbance resulting from timber harvest, road management, prescribed burning, and silvicultural treatments in the proposed treatment areas would cause soil movement and possible sedimentation that may affect the aquatic habitats located down slope. Some of these aquatic areas may contain habitat for Mitchell’s/St. Francis’ Satyr butterflies.

• The use of certain herbicides in site preparation treatments could reduce water quality.

23


Indicators: The following indicators will be used to measure the effects of the proposed treatments relative to this issue:

• Percent exposed soils over the project area.

• Potential risk for water resource degradation (turbidity-none to severe)

Other Issues Considered

Non-significant issues are identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…”. The following issues were considered and determined non-significant for this analysis based upon implementation of standard mitigation measures, routine disclosure of effects, and the scope of this analysis.

Impacts on air, water, soils, and hardwoods from prescribed burning: These issues are evaluated in Chapter 3 of this document, specifically Sections 3.7 (Air), 3.2 (Water Quality), 3.1 (Soils), and 3.3 (Overstory Vegetation).

Logging and timber management impacts to recreation through visual quality and impediments to recreation activities:

These issues are evaluated in Chapter 3 of this document in Sections 3.9 (Recreation Resources) and 3.10 (Heritage Resources).

Intermediate thinning operations impacts to microhabitats: The unique features of microhabitats will be protected during project implementation.

All historic and archeological sites be adequately surveyed and considered: By law and policy the project sites will be inventoried for cultural resources and mitigated as necessary. This issue is discussed in detail in Chapter 3, Section 3.10.

24


CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION

Introduction _____________________________________ This chapter describes the eight alternatives, or potential actions, considered in this analysis. These alternatives were developed to present a reasonable range of options, which address the needs and opportunities of the project area while considering the issues and concerns previously stated in Chapter 1.

Figure 2-1 displays a comparison of the restoration actions among the alternatives considered. Alternative G would not restore longleaf to any of areas currently occupied by off-site loblolly and shortleaf and therefore does not include any species restoration treatments. Alternative E represents a slower approach to addressing forest health problems and longleaf restoration needs with less thinning and fewer restoration treatments. While Alternatives B, C, D, F, and H appear very similar in acres treated by restoration objective, these are distinguished by the method of tree removal or other treatment options, such as herbicides or prescribed burning. A detailed description of each alternative is provided later in this chapter.

Figure: 2-1: Range of Alternatives

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

A B C D E F G H

Acres

Species RestorationLongleaf Structure RestorationSPB Prevention/Mimic Longleaf

Alternatives Considered in Detail ________________________ In this analysis, six of the alternatives (A, B, C, D, E, and F) were considered in detail for possible implementation in the project area. Two alternatives (G and H) were considered but eliminated from detailed study. The section titled “Management Standards Common to All Alternatives” lists the guidelines to be followed in implementing each of the alternatives documented in this analysis. These standards are, therefore, are incorporated as part of each alternative.

25


Alternative A - No Action Alternative A provides a benchmark or baseline for the other action alternatives. This alternative was fully developed and considered in detail in the analysis. Alternative A would take no steps to promote restoration of the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. There would be no restoration of declining loblolly to longleaf or other stand treatments to improve RCW habitat or to address forest health issues related to the declining off-site loblolly and shortleaf dominated uplands that are better suited for longleaf. Custodial forest management would occur but would be limited to resource protection measures such as erosion control, insect and disease control, wildfire suppression, and routine road maintenance.

Figure 2-2: Alternative A -General Location Map

7 3 1

7 2 6

# B r e n t

# P a y n e L a k e H W Y 2 5

Hwy 5

Hwy 25

Hwy 82

N

E W

S

5 0 5 Miles

0 3 / 0 8 / 2 0 0 4

ReedBrake R N A Major Roads Lakes

PrivateLand

Alternative ALe g e n d

26


Alternative B - The Proposed Action Alternative B is proposed to take the key steps in addressing the longleaf restoration needs of the District. Targeting the four specific Areas of Concern outlined in Chapter 1, as well as a prescribed burning program across the project area, this alternative takes specific actions to improve conditions and bring the District closer to the desired healthy longleaf ecosystem.

Area of Concern 1 - Damaged Stands Greater than 40 Years of Age

Existing Condition: Upland sites historically characteristic of the longleaf pine ecosystem are now dominated by loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and pine-hardwood mixed forest types; these stands are considered off-site. These areas are experiencing high levels of mortality due to root disease and/or insect attacks. Downed woody material is increasing. The overstory that remains is not expected to survive. These sites contain a high shrub understory component and a mixed hardwood midstory.

Desired Future Condition: The short term desired condition of these areas is to re-establish longleaf pine seedlings in areas formally dominated by disease- and insect- prone loblolly and shortleaf pines. In some areas clumps of mature and immature longleaf pine will exist in open park-like conditions. Riparian hardwoods will be protected, as well as hardwood inclusions and unique habitats such as cane breaks. These areas will be developing the appropriate species composition based on land form. In some areas structure and function may be returning. The long term desired condition is a canopy dominated with large longleaf pines. The canopy is open and allows sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor. Small and medium pines exist, but in low densities. Some old growth pines are present, as well as scattered clumps of fire-tolerant oaks and hickories. Midstory hardwoods are sparse if present at all. The understory is comprised of a healthy forbs and bunchgrass layer that is shade-intolerant and fire-dependent.

Area of Concern 2 - Damaged Stands 20 - 40 Years of Age

Existing Condition: These areas are planted loblolly and shortleaf pine stands that have been infested with SPB. In most cases the SPB damaged trees have been harvested or cut and left on the forest floor. In a few cases there are clumps of dead trees. The scattered pockets of remaining live trees are in a dense, crowded condition and as such are at a higher risk for future SPB attacks. The understory contains some grasses, shrubs, and some greenbrier and bracken fern, as well as scattered low quality hardwoods.

Desired Future Condition: The same as the condition described for AOC1, except there will be limited opportunity to retain mature and immature longleaf trees.

Area of Concern 3 - Overcrowded Stands 20 - 40 Years of Age

Existing Condition: These planted stands are very dense and generally exhibit 70-90% crown closure. Very little sunlight penetrates the forest floor through the closed canopies and very little herbaceous growth can be found in the understory. For the most part, these sites are still free of SPB infestation. Limited SPB attacks have occurred in a few areas; however they are at considerable risk for future outbreaks. For the most part these planted stands occur on upland land forms, with the exception of a few areas where

27


drains and riparian areas were planted to pine. It is highly unlikely that these areas contain any mature or immature longleaf.

Desired Future Condition: Ultimately, the desire is to restore the longleaf ecosystem to the native uplands, which will require the removal of loblolly and shortleaf and re-establishing longleaf. The intermediate goal is to mimic, to the extent possible, the structure of an open, park-like longleaf stand, and to retain hardwoods on the appropriate riparian sites and inclusions. By providing a more open condition, combined with periodic prescribed fire, the District hopes to encourage recovery of an herbaceous understory consisting of bluestem grasses mixed with smilax and vaccinum. The intent is to maintain these sites with only a 40-50% canopy closure. The risk to SPB will be lessened and these areas may provide some short-term foraging for RCW. Restoration of the hardwood and hardwood/pine overstory component of the lower landforms would begin now with removal of some of the planted pines to encourage natural reproduction of the existing hardwood component.

Area of Concern 4 - Longleaf Pine not Currently Optimum Habitat for RCW

Existing Condition: These are native longleaf sites that are predominately stocked with longleaf; however these areas are not characteristic of historic conditions and are not providing suitable habitat for RCW. Longleaf trees are crowded with very dense clumps existing in some areas. Loblolly and shortleaf pines are occasionally interspersed throughout these stands. On many of these areas, hardwood midstory and overstory are present in un-natural densities.

Desired Future Condition: Guided by the habitat parameters in Revised RCW Recovery Plan, move these native longleaf sites towards an open canopy with very sparse midstory vegetation, and a fine grassy understory. A prescribed burning regime is conducted to mimic historic fire frequency and season to reestablish and enhance native grasses. The proposed action enhances 2,831 acres through harvest of commercially viable trees removing scattered loblolly and shortleaf first, and then removing the smaller diameter longleaf, leaving a more park-like condition of larger and older trees. Within the designated acres, 2,420 acres will be treated to remove the hardwood midstory and overstory, as well as many of the non commercial pine trees. An herbicide treatment will retard the re-growth of the unnatural hardwoods and allow the prescribed fire to carry through the area rejuvenating the grassy understory. These treatments will contribute to the goal of providing suitable RCW habitat the project area.

Prescribed Fire

Existing Condition: Current assessments indicate that most of the upland areas of the District are Fire Condition Class 3. Fire Condition Classes are a measure of general wildland fire risk and ecosystem condition defined by the National Fire Plan. Condition Class 3 represents lands that have been significantly altered from their historic fire regime interval. Vegetation composition, structure, and diversity have been significantly altered. Thus a prescribed burning regime is needed to complement and sustain the restoration efforts listed above. Within the Proposed Action approximately 87,000 acres are listed to be treated on a 2-5 year rotation, with emphasis placed on growing season burns, especially those in close proximity to RCW cluster sites. These acres are inclusive of the approximately 13,000 acres listed in Areas of Concern 1-4.

28


Desired Future Condition: The goal of this action is to move these areas into Fire Condition Classes 1 & 2. Condition Class 2 represents areas that have been only moderately altered from their historic range and condition. Condition Class 1 is described as having intact vegetation composition and structure, with the ecosystem maintained by fire. It is through restoring these vegetative conditions that the function of the longleaf ecosystem will be restored.

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS In summary, these actions proposed to achieve the short-term results described above are as follows (acres approximate):

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2 remove, via timber harvest, commercially viable loblolly, shortleaf, and selected hardwoods on upland land forms within the designated 7,393 acres. In areas with established longleaf, remove selected longleaf retaining patches of open, park-like longleaf conditions. Retain hardwoods on appropriate sites. Restore longleaf pine on the appropriate upland sites by the following methods:

Prepare the areas for planting with herbicides and prescribed burning, preferably during the late summer.

Plant approximately 538 containerized longleaf pine seedlings per acre (9’ x 9’ spacing). In areas where mature longleaf pine is retained, promote natural regeneration of longleaf seedlings by prescribe burning underneath the canopy of these trees.

Conduct survival checks of seedlings at one and three years to determine any follow up actions needed to insure successful restoration of these sites.

Replant longleaf seedlings on areas found to have less than a 60% (322 seedlings/acre) survival rate during the first and third year survival checks.

Release seedlings experiencing slow growth due to competition from surrounding brush through the use of herbicides. Conduct herbicide treatment in the growing season following the survival check.

• In AOC 3 remove, via timber harvest, commercially viable loblolly, shortleaf, and selected hardwoods in designated sites (2,813 acres). Timber harvest will be designed to remove about 50% of the loblolly and shortleaf leaving an open park-like condition.

• In AOC 4 remove, via timber harvest, commercially viable loblolly, shortleaf, selected hardwoods, and longleaf in designated sites (2,831 acres). Timber harvest will be designed to remove about 10-40% of the pines and hardwood midstory and overstory species producing an open, park-like condition. Non-commercially viable hardwood and pine will be removed via service contract using hand tools and herbicide application.

• During all harvest treatments, retain and protect microhabitats supporting riparian hardwoods, hardwood inclusions, wetland plants, and other unique vegetation.

• Provide access for these actions by re-opening and maintaining about 67 miles of former temporary logging roads and construct about 21 miles of new temporary roads. At the conclusion of planting activities, close the temporary roads to vehicular traffic and convert them to approximately 126 acres of linear strips of native grasses.

29


• Conduct prescribed burns within the entire 87,000-acre project area on a two- to five-year rotation with specific focus on growing season burns in areas supporting RCW habitat.

• Introduce a prescribed burning regime into the newly established longleaf areas as soon as the seedlings are ready, generally when they are greater than one foot tall and have a root collar diameter greater than ¾ inch. (Areas of Concern 1 and 2)

A list of the sites proposed for treatment in Alternative B and the treatment proposed for each site is included in Appendix A. The general location of the treatments proposed is shown in Figure 2-3a. A summary of the treatments by each Area of Concern is located in the table displayed as Figure 2-3b.

30


Figure 2-3a: – Alternative B - Proposed Action -Treatments Map

731

726

Hwy 82

Hwy 25

Hwy 5

N

EW

S

5 0 5 Miles

Reed Brake RNA

Major Roads

Lakes

AOC 1-Loblolly >40 (Restoration)

AOC 2-Loblolly 20-40 (Restoration)

AOC 3-Loblolly 20-40 (Thinning)

AOC 4-Longleaf (Thinning)

Private Land

Alternative B Legend

03/08/2004

Figure 2-3b – Alternative B Proposed Action – Treatments Table

Alternative B: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,697 ac 696 ac Site Prep. – Herbicide 6,697 ac 696 ac Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,697 ac 696 ac Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 ac 696 ac Release – Herbicides 6,697 ac 696 ac Thinning 2,813 ac 2,831 acMidstory Control – Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420 acTemporary Roads – Reopen/Construct 35/11 mi 3/2 mi 14/4 mi 15/4 miTemporary Roads – Close/Plant Native Grasses 66 ac 7 ac 26 ac 27 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

31


Alternative C - No Herbicide/Less Prescribed Burning (Modified PA) Alternative C was developed in response to Issue 1: Understory Vegetation and Issue 4: Soil and Water. This alternative outlines a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts identical to the Proposed Action (Alternative B). However, related site preparation treatments would be modified to reduce the amount of prescribed burning and eliminate the use of herbicides. Within this Alternative the extent and type of treatments are based on the degree of slope within the area. Mechanical treatments are prescribed in lieu of fire and herbicides for certain areas.

A detailed list of the sites selected for treatment and the treatments proposed for each site is located in Appendix A. Figure 2-4a displays a general location map of the treatment areas by type of harvest proposed under this alternative. Figure 2-4b summarizes the treatment acres by Area of Concern. The five following exceptions describe the modifications of the Proposed Action for Alternative C (acres approximate):

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2 on slopes 5% or less (1,144 acres), use the shear and rake method of mechanical site preparation for planting. Prescribed burning would not be used in conjunction with this method for site prep purposes.

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2 on slopes between 5% and 30% (4,969 acres), use a rolling chopper to prepare sites for planting. The dozer would be required to traverse in uphill and downhill paths so the chopper cleats would be parallel to the slope. This would help prevent water from channeling in the cleat tracks. Prescribed burning would not be used in conjunction with this method for site prep purposes.

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2 on slopes greater than 30% (1,280 acres), site preparation would be accomplished through prescribed burning only.

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2, young longleaf pines in need of release as determined by the first year survival checks would not be treated with herbicides. Instead, release treatments would be conducted with brush axes and chain saws and a follow-up prescribed burn (7,393 acres).

• In AOC 4, conduct midstory removal using mechanical treatment with a mulcher followed by a prescribed burn (2,420 acres).

32


Figure 2-4a:- Alternative C - Treatments Map

731

726

Hwy 5

Hwy 25

Hwy 82

N

EW

S

5 0 5 Miles

03/08/2004

Reed Brake RNA

Major Roads

Lakes





Private Land

Alternative C Legend

Figure 2-4b: Alternative C - Treatments Table

Alternative C: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,697 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 1,280 Site Prep. – Rolling Chopper 4,373 596 Site Prep. – Shear and Rake 1,044 100 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 696 Release – Hand Tools and Burn 6,697 696 Thinning 2,813 2,831Midstory Control – Mulcher and Burn 2,420Temporary Roads – Reopen/Construct 35/11 mi 3/2 mi 14/4 mi 15/4 miTemporary Roads – Close/Plant Native Grasses 66 ac 7 ac 26 ac 27 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

33


Alternative D - Low Impact Harvests Alternative D was developed to respond to Issue 4: Soil and Water. This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action, except that the timber harvest treatments would be accomplished using cut-to-length logging equipment instead of conventional logging equipment. The use of cut-to-length equipment was recommended during the scoping period. In Alabama, a conventional logging system normally utilizes a feller-buncher, grapple skidder, and loader/slasher. In contrast, a cut-to-length logging system uses a harvester/forwarder.

Use of cut-to-length logging equipment has been shown to cause fewer stand and site impacts than conventional logging equipment (Lanford and Stokes, 1995). Dr’s. Lanford and Stokes conducted a side-by-side comparison of the two systems in an eighteen-year-old loblolly pine plantation scheduled for a first commercial thinning. They performed the trials during the winter season to assess thinning impacts during wet weather conditions. Conclusions drawn from their comparison were that the forwarder system damaged the residual stand and site less than the skidder system and took less land out of timber production by requiring fewer roads and landings.

While skidder systems have performed most of the timber harvest work on the Oakmulgee District, the forwarder system can be viewed as a desirable option. Two of Alabama’s successful cut-to-length contractors, Mr. Donnie Williams and Mr. Frank Corley, were contacted in April 2003 and asked about their experience with the forwarder system. Both said the forwarder system required minimal roads and landings and was less affected by weather conditions because the forwarder can transport logs over existing trails without improvement. Also, both stated they felt the forwarder system reduced environmental impact and disturbance.

A detailed list of the sites selected for treatment and the treatments proposed for each site is located in Appendix A. A general location map of the treatments proposed for this alternative is shown if Figure 2-5a. The summary of treatments by Area of Concern is displayed in Figure 2-5b.

34


Figure 2-5a – Alternative D- Treatments Map

731

726

Hwy 82

Hwy 25

Hwy 5

N

EW

S

5 0 5 Miles

03/08/2004

Reed Brake RNA

Major Roads

Lakes





Private Land

Alternative D Legend

Figure 2-5b: Alternative D – Treatments Table

Alternative D: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,697 696 Site Prep. – Herbicide 6,697 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,697 696 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 696 Release – Herbicides 6,697 696 Thinning 2,813 2,831Midstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420Temporary Roads – Reopen/Construct 35/11 mi 3/2 mi 14/4 mi 15/4 miTemporary Roads – Close/Plant Native Grasses 66 ac 7 ac 26 ac 27 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

35


Alternative E - Less Restoration and Less Thinning While similar in design to the Proposed Action, Alternative E proposes a slower approach to restoring the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. This alternative responds to the Issue 2: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). Alternative E outlines a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts at lower levels than the Proposed Action. Fewer off-site areas would be converted to longleaf pine and fewer areas would be thinned than in the Proposed Action.

This alternative, like Alternative B, would move the composition, structure, and density of treated stands closer toward historical conditions and produce conditions favorable to the RCW. The reduction in restoration cuts in Alternative E would allow more short term, albeit low-quality habitat, RCW foraging habitat..

A detailed list of the sites selected for treatment and the treatments proposed for each site is located in Appendix A. A general location map of the treatments proposed for this alternative is displayed in Figure 2-6a. In addition, Figure 2-6b summarizes the treatment acres by Area of Concern for Alternative E. The following is a summary of the actions in this alternative that differ from Alternative B (acres approximate):

• In AOC 1, conduct restoration cuts of off-site, high-risk stands of declining loblolly pine, shortleaf pine and pine/hardwood (6,076 acres). Any existing longleaf pines would not be removed during restoration cuts unless needed to improve stand health or to reduce density of dense clumps (with a BA > 70).

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2, plant 538 longleaf seedlings per acre (about 6,772 acres). Site preparation would be conducted with herbicides and prescribed burns but the method prescribed for each site would be the least intensive treatment needed to insure survival of the planted longleaf seedlings.

• In AOC 3, thin about 2,319 acres of 20- to 40-year-old off-site trees to increase vigor and growth and reduce short-term risk of SPB infestation. Thinning would begin the restoration process by promoting reclamation of the native longleaf understory community (bluestems and low shrubs).

• In AOC4, all actions would be the same as Alternative B – Proposed Action.

36


Figure 2-6a: Alternative E - Treatments Map

731

726

Hwy 5

Hwy 25

Hwy 82

N

EW

S

5 0 5 Miles

03/08/2004

Reed Brake RNA

Major Roads

Lakes





Private Land

Alternative E Legend

Figure 2-6b: Alternative E - Treatments Table

Alternative E: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,076 Site Prep. – Herbicide 6,076 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,076 696 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,076 696 Release – Herbicides 6,076 696 Thinning 2,319 2,831Midstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420Temporary Roads – Reopen/Construct 32/10 mi 2/1 mi 12/3 mi 15/4 miTemporary Roads – Close/Plant Native Grasses 60 ac 4 ac 22 ac 27 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

37


Alternative F - The Most Restoration Alternative F responds to Issue 4: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW). While similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative F proposes a more aggressive approach to restoring the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. Alternative F would include a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts; however, more off-site areas would be converted to longleaf pine than in the Proposed Action.

This alternative, like Alternative B, would move the composition, structure, and density of treated stands closer toward historical conditions and produce conditions favorable to the RCW. Action would begin to restore the longleaf ecosystem and do so at a faster pace. This accelerated restoration effort could reduce available foraging acres for the RCW in the short term.

A detailed list of the sites selected for treatment and the treatments proposed for each site is located in Appendix A. A general location map of the treatments proposed for this alternative is displayed in Figure 2-7a. A summary of the actions included by treatment within each Area of Concern is included in Figure 2-7b. The following is a summary of the actions proposed in this alternative that differ from Alternative B (acres approximate):

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2, conduct restoration cuts of off-site, high-risk stands of declining loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and pine/hardwood (7,887 acres). Any existing longleaf pines would not be removed during restoration cuts unless needed to improve stand health or to reduce density of dense clumps (with a BA > 70).

• In AOC 1 and AOC 2, plant 538 longleaf seedlings per acre (about 7,887 acres). Site preparation would be accomplished with herbicides and prescribed burning but the method for each site would be the least intensive treatment needed to insure survival of the planted longleaf seedlings.

• In AOC 3, thin about 2,319 acres of 20- to 40-year-old off-site trees to increase vigor and growth and reduce short-term risk of SPB infestation. Thinning would begin the restoration process by promoting reclamation of the native longleaf understory community (bluestems and low shrubs).

• In AOC4, all actions would be the same as Alternative B – Proposed Action.

38


• Figure 2-7a: Alternative F – Treatments Map

731

726

Hwy 82

Hwy 25

Hwy 5

N

EW

S

5 0 5 Miles

03/08/2004

Reed Brake RNA

Major Roads

Watersheds





Private Land

Alternative F Legend

Figure 2-7b: Alternative F – Treatments Table

Alternative F: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 7,191 696 Site Prep. – Herbicide 7,191 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 7,191 696 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 7,191 696 Release – Herbicides 7,191 696 Thinning 2,319 2,831Midstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420Temporary Roads – Reopen/Construct 37/12 mi 3/2 mi 12/3 mi 15/4 miTemporary Roads – Close/Plant Native Grasses 70 ac 7 ac 22 ac 27 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

39


Management Standards Common to All Alternatives The Revised Forest Plan defines the general direction for management for the Talladega National Forest – Oakmulgee District, along with the other Forests and Districts that make up the National Forests in Alabama. Within the Revised Forest Plan are “Forest-wide Standards” that define the rules for implementation of management actions. Standards are the specific technical resource management directions and often preclude or impose limitations on management activities on resource uses, generally for environmental protection, public safety, or to resolve an issue. The specific Standards relative to management actions listed in all Alternatives, except the No-Action Alternative (A), are as follows:

1. Ecosystem Restoration and Terrestrial Plant and Animal Communities: Unless necessary for insect or disease control or to provide for public safety, den trees will not be intentionally felled during vegetation management treatments. (Forest-wide Standards 2 and 107)

2. Ecosystem Restoration: In even-aged regeneration areas (AOC 1 & AOC 2) where at least 2 snags per acre are not present or cannot be retained as residuals, at least 2 standing snags/acre will be created from the larger diameter classes within the original stand. In addition, a minimum of 5 of the largest living mature trees per acres will be retained to provide potential future snags during the early and mid-successional stages of stand development. Distribution of snags and live residuals may be scattered or clumped. Live den trees are not to be used for snag creation, but may count toward live residuals. (Forest-wide Standard 4)

3. Ecosystem Restoration: When seeding temporary openings such as temporary roads, skid trails and log landings, use only native and non-persistent non-native species. (Forest-wide Standard 5)

4. Ecosystem Restoration: Timber harvesting with conventional equipment is limited to slopes < 40%. (Forest-wide Standard 7)

5. Ecosystem Restoration and Stream-side Management: Temporary roads will cross streams only on temporary bridges or low-water fords. Fords may be used only when stable channel conditions exist and downstream beneficial uses, including threatened and endangered species, are not jeopardized. Temporary bridges will be removed upon completion of use. (Forest-wide Standards 8 and 66)

6. Ecosystem Restoration: Mechanical equipment is operated so that furrows and soil indentations are aligned on the contour (with grades under 5 percent). (Forest-wide Standard 15)

7. Ecosystem Restoration: Mechanical equipment is not allowed in any defined stream channel except to cross at designated points, and may not expose more than 10% mineral soil in filter strips along lakes, perennial or intermittent springs and streams, wetlands, or water-source seeps. (Forest-wide Standard 17)

8. Ecosystem Restoration: All trails, roads, ditches, and other improvements in the project area are to be kept free of logs, slash, and debris. Any road, trail, ditch, or other improvement damaged by operations is promptly repaired. (Forest-wide Standard 18)

40


9. Ecosystem Restoration: Weather is monitored and the herbicide project is suspended if temperature, humidity, or wind becomes unfavorable. (Forest-wide Standard 19) Not applicable to Alternative C

10. Ecosystem Restoration: A certified pesticide applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains crew members in personal safety, proper handling and application of herbicide, and proper disposal of empty containers. (Forest-wide Standard 20) Not applicable to Alternative C

11. Ecosystem Restoration: Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes worn during treatment, and skin are not cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers. (Forest-wide Standard – 24) Not applicable to Alternative C

12. Ecosystem Restoration: Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, open water, or wells, or other sensitive areas. (Forest-wide Standard – 25) Not applicable to Alternative C

13. Ecosystem Restoration: Nozzles that produce large droplets (mean droplet size of 50 microns or larger) or streams are used. Nozzles that produce fine droplets are used only for hand treatment where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed 8 feet. (Forest-wide Standard 29) Not applicable to Alternative C

14. Ecosystem Restoration: With the exception of permittee treatment of right-of-way corridors that are continuous into or out of private land and through Forest Service managed areas, no herbicide is broadcast within 100 feet of private land or 300 feet or private residence, unless landowner agrees to closer treatment. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. (Forest-wide Standard 30) Not applicable to Alternative C

15. Ecosystem Restoration: Critical values of the Keetch-Byram Drought Code are developed for all major vegetation-soil-landform types on which prescribed fires are conducted. Burning is allowed only on days when the Drought Code is less than this critical value. (Forest-Wide Standard - 33)

16. Watersheds: Timber Sale Areas and associated reforestation practices will have a minimum 35-foot no equipment zone maintained around gully heads and sidewalls. Timber may be selectively removed from within the 35-foot zone with the use of chainsaws and cable only. (Forest-wide Standard 38)

17. Watersheds: Resource activities that may affect water quality will implement State Best Management Practices (BMPs) as a minimum to meet water quality objectives. Revised Forest Plan Standards that exceed State BMPs will take precedence. (Forest-wide Standard 39)

18. Watersheds: Soil disturbing activities (excluding roads and trails) will not take place on water-saturated soils. Standing water and puddling are evidence of a saturated condition. (Soil disturbing activities are not limited to timber harvesting.) (Forest-wide Standard 40)

19. Watersheds: On severely eroded forest soils, any area with an average litter-duff depth of less than ½ inch is not burned (Forest-wide Standard 41)

41


20. Watersheds: Growing season under-burns are not allowed on the same site more than twice in succession without an intervening dormant season burn. (Forest-wide Standard 42)

21. Watersheds: Water control structures necessary for the control of surface water movement from disturbed sites will be constructed during or within two weeks following construction for temporary roads and within two weeks following the close out of the disturbing activity for skid trails. (Forest-wide Standard 43)

22. Watersheds and Fire Management: Water control structures necessary for the control of surface water movement on fire lines will be installed during prescribed fire line construction. Permanent fire lines will have water control structures maintained. (Forest-wide Standards 45 and 116)

23. Watersheds: Timber harvesting activities are prohibited within sinkholes and within 200 feet of their defined boundary and within 200 feet of cave entrances. (Forest-wide Standard 48)

24. Watersheds: Herbicides will not be used within 200 feet of defined sinkhole boundaries. (Forest-wide Standard 49) Not applicable to Alternative C

25. Watersheds: For protection of heritage resources, timber harvesting activities are prohibited within 100 feet of the top of all rock shelters eligible for or included in the National Register of Historic Places, and 100 feet from cliff lines of greater than 25 feet vertical drop. (Forest-wide Standard 50).

26. Watersheds: The maximum size of an opening created by even-aged or two-aged regeneration treatments is 80 acres for southern yellow pine types. These acreage limits do not apply to areas treated as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect or disease attack, or windstorm. Areas managed as permanent openings (e.g. meadows, pastures, food plots, rights–of-way, wood lands, savanna, and grasslands) are not subject to these standards and are not included in calculations of opening size, even when within or adjacent to created openings. (Forest-wide Standard 51)

27. Watersheds: Openings created by even-aged and two-aged regeneration treatments will be separated from each other by a minimum distance of 330 feet. Such openings may be clusters closer than 330 feet, as long as their combined acreage does not exceed the maximum opening size. An even-aged regeneration area will not long be considered an opening when the certified re-established stand has reached an age of 5 years. (Forest-wide Standard 52)

28. Watersheds: Regeneration harvests on lands suitable for timber production must be done under a regeneration harvest method where adequate stocking of desirable species is expected to occur within 5 years after the final harvest cut. A new stand of longleaf must meet the minimum stocking level of 400 trees per acre. (Forest-wide Standard 53)

29. Stream-side Management: Stream-side Management Zones (SMZs) will be established on both sides of any stream course that meets the following specifications:

42


• On all first and/or persistence of order stream courses that exhibit contiguous scour water (i.e. connected springs and seeps)

• On all second order or higher stream courses.

Minimum SMZs widths vary according to stream order. See table below. The SMZ can be extended beyond these minimum widths in response to special considerations.

• On stream courses that have s distinct bank or edge, the SMZ will start at the bank or edge.

• For braided streams, the SMZ starts where best professional judgment determines the edge of the outermost braid.

• On stream courses that do not have a distinct bank or edge, the SMZ will start at the approximate center of the stream course.

Stream Order Reserved Section (feet)

Special Section (feet)

Total (feet)

1 Ephemeral

scoured

0 35 35

2 Ephemeral

15 20 35

3 Intermittent

25 0 25

4 Perennial

35 0 35

(Forest-wide Standard 56)

30. Stream-side Management: Mechanical equipment is not allowed in any scoured stream channel except to cross at designated points (Forest-wide Standard 62)

31. Stream-side Management: Remove treetops and logging debris dropped into a stream course or water body unless intended for fisheries habitat improvements and attainment of aquatic desired conditions. (Forest-wide Standard 63)

32. Stream-side Management: All sources of mineral soil exposure will not exceed 10% within the stream-side management zone except for hiking trails, fire lines, and designated crossings where mineral soil exposure will be kept to the minimum necessary to meet the management objectives and maintain desired future conditions. (Forest-wide Standard 64)

33. Stream-side Management: Temporary roads, skid trails, and plow lines are not permitted in a SMZ except at designated crossings. (Forest-wide Standard 65)

34. Stream-side Management: Ruts that are greater than 15 feet or that connect to a stream bank where water can flow into a stream will be smoothed to restore hydrology when conditions exist that does not result in further rutting. (Forest-wide Standard 67)

35. Stream-side Management: Log landings will be located outside the SMZs. (Forest-wide Standard 68)

43


36. Stream-side Management: All equipment used for harvesting operations, hauling operations or other work involving mechanical equipment will be serviced outside the riparian corridor and SMZs. (Forest-wide Standard 69)

37. Stream-side Management: Aerial or ground applied treatments of pesticides will not be allowed in the riparian corridor/SMZ. Cut surface treatments of pesticides are allowed. (Forest-wide Standard 70)

38. Stream-side Management: Plowed fires lines, outside riparian corridors, must stop within 10 feet of any scoured or wet channel, outermost channel braid, or best professional judgment of the edge of a channel. The remaining 10 feet between the plowed fire line and the channel bank can be any type of fire line that does not exceed the disturbance of a hand line firebreak. All fire line disturbances must be stabilized to prevent off site soil movement into stream channels immediately after plowing. (Forest-wide Standard 72)

39. Stream-side Management: On un-scoured ephemeral (order 1 and order 2) SMZs, aerial or ground applied treatments of pesticides or mechanical site preparation are not permitted within 15 feet, or each side, of the approximate center of the us-scoured drain. Cut-surface treatments of pesticides are permitted. (Forest-wide Standard 74)

40. Stream-side Management: On un-scoured ephemeral (order 1 and order 2) SMZs, ground disturbing activities (such as skid trails, log landings, firelines) are not permitted in the drain except for the construction of a crossing. All crossings will be stabilized immediately after use. The number of crossing will be limited to the minimum necessary to accomplish management objectives and maintain future desired conditions. (Forest-wide Standard 76)

41. Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Limit restoration areas in off-site pine and pine hardwood stands to 80 acres in size. (Forest-wide Standard 90)

42. Red-cockaded Woodpecker: Retain on-site trees of highest importance to RCWs (very old, flat topped, potential cavity trees, and scarred old pines) regardless of silvicultural system. (Forest-wide Standard 91)

43. Fire Management: Protection of firefighters and the public is the first priority in all fire management actions. (Forest-wide Standard 113)

44. Fire Management: Fire lines used for controlled burning which expose mineral soil greater than the equivalent to a hand line fire break are not permitted in SMZs or buffers along lakes, springs, wetlands, water, source seeps, or other designated riparian areas, unless anchoring into water resources or crossing at a designated point. (Forest-wide Standard 115)

45. Fire Management: Firelines will be re-vegetated when canopy closure is less than 50% or when conditions exist (i.e. steep slopes, entrenched firelines) where water control structures and natural mulch from forest canopy is not sufficient to prevent moderate soil erosion. (Forest-wide Standard 117)

46. Fire Management: Burning of material generated by timber activities or mechanical fuel treatments is done so it does not consume all litter and duff and does not alter the structure and color of mineral soil any more than 20% of the area. (Forest-wide Standard 118)

44


47. Fire Management: Utilize backing fires when prescribe burning in riparian areas. (Forest-wide Standard 122)

48. Fire Management: All prescribed burning projects or programs will be conducted with full adherence to Forest Service internal guidance and the pollution control methodologies prescribed by air quality regulatory agencies. (Forest-wide Standard 124)

49. Fire Management: Areas are not burned under prescription for at least 30 days after herbicide treatment. (Forest-wide Standard 126) Not applicable to Alternative C

50. Fire Management: During development of prescribed burn plan, identify smoke sensitive targets that may be affected by the project. Such targets include health care facilities, airports, high volume & high-speed roads, homes of persons known to have chronic respiratory illness, schools, and poultry farms. Develop plan direction to direct smoke away from sensitive targets. Obvious weather considerations include wind direction and speed. Others are fuel conditions and ignition methods that maximize the amount of smoke lifted, plus weather that promotes dispersal (e.g. mixing height, transport wind speed and improbability of air mass stagnation). For some projects, even the most diligent planning will provide no option that can avoid all smoke sensitive targets. In those cases, modify the project or contact the resident/owner to see if the impact can be mitigated.

51. Fire Management: During the afternoon of the day before a prescribed burn is to be executed, obtain a weather forecast to validate the prescribed weather and burning conditions. Contact the State Forestry Commission, local fire department, and local media.

52. Fire Management: The morning of a prescribed burn, validate weather forecast again. If it is, begin any planned mitigation measures, light the fire, and then begin monitoring the fire and smoke for unanticipated situations. Be prepared to stop ignition and/or begin suppression if unanticipated situations cannot be controlled or mitigated. Also be prepared to patrol smoke sensitive roadways through the night if the fire is still producing significant smoke at dusk.

53. Fire Management: Record any significant smoke management problems in the review section of the prescribed burn plan.

54. Scenery: The Forest Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) maps and the Scenic Integrity Objectives Table will govern all new projects. (Forest-wide Standard 145)

Management Prescription Area 7 D – Concentrated Recreation Zone (SIO ranges from High to Moderate) Fire Management: Firelines will be immediately (within 30 days of closure)

be returned to a natural appearance that blends with the adjacent forest floor in the developed recreation area. (Standard 7.D-07)

Management Prescription Area 7E – Dispersed Recreation Areas (SIO ranges from High to Moderate) The Landscape Architect or Recreation specialist in the Supervisor’s Office

will review timber harvest in scenic class 1 and 2 (Standard 7.E.2-01)

45


Slash treatment zones along roads and trails will be 50’ from edge or as designated by Landscape Architect or Recreation Specialist in the Supervisor’s Office.(Standard 7.E.2-02)

Protect native flowering trees along roads and trails. (Standard 7.E.2-04)

Leave 2-4 large dominate or co-dominate mast producing hardwoods per acre, where available, during harvest and vegetation management treatments. Leave trees will be left in clumps (groves), tied to SMZs or edges. (Standard 7.E.2-07)

Management Prescription Area – 8.D.1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Areas (SIO ranges from high, moderate, to low) Specific mitigation measures are listed in Chapter 3, Section 8.4.

Management Prescription Area – 9.D. Restoration of Coastal Plain Longleaf Pine Forests (SIO ranges from high, moderate, to low) Specific mitigation measures are listed in Chapter 3, Section 8.4.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study Of the eight alternatives considered two were dropped from detailed analysis. Following is a brief description of these alternatives and a short explanation of why they were not considered in detail. Alternative G - Thinning Only This alternative would respond to Issue 1: Understory Vegetation, Issue 2: Red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW), and Issue 3: Economics. Alternative G outlined a five-year program of thinnings and no restoration cuts. Concerns regarding direct and indirect economic effects would be addressed because the expense of site prep, planting, survival checks, and release treatments would not be incurred. The issue of maintenance of the existing understory vegetation would be addressed. It also addresses the issue of potential sediment and herbicide effects to streams. Because this alternative does not meet the purpose and need of restoring longleaf pine to upland sites it was not developed in detail.

Alternative H - No Commercial Harvests Alternative H responds to the Issue 3: Economics, and Issue 4: Soil and Water. Specifically there were public concerns regarding the financial incentives of commercial timber sales in contrast to the need to do quality restoration work. Several authorities are available to the Forest Service to address removal of commercially viable wood products through a variety of contract and/or agreements known as “stewardship contracting”. These agreements can allow for the Forest Service to contract for the harvesting of commercially viable products. However, those authorities reside with the Regional Forester and are beyond the scope of this Decision Document.

The District is pursuing a variety of partnerships and collaborative relationships that may provide opportunities for use of these “stewardship contracting” tools for vegetation treatment. Should those opportunities come to fruition, the District then may submit proposals to the Regional Forester for use of these authorities.

46


Comparison of Alternatives _____________________________ This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative as it responds to the issues. These summary tables are based on information provided in the effects analysis documented in Chapter 3.

Issue #1: Understory Vegetation Alternatives Summary of Effects

- A - No Action

No restoration harvest or thinning would occur so there would be no risk of releasing woody/brushy vegetation, but no progress would be made towards restoration of the desired understory species.

- B - Proposed Action

A combination of thinning and a 2- to 3-year rotation burning regime would begin to establish the herbaceous layer.

- C - No Herbicide/Less

Burning

Woody shrub species would not be controlled with less prescribed burning and no herbicides treatments, which in turn would impede progress towards restoring the desired longleaf understory species.

- D - Low Impact

Harvest

D is similar in effects to B.

- E - Less

Restoration/Less Thinning

E is similar to B, but E is a more conservative approach to restoring the longleaf ecosystem, therefore fewer acres would be restored to a grassy herbaceous layer.

- F – Most Restoration

F is similar to B, but F takes a more aggressive approach to restoring the longleaf ecosystem, therefore more acres would be restored to a grassy herbaceous layer.

Issue #2: Red-cockaded woodpecker Alternative Summary of Effects

- A - No Action

There would be negative long-term impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker because habitat conditions needed for population recovery would not be improved.


Short-term impacts would be beneficial in areas of thinning to improve foraging habitat and potentially negative in some areas where foraging would be reduced through restoration cuts. Overall, available sustainable habitat would be increased through all restoration efforts resulting in beneficial effects.


Burning

Effects would be similar to B.

- D - Low Impact

Harvest

Effects would be similar to B.

- E - Less


Effects would be similar to B, but the more conservative approach to restoration efforts would reduce short-term negative impacts and provide long-term benefits at a slower pace.


Effects would be similar to B, but the more aggressive approach to restoration efforts could increase short-term negative impacts but would provide more suitable habitat in the long term.

47


Issue #3: Economics Alternative Summary of Effects

- A - No Action

Although there would be no reforestation cost, there would be no long-term ecosystem benefits. Potential sources of community and USFS economic and capital returns, such as eco-tourism, would be essentially nullified.


This alternative offers the most long-term ecosystem benefits. Both alternatives C &D are somewhat experimental; E moves slowly, while F moves more aggressively, all of which are less desirable to the Proposed Action, as it attempts to balance ecosystem restoration with desired economic responsibility.


Burning

Economic effects would be similar to B but reforestation cost would be less. Alternative C offers less prescribed burning, a practice in which the USFS is highly experienced and cost efficient in implementation.

- D - Low Impact

Harvest

Only two cut-to-length logging contractors are currently available in the Oakmulgee area. Economically, this would eliminate participants in the entire process, from bidding sales to work in the woods. However, the benefits to the environment would seem to outweigh Alternatives C, E, and F, and perhaps even the preferred Alternative, B, depending on one’s viewpoint.

- E - Less


Moving less aggressively than Alternatives B, C, D, and F may allow more protection for resources but less benefit for overall recreational economics. Treatment effects are similar to the preferred Alternative, but less acreage treated could result in less economic returns, both in the short and long term.


This alternative would restore the most acres and be the most costly. Moving more aggressively than B, C, D, and E would increase costs. Resources such as heritage, scenery, and recreation may suffer as USFS specialists could lose ground and not respond fast enough to protect resources, and damage potential for future economic benefits such as eco-tourism.

Issue #4: Soils & Water Alternative Summary of Effects

- A - No Action

There would be no immediate impacts to the soils and water of the Oakmulgee District.


There is a potential for soil compaction on wet soil conditions, temporary roads, site preparation burns, and fire lines. However, implementation of Forest-wide Standards, along with follow-up monitoring should maintain soil productivity. Potential effects of restoration treatments would be mitigated.


Burning

Effects would be similar to B with a reduction in potential impacts to aquatic resources.

- D - Low Impact

Harvest

Cut-to-length logging provides for less impacts to the soil quality and soil erosion than Alternatives B, C, E, and F.

- E - Less


Similar to Alternatives B, C, D, and F.


Effects would be slightly greater than B, C, D, and E.

48


CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1: Soil Resources 3.1.1 Issues Issues related to soil resources raised during scooping with USDA Forest Service employees and the public, were concerns of the effects of timber harvest methods used and associated impacts to the soil resource, soil erosion, and soil compaction resulting from proposed activities. Monitoring of impacts to the soil resource was also expressed. The proposed activities include restoration, thinning, site preparation, temporary roads, prescribed fire and cumulative effects. 3.1.2 Affected Environment Soils within the boundaries of the proposed project are located primarily in the Gordo Formation Landtype Association (LTA) of the Upper Clay Hills Subsection and the Coker Formation LTA of the Middle Coastal Plains - Upper Loam Hills Subsection. All three LTAs are located in the northwest and central west portions of the Forest. All three LTAs have geology made up of marine sediments consisting of layered clays and sands that weathered into deep sandy soils or soils with sandy surfaces and clay subsurfaces. The Gordo Formation tends to be more clayey than the Coker Formation(s). Land surface form is characterized as moderately dissected uplands with either low relief or moderate relief. Overstory vegetation is primarily pine-oak. Currently, the Forest is in the mid stages of updating the Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory completed in 1980. To date, Hale, Perry, and Tuscaloosa Counties have been completed with 2003 work beginning in Bibb County. For the purposes of this analysis, the new soil information will be used where available. The older soil information will be used primarily for projects occurring in Bibb County where current soil inventory is in progress. An Order 3 Soil Resource Inventory of the Oakmulgee Division, Talladega National Forest (1980) at a 1:24,000 scale identified 13 soil map units within the proposed project boundary located in Bibb County. An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory that is still in progress to date and mapped at a 1:24,000 scale identified 14 soil map units within the proposed project boundary located in Hale, Perry, and Tuscaloosa Counties. . Eighteen primary soil series are identified within the map units listed below. Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each map unit identified. A total of approximately 275 acres of wetlands (hydric soils) and 125 acres of floodplain soils are identified for all the action alternatives. Stand layout and delineation of riparian areas, prior to implementing management prescriptions, will eliminate management activities within any wetland or floodplain soils. An estimated 475 acres of floodplains located along narrow drains (ephemeral) are also identified. Implementation of streamside management zones during stand layout will provide mitigation from possible impacts of timber harvest. Maps and soil descriptions are available for viewing at the Ranger Station Office.

49


Soil Resource Inventory Map Units

1980 SRI – Bibb County

Mantachie-Johnston association, 0-2 percent slopes, frequently flooded Mantachie-Kirkville association, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Luverne-Boswell complex, 2-12 percent slopes Luverne complex, 5-20 percent slopes Luverne-Smithdale complex, 20-45 percent slopes Smithdale-Luverne complex, 5-20 percent slopes Smithdale-Luverne complex, 20-50 percent slopes Smithdale, Luverne and Saffell soils, 5-20 percent slopes Smithdale, Luverne, Saffell soils, 20-60 percent slopes Smithdale association, 0-10 percent slopes Smithdale-Troup complex, 10-20 percent slopes Smithdale-Troup complex, 20-50 percent slopes Troup-Harleston-Mantachie association, 0-15 percent slopes

Current On-going SRI - Hale, Perry, Tuscaloosa Counties completed Bama fine sandy loam, 2-5 percent slopes Columbus loam, 0-2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded Conecuh fine sandy loam, 2-5 percent slopes Fluvaquents, ponded Luverne sandy loam, 2-5 percent slopes Luverene-Smithdale complex, 5-15 percent slopes Luverne-Smithdale complex, 15-35 percent slopes Mantachie, Iuka, and Kinston soils, 0-1 percent slopes, frequently flooded Maubila flaggy loam, 2-8 percent slopes, eroded Maubila-Smithdale-Boykin complex, 5-20 percent slopes Maubila-Smithdale complex, 15-35 percent slopes Maubila-Smithdale complex, 35-45 percent slopes Smithdale sandy loam, 2-8 percent slopes Wadley-Smithdale-Boykin complex, 5-20 percent slopes

The Oakmulgee District is located within 5 counties, Bibb, Chilton, Dallas, Perry, Hale, and Tuscaloosa. To date, four soil surveys conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have occurred: Chilton County 1972, Dallas County 1979, Perry County 1998, and Tuscaloosa County 1981. Currently Bibb County is being surveyed. No known previous soil inventories are known for the area. Proposed actions under this document are predominately located in Bibb and Hale Counties with a smaller acreage component located in Perry and Tuscaloosa Counties. Primary past agricultural soil use on the Oakmulgee was small subsistence farms occurring on narrow ridge tops and upper slopes. The steep side slopes were not conducive to large scale agriculture. Most of the area remained in a forested condition that was cut over when acquired as public lands. Surface soil textures are still present over the majority of the acreage

50


(except facility sites and roads/trails). Past erosion has reduced the surface soil layer by an unknown amount and in some cases has removed the surface layer entirely. Slopes of less than 10 percent were more than likely farmed over a short period at some point in time. Slopes greater than 10 percent more than likely remained in some form of brush/forested condition as a result of the broken landscape where ridges are narrow and undulating rendering smooth, flat land almost non-existent. Bama soils are located on ridge tops and have average surface horizons consisting of sandy loam textures 6 inches thick with subsurface textures of sandy clay loam. Luverne soils are located on mid to lower slopes or narrow ridge tops. Surface horizons consist of sandy loam textures averaging 3 to 5 inches thick over subsurface clay loam textures. Luverne soils on narrow ridge tops are eroded from past and current locations of roads. Surface textures are clay loam. Maubila soils have flaggy (small stones) loam surface textures 3 inches or less with clay loam subsurfaces. Maubila soils are located on narrow ridge tops and lower slopes. The surface horizon on ridge tops has been eroded leaving a mixture of loam and clay loam surface textures with small pieces of ironstone rock. The side slope positions for Maubila soils have also been eroded with surface textures having thin loam surface textures over clay loam subsurfaces. Smithdale soils are located on ridge tops and upper side slopes. Surface textures average 6 inches over either sandy loam or clay loam subsurface textures. Troup, Wadley and Boykin soils are deep sands located on broad ridge tops and upper side slopes. Surface horizons average 40 to 50 inches consisting of sand and or sandy loam textures. The Columbus, Conecuh, and Kirkville soils are located on nearly level broad stream terraces. They were historically farmed in the past. Surface textures are silt loams to clay loams to depths of 6 inches over clay loam to clay subsurfaces. Columbus and Kirkville soils are occasionally flooded. Johnston, Harleston, and Mantachie soils are located in floodplains that frequently flood. These soils will be excluded from management thru streamside management zone standards and riparian standards implemented during the process of laying out timber stands prior to harvest. 3.1.3: Environmental Effects Disturbance of soils from management practices involving timber harvest, site preparation and reforestation will result in some form of physical, chemical and biological change. Direct effects to the soil resources are changes/loss of soil organic matter content, soil erosion, soil compaction, and nutrient leaching and/or displacement. Indirect effects are accelerated weathering, loss of soil as sediment, alteration of organic matter formation, and alteration of soil permeability/water infiltration. Silvicultural practices (restoration and thinning) are known to potentially affect the soil resource primarily through nutrient removal. Tree harvest proposed by all action Alternatives involves treatment by thinning or restoration involving over story removal leaving residual Longleaf pine. Proposed thinning and restoration activities will harvest the stem only with tree boles and needles remaining scattered on site. Nutrient removal from thinning or restoration, where harvesting the stem only, reduces nutrient removal by 50-60% (Pritchett and Fisher, 1987). Nutrients loss from stem removal is believed replaced by soil weathering and natural inputs (Grier et al., 1989, Jorgensen et al, 1971, Wells, 1971 and Pritchett and Fisher, 1987).

51


Comparison of alternatives reveals Alternative 1, the no action alternative, as having the least impact since no harvest treatments are proposed. Alternatives B, C, and D propose the same acreage scheduled for thinning. Alternatives E and F propose approximately 10 percent (534 acres) less thinning. Alternative F proposes the greatest acres for restoration. Alternatives B, C, and D propose approximately 6 percent (494 acres) less acres of restoration with Alternative E having the lowest proposal for restoration approximated at 23 percent (1,811 acres). Nutrient removal can be expected, based on acres to be thinned, to be greatest for Alternatives B, C, and D and least for Alternatives E and F (refer to Figure 3.1-1 “Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Access”). Nutrient removal can be expected, based on acres to be restored, to be greatest for Alternative F and least on Alternative E. The greatest potential for effects from nutrient removal overall (combining thin and restoration acres) is expected to occur under Alternative F.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F

Figure 3.1-1: Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Access

Thin AcresRestoration AcresTemporary Access Acres

Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F Thin 5,644 5,644 5,644 5,150 5,150 Restoration 7,393 7,393 7,393 6,076 7,887 Temporary Access/Acres

126 126 126 113 126

Temporary Roads constructed for access to proposed treatment stands and associated skid trails for thinning and restoration treatments are known to affect the soil resource primarily through nutrient removal, soil compaction and soil erosion. Nutrient loss is greatest on temporary roads since the surface organic layer and surface soil is removed in the process of construction. Skid trails under a thinning operation usually does not remove organic or soil surface layers leaving nutrients in place. Restoration operations will involve more traffic. Primary skid trails can be expected to remove organic layers and have exposed soils as high as 50 percent. Secondary skid trails can be expected to have loss of organic surface and soil exposure as high as 25 percent. Soil compaction is dependant on soil texture, organic mater, and soil moisture (McKee et al. 1985). Soil compaction effects bulk density. The lower the bulk density range, the greater the impacts to tree growth from soil compaction. Lighter textured soils (sand) have a higher range in bulk density compared to heavier textured soils (clay). Presence of surface organic matter and tree limbs and leaves can buffer soil compaction by providing support to equipment. Soil moisture content has a pronounced effect on soil compaction as it influences soil porosity. Identifying soils by surface texture, maintaining surface organic matter, and operating equipment under low soil moisture conditions will reduce the effects of soil compaction within the general forest and on skid trails used for thinning

52


and restoration operations. Temporary roads will be compacted the greatest from multiple traffic use. Harvest technique can also reduce or increase soil compaction

Figure 3.1- So n -2: Potential il Compactio Thinning

Slight

2000300040005000

esAcr Moderate

01000


Severe

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Slight 1,158 1,158 1,158 555 555

Moderate 4,240 4,240 4,240 3,879 3,879 Severe 245 245 245 235 235

potential. Use of standard logging equipment (skidders) can compact the soil with as fas three passes over the same ground. Specialized equipment that reduces or disperses equipment weight, such as low-pressure tires, can assist with limiting soil compaction effects. Alternative D proposes harvesting using “cut-to-length” methods. This method nvolves using equipment, forwarders, that harvest and load in the

ew

same pass versus a.

action ion

ted under dry conditions that usually occur late summer and early fall. Soil compaction can be expected on temporary roads. All Action Alternatives, except Alternative E, have an equal amount of temporary road mileage proposed, an estimated 87 miles or approximately 126 acres. Alternative E proposes approximately 79 miles of temporary road or approximately 113 acres (refer to Figure 3.1-1 “Vegetation Treatment and Temporary Access”). Application of mitigating measures will assist in reducing the effects of soil compaction over a three to five year period. Full recovery can take as long as 20 years.

iconventional rubber tire skidders that carry each individual tree back to a loading areThe “cut-to-length” process reduces the number of passes or need for secondary andprimary skid trails. The result is a reduced potential for soil compaction. In addition, some forwarders use low pressure tires that can further reduce the potential for soil compaction. This type of system is more conducive to thinning and is restricted to less sloping ground. Operation of a cut-to-length system still needs to be accomplished under low moisture conditions unless equipped with low pressure tires. Alternative A proposes no treatments therefore soil compaction will not result from silvicultural activities. Comparison of alternatives B thru F (refer to Figure 3.1-2 “Potential Soil Compaction – Thinning and Figure 3.1-3 Potential Soil Comp– Restoration”) shows equal potential for soil compaction for thinning and restorattreatments under Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternative E and F have a 17% reducedpotential for soil compaction for thinning due to a reduction in acreage treated. The highest potential for soil compaction occurs in Alternative F for the restoration treatment with Alternative E having the lowest. The majority of the soils have a moderate compaction rating. Operating under seasonally dry soil conditions, usually April thru November, will aide in reducing soil compaction from conventional harvesting equipment within stands. Harvest operations on soils rated as severe need to be conduc

53


010002000300040005000

Acres


Figure 3.1-3: Potential Soil Compaction - Restoration

SlightModerateSevere

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Slight 2,078 2,078 2,078 1,939 2,202

Moderate 4,295 4,295 4,295 3,855 4.656 Severe 1,019 1,019 1,019 977 1,029

Soils susceptible to erosion are those soils exposed to the elements of nature, primarily water from rainfall and landform position where increases in slope steepness increases the erosion hazard. Research observations and many studies (Hewlett, Lull, Reinhart, et al.) on experimental watersheds have shown that soil erosion is a product more by fire and/or mechanical disturbance than the actual harvest of trees. Monitoring of stands that had been clear cut (1988, 1993, and 1994) has found soil exposure to occur primarily on temporary roads and skid trails with minor soil exposure off roads and skid trails. Soil erosion from thinning and restoration operations will be low, occurring on less than 3 percent of the acreage for thinning and 10 percent of the acreage from restoration. Treatment of stands is restricted on sustained slopes exceeding 40 percent using conventional harvesting equipment. Comparison of alternatives B thru F reveals Alternatives B, C, and D having the highest potential for soil erosion with Alternatives E and F having the lowest potential for thinning ( refer to Figure 3.1-4 “Potential Soil Erosion – Thinning”). Comparison of Alternatives B thru F reveals Alternative F having the highest potential for soil erosion for restoration treatment and Alternative E having the lowest potential for soil erosion for restoration treatments (refer to Figure 3.1-5 Potential Soil Erosion – Restoration).

Figure 3. l So hi1-4: Potentia il Erosion - T nning

Slight

0

1000

2000

3000

esAcr Moderate


Severe

Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative F Slight 1,205 1,205 1,205 1.102 1,102

Moderate 1,860 1,860 1,860 1,711 1,711 Severe 2,578 2,578 2,578 2,336 2,336

The primary source of soil erosion is temporary roads for the duration they are in use. All Alternatives (B-F) have equal mileage of temporary roads proposed, an estimated 87 miles or approximately 126 acres (refer to Figure 3.1-1 “Vegetation Treatment and

54


Temporary Access”). Application of mitigating measures will assist in reducing the effects of soil erosion over a two to three year period.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

Acres

Alt. B A Alt. D Alt. F

Figure 3.1-5: Potential Soil Erosion - Restoration

lt. C Alt. E

Slight Moderate Severe


Slight 2,503 2,503 2,503 2,315 2,607 Moderate 2,219 2,219 2,219 1,975 2,367

Severe 2,670 2,670 2,670 2,481 2,912

Herbicide Site Preparation has no known direct or indirect effects on the soil physical and chemical properties. Herbicides may affect soil productivity through biotic impacts, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (Veg. Mgmt. FEIS volume 1, pIV-90). Resulting changes in soil organisms are due more from physical than chemical effects (Mayack and others 1982). Where adverse effects have been observed, herbicide concentrations exceeded those measured under actual operational conditions (Fletcher and Friedman 1986). However, a general consensus is herbicide usage at normal forestry rates does not reduce the activity of soil micro-organisms. There is no evidence to date that herbicides currently in forest management in the South produce any adverse effects on site productivity. Herbicides do not disturb the surface soil. Soil erosion is limited to pre-existing exposed soils that may lose vegetative cover from herbicide use or from mechanical method of application. All action alternatives use a foliar application method. Neary and others (1986) found erosion rates to be less than burning or mechanical forms of site preparation and depending on the quantity of pre-existing bare soil sites, soil erosion was slightly above no treatment (control) plots. Nutrient leaching fter herbicide use has been little studied. Based on nitrate losses found by Neary, Bush,

ys te

aks

is soil

conditions ranged from 12 to 35 days and in soil from 19 to 34 days. Comparison

aand Douglas (1983), nitrogen losses are less than 10 lbs/acre due to suppression of vegetative uptake. Loses of other less mobile nutrients are negligible. Triclopyr (Garlon 4 or equivalent product) is not highly mobile in the soil and is absorbed primarily by plant leaves moving readily throughout the plant. Triclopyr is rapidly broken down by soil organisms and ultraviolet light, persisting an average of 30-56 dadepending on soils and weather. Triclopyr is not strongly absorbed by soil. Glyphospa(not proposed for use) is similar to Triclopyr in that it is a foliar active herbicide with a half-life of 30-60 days depending on soils and weather. Glyphosphate rapidly bredown from soil microbes but is strongly absorbed by soils and ultraviolet light has no affect. Imazapyr (Arsenal or equivalent product) is also not very mobile in soil but active as well as foliar active. Imazapyr has a half-life of 19-34 days. Studies in Alabama (Michael 1986) determined Imazapyr half-life in treated vegetation under field

55


herbicide use by Alternative (refer to Figure 3.1-6 “Site Preparation and Release Treatmentsreveals Alternative F proposing the greatest acr

”) eage for herbicide application followed by

Alternatives B and D. The smallest proposed herbicide use acreage is Alternative E. Alternative C proposes no use of herbicides.

Prescribe burn and site preparation burning has the potential to consume organic matter, change the surface physical properties of the soil, and kill soil biota through soil heating. Loss of organic matter results in loss of nutrients and increases the susceptibility of soil to erosion. Soil heating can affect soil biota and surface soil structure indirectly affecting the soils capacity to absorb water. The potential for negative effects increases with the severity of the burn. Burns that do not consume the entire surface organic layer provide the least potential for effects versus burns that consume the entire surface organic layer and are hot enough to crystallize the soil surface. Research has found that prescribed burning for 20 years in a mature southern pine stand resulted in a small increase in soil pH, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and magnesium in the surface 2-4 inches of mineral soil (Wells et al., 1971). Light burns have positive nitrogen budgets, moderate burns have neutral nitrogen budgets and severe burns have negative nitrogen budgets. Less mobile nutrient losses are negligible (VM EIS IV-93). Stone (1971) has summarized the findings of others and reports that organic matter and nitrogen contents are not reduced by light annual burns; supplies of bases and mineral nutrients are little affected, porosity and infiltration of water are not affected and hydrological effects of burning appear minor on coastal plain soils. Prescribe burning for site preparation, (following burning plans), usually result in slight to moderate intensity burns. These types of burns have the potential to result in slight to moderate soil exposure, which is usually dispersed rather than concentrated. Monitoring of site preparation burns on coastal plain soils, following herbicide treatment, on the Oakmulgee Division, Talladega National Forest (1993) revealed that 80-85 percent or more of the ground cover remained intact after a moderate site preparation burn and that exposed soils were dispersed. Natural re-vegetation occurred within two to three years on exposed soils. Soil erosion is expected to be minimal from the actual burn. Research has found that drastic changes in soil physical properties and removal of forest floor materials sufficient to cause significant increases in erosion rates can be expected from severe fires or on sites where the combination of slope, soil and rainfall pose high risk. Severe burns can result in serious erosion resulting from large areas of exposed soils. Soil texture and surface properties are not affected by slight to moderate burns. Slight to moderate burns usually do not affect organic matter but surface litter and duff can be partially or totally consumed. Severe burns can consume organic matter and alter the soil physical properties. Alteration of soil physical properties can result in loss of soil porosity, water holding capacity, and infiltration. Soil biota can be destroyed. Robichaud (1994) compared low intensity and high intensity site preparation burns in relation to surface runoff and sediment yields. Low intensity burns on an average 30 percent slope where litter moisture was above 50 percent found surface runoff and sediment yield to be very low as a result of sufficient surface litter remaining after the burn thus protecting the soil surface from erosion. The high intensity burns on an average 30 percent slope with very low litter moisture (less than 6 percent) found 96 percent litter lost and 76 percent of the humus layer was lost resulting in soil exposure greater than 75 percent. The result was a 5 fold increase in surface runoff and a 4 fold increase in sediment yield. A high risk from

56


soil erosion occurs on constructed fire lines where soil exposure is usually necessary tmaintain control of the fire.

o

0

2000

4000

6000

8000


Figure: 3.1-6: Site Preparation and Release Treatments

HerbicideBurnRolling ChopperShear and RakeRelease/HandtoolsRelease HerbicideRelease/Burn

Comparison of burns by alternative (refer to Figure 3.1-6 - “Site Preparation and Release Treatments”) reveals Alternative F to have the greatest acreage of proppreparation burning. Alternatives B and D are equal in acreage amounts proposed and approximately 6 percent less than Alternative F. Alternative E proposes approximate14 percent acres less scheduled for site preparation burn than Alternative F. AlternatC proposes the least amount of acres scheduled for site preparation burn at 334 acres or 96 percent less than Alternative F. Alternative C also proposes a release burn approximately three years after planting trees. The acreage is equal to AlternativD. No site preparation burning occurs under Alternative A. All alternatives propose prescribe burning. Projecting over an 8 year period beginning in 2004, the lowest acreage proposed to burn is approximately 16,500 acres in 2008 with a high of approximately 29,500 acres proposed in 2010. Implementation of standards for erosion control on fire lines will mitigate soil erosion. Following standards and prescribe burn plans will avoid severe burns.

Mechanical site preparation, use of a rolling drum chopper and the use of a shearing with piling debris are the only mechanical forms of site preparation proposed. Use of a rolling drum chopper is known to affect the soil resource primarily through soil compaction and soil erosion. Soil compaction is minimal if soil moisture is low and theris presence of surface debris a

Site Prep/Release Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Al

osed site

ly ive

es B and

e nd/or organic matter. The action of the chopper blade

reating shallow indentations also assists in reducing soil compaction by breaking up the top few inches of soil. The chopper indentations also assist with water infiltration reducing soil erosion potential from rainfall runoff. Soil erosion is also expected to be

t F Herbicide 7,393 0 7,393 6,772 7,887 Burn 7,393 334 7,393 6,772 7,887 Drum Chopper 0 5,390 0 0 0 Shear/Rake 0 1,078 0 0 0 Release/Handtools 0 7,393 0 0 0 Release/Herbicide 7,393 0 7,393 6,076 7,887 Release/Burn 0 7,393 0 0 0

c

57


m all, scattered areas of exposed soils, usually a result from the e ) when . Mechanical site preparation usin blade t r vegetation d then pile it into windrows can have minimal to s ere effe the soil resource. The shear and pile site p involves ng the s egetative debris ( .) followe ushing a into a longand continuous pile known as a windrow. and others scribe this m od as

are used to

and

ed, in the form of a standard and guideline, to sustained slopes of less than 6 percent to reduce the potential for erosion.

e

inimal due to sm(dozerquipment making turns

g a o shea anev cts on

reparation method scrd by

api oil surface and cutting vstumps, brush, etc p nd piling soil and vegetative

Browndebris

eth

deusing a D-6 dozer or larger equipped with a blade used to concentrate logging debris into rows resulting in the soil surface commonly disturbed with 8-19 inches of soil deliberately scalped away. This results in soil and organic matter loss and high soil compaction possible. Neary and others have found that the movement of slash and soil into windrows results in displacement of large amounts of nutrients. The nutrients, although still on the site and not lost, are not available to most of the trees planted or natural vegetation. Shear and pile site preparation on the Conecuh National Forest has been developed to minimize loss of soil and organic matter. Small size dozers reduce the distance debris can be pushed into windrows, the operator is monitored to be sure the blade is not placed on the ground to protect the organic layer and the soil, andsoil moisture conditions are low to minimize soil compaction. Monitoring of shearpile site preparation treatments on the Conecuh National Forest (1995) revealed soil exposure immediately after treatment ranged from 26 to 33 percent. After one year, soil exposure averaged 6 to 12 percent indicating a rapid vegetative response. Use of this form of site preparation is limit

Additional discussion of direct, indirect and cumulative effects from herbicides, prescribed burns and mechanical methods to soil productivity are presented in thVegetative Management-Final Environmental Impact Statement (VM-FEIS).

Figure 3.1-7: Alternative C - Mechanical Site Preparation Soil - Slope Suitability

010002000Acres 300040005000

Shear/Rake DrumChopper

Slope = 8% or less Slope = 8% or greaterSlope = 30% or less Slope = 30% or greater

Shear and Rake Rolling Drum Chopper Slope = 8% or less 323 Slope = 8% or greater 821 Slope = 30% or less 4,634 Slope = 30% or greater 1,280

58


Alternative C is the only alternative to propose use of mechanical site preparation. (refer to Figure 3.1-7 - “Alternative C – Mechanical Site Preparation Soil-Slope Suitability). Severe soil erosion will occur on slopes greater than 30 percent using a drum chopper as a result of equipment slippage and sliding resulting in exposed soilsShear and rake is limited to slopes 5 percent (5%) or less by current Forest Plan standards. Shear and rake will not occur on an estimated 821 acres. This standard limiting slope was developed to prevent moderate to severe erosion potential.

.

Release tential

eforestation by hand planting is proposed. Hand planting of trees has no potential for direct/indirect impacts to the soil resource.

Burn Release used to control plant species that compete with featured plant species will be a light burn and similar to prescribed burns and not site preparation burns. This form of burn requires low intensity fire so as not to consume the young featured vegetation. Effects of burning are discussed under the section titled “Prescribe burn and site preparation burning”.

Hand tool release, similar to impacts used for site preparation, has no potential for direct/indirect impacts to the soil resource.

Herbicide Release effects are discussed under the section entitled “Herbicide Site reparation”.

rnative l

me

Alternative B

preparation, restored stands are

16,500 to 2 500 acres per e years 200 tial for soil erosion is of concern on temporary roads, site preparation burns on slopes exceeding 20 p The pote for soil compaction is of concern on soils rated as moderate during wet soil conditions and soil rated as severe during moist to wet soil

mitigating standand reducing the potential for soil erosion to

Hand tool use for site preparation (refer to Figure 3.1-6 - Site Preparation andTreatments) is also proposed. The use of hand tools for site preparation has no pofor direct/indirect impacts to the soil resource. R

P

Alternative A (No Action) Effects to the soil resource are a result of ground disturbing activities. This alteproposes no new ground disturbing activities. The current prescribe burn program wilcontinue at a rate of 16,500 to 29,500 acres per year from 2004 thru 2012.. The currentinfluences of Southern Pine Beetle infestations can be expected to continue to sodegree.

This alternative proposes activities on 5,644 acres of thinning; 7,393 acres of restoration and 87 miles of temporary roads providing access. Site preparation associated with restoration is as follows: herbicide treatment on 7,393 acres and site preparation burn on

,393 acres. Two to three years after initial site7scheduled for a release with chemical on 7,393 acres. Planting trees will occur on 7,393 acres. The current prescribed burn program will continue at a rate of approximately

conditions. Application and maint nance ofminimizing impacts from soil compaction a

9, year between th 4 and 2012. The poten

ercent, and fire lines. ntial

e rds should result in

59


occur. Application and maintenance of soil standards are expected to maintain soil productivity. Alternative C (No Herbicide) This alternative proposes activities on 5,644 acres of thinning; 7,393 acres of restoration and 87 miles of temporary roads providing access. Site preparation associated with

s,

d burning on 7,393 acres.

. The potential for soil erosion is of concern on temporary roads, drum paration on slopes exceeding 30 percent, and site

ly

ult in

ng impacts from soil compaction and reducing the potential for soil erosion to ion and maintenance of soil standards are expected to maintain soil

20

cern on soils rated as moderate during wet soil conditions and soil rated as The use of the “cut-to-length” system under

ts

n

restoration is as follows: site preparation burn on 334 acres, drum chop on 5,390 acreand shear and rake on 1,078 acres. Two to three years after initial site preparation, restored stands are scheduled release involving hand tools anPlanting tree will occur on 7,393 acres. The current prescribed burn program will continue at a rate of approximately 16,500 to 29,500 acres per yea between the years 2004 and 2012chopping mechanical site prepreparation burns on slopes exceeding 20 percent, and fire lines. Shear and rake can onoccur on slopes less than 6 percent. Soil erosion resulting from shear and rake is not expected to be moderate or severe. The potential for soil compaction is of concern on soils rated as moderate during wet soil conditions and soil rated as severe during moist towet soil conditions. Application and maintenance of mitigating standards should res

inimizimoccur. Applicatproductivity. Alternative D (cut-to-length) This alternative proposes activities on 5,644 acres of thinning; 7,393 acres of restoration and 87 miles of temporary roads providing access. Site preparation associated with restoration is as follows: herbicide treatment on 7,393 acres and site preparation burn on 7,393 acres. Two to three years after initial site preparation, restored stands are scheduled for a release with herbicide on 7,393 acres. Planting tree will occur on 7,393 acres. The current prescribed burn program will continue at a rate of approximately 16,500 to 29,500 acres per year between the years 2004 and 2012. The potential for soilerosion is of concern on temporary roads, site preparation burns on slopes exceeding percent, and fire lines. The “cut-to-length” harvesting process is featured under this alternative. This harvesting system provides a high potential for limiting the area of soilcompaction. Depending on the equipment set-up, the potential for soil compaction remains a consevere during moist to wet soil conditions. this alternative provides for the least impacts to the soil resource than the other action alternatives by reducing the potential for soil compaction and in-directly to soil erosion. Application and maintenance of mitigating standards should result in minimizing impacfrom soil compaction and reducing the potential for soil erosion to occur. Application and maintenance of soil standards are expected to maintain soil productivity. Alternative E This alternative proposes activities on 5,150 acres of thinning; 6,076 acres of restoratioand 79 miles of temporary roads providing access. Site preparation associated with restoration is as follows: site preparation burn on 6,772 acres and herbicide on 6,772 acres. Two to three years after initial site preparation, restored stands are scheduled for a release with herbicide on 6,076 acres. Planting trees will occur on 6,076 acres. The

60


current prescribed burn program will continue at a rate of approximately 16,500 to 29,500 acres per year between the years 2004 and 2012. The potential for soil erosion is of concern on temporary roads, site preparation burns on slopes exceeding 20 percent, and fire lines. The potential for soil compaction is of concern on soils rated as moderateduring wet soil conditions and soil rated as severe during moist to wet soil conditionApplication an

s.

d maintenance of mitigating standards should result in minimizing impacts om soil compaction and reducing the potential for soil erosion to occur. Application

ds are expected to maintain soil productivity.

ith

or a

n is

rate

s

erial generated by timber activities or mechanical fuel treatments (slash) is

efer to Section 3.2.4 (mitigation measures under the water section) for additional ures that provide protection to both soil and water resources.

ls

soil

frand maintenance of soil standar Alternative F This alternative proposes activities on 5,150 acres of thinning; 7,887 acres of restoration and 87 miles of temporary roads providing access. Site preparation associated wrestoration is as follows: site preparation burn on 7,887 acres and herbicide on 7,887 acres. Two to three years after initial site preparation, restored stands are scheduled frelease with herbicide on 7,887 acres. Planting trees will occur on 6,076 acres. The current prescribed burn program will continue at a rate of approximately 16,500 to 29,500 acres per year between the years 2004 and 2012. The potential for soil erosioof concern on temporary roads, site preparation burns on slopes exceeding 20 percent, and fire lines. The potential for soil compaction is of concern on soils rated as modeduring wet soil conditions and soil rated as severe during moist to wet soil conditions. Application and maintenance of mitigating standards should result in minimizing impactfrom soil compaction and reducing the potential for soil erosion to occur. Application and maintenance of soil standards are expected to maintain soil productivity. 3.1.4: Mitigation Measures

imber harvesting with conventional equipment is limited to slopes less than 40 percent T

Burning of matdone so it does not consume all liter and duff and does not alter the structure and color of mineral soil on more than 20 percent of the area.

Soils with a moderate to severe soil compaction ratings will operate mechanical site preparation treatments when soils are dry. Soils are considered dry when rutting and/or equipment slippage is minimal.

Mechanical site preparation in the form of a rolling drum chopper will be restricted to areas with slopes less than 30 percent.

Shear and rake site preparation methods are to be avoided on sustained slopes exceeding 5 percent. Proposals for shear and rake site preparation methods on sustained slopes exceeding 5 percent will be reviewed by the Forest Soil Scientist. Decisions will be based on Forest Soil Scientist recommendations.

Rmitigation meas 3.1.5: Cumulative Effects (Soil) Cumulative effects are changes in soil productivity. Research concludes that most soicould replace the nutrients in a harvested area without a long-term decrease in soil productivity (Grier et al., Jorgensen and Wells, Pritchett and Fisher). Comparison for

61


compaction hazard rating results in minor difference for thinning and restoration betaction alternatives B, E and F. Alternative C has the greatest potential for soil compaction resulting from use of heavy equipment during site preparation. Alternativehas the least potential for soil compaction resulting from use of the “cut-to-length” harvest system. Cumulative effects of soil compaction from thinning operations are notexpected on 21 percent of the acreage (slight hazard rating) for Alternatives B, C, and D. Cumulative effects of soil compaction from thinning operations are not expected on 12 percent of the acreage (slight hazard rating) for Alternatives E and F. Cumula

ween

D

tive effects f soil compaction from restoration operations are not expected on 26 to 28 percent of the

action alternatives. Approximately 58 percent of the

g decks, and temporary roads. On y

aration. Alternative D provides reduced potential for

porary roads involving scarifying the

the

g and ion are not

inned and 34 percent of the acreage to be ion alternatives. Approximately 30 t 33 percent

e

rary roads

or

e By

oacreage (slight hazard rating) for allacreage (moderate hazard rating) under thinning and restoration operations can expect some soil compaction primarily on skid trails, loading decks, and temporary roads. Approximately 5 percent of the acreage under thinning operations and 14 percent of the acreage under restoration operations (severe hazard rating) can expect severe soil compaction generally located on skid trails, loadinaverage, 10 percent or less acreage consists of skid trials, loading decks and temporarroads. They are usually used again upon re-entry to the stand for future management needs. Alternative C provides for the greatest potential for soil compaction resulting from use of mechanical site prepsoil compaction compared to the other action alternatives. Application of mitigating measures to skid trails, loading decks, and temground, fertilizing, and planting grasses will aid in reducing the effects from soil compaction over a 2 to 3 year period as vegetation is established. Effects from soil compaction, particularly on temporary roads, are not expected to fully recover due to expectation of being used again with future entry for vegetative management. Comparison for soil erosion hazard rating results in very little difference for thinninrestoration between the action alternatives. Cumulative effects from soil erosexpected on 22 percent of the acreage to be threstored (slight hazard rating) for all actof the acreage under thinning and restoration has the potential for moderate soil erosion primarily located on temporary roads, skid trails and site preparation burn sites. Thpotential for severe erosion exists on approximately 45 percent of the acreage under thinning operations and 36 percent of the acreage under restoration operations for all action alternatives. Severe erosion potential is primarily associated with tempoand skid trails. Alternative C provides for the greatest potential for soil erosion resulting from use of mechanical site preparation. Alternative D provides reduced potential fsoil erosion compared to the other action alternatives. Application of mitigating measures will be needed to assist with reducing soil erosion. Soil erosion is expected to last from 2 to 3 years. Erosion values were determined using a sediment model developed by Alan Clingenpeel and is discussed under section 3.2.5 Cumulative Effects (Water). Results of the model, displaying soil erosion increases in percent above baseline for all alternatives, are displayed below (refer to Figure 3.1-8 – Average Soil Erosion Potential Increase over BaselinAlternative”). Alternative 1 does not propose any actions. The slight increase in potentialsoil erosion is based on the 2001 and 2002 Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) activity.

62


0100200300

Percent

Alt. A Alt.B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. FAlternatives

Figure 3.1-8: Average Soil Erosion Potential Increase Over Baseline by Alternative

Based on SPB activity, it is projected that an average 136 acres per year over five years will be affected by SPB requiring some form of treatment. Over the five-year period, a total of 680 acres may require treatment for SPB infestation. Treatment assumes harvesting, (cut and remove), and cut and leave methods. This type of activity would involve providing access through use of temporary roads, skid trails, and loading decks plus possible associated site preparation equivalent to proposed site preparation underAlternatives B thru F. Based on this assumption, selection of Alternative A (No Actiohas the potential for effects to the soil resource in the form of soil compaction and soil erosion comparable to Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F but at a much reduced acreage amount. A second assumption is selecting one of the action alternatives (B-F) will provide treatments to reduce/prevent SPB infestations that are projected to occur underAlternative A

umulative effects to th

n)

e soil resource from implementation of one of the action

t

thods will be developed and implemented.

Calternatives peaks in 2005 and is expected to continue thru 2010. Alternative E has the lowest potential for cumulative effects compared to alternatives B, C, D, and F resulting from reduced acres of thinning and restoration proposed. Alternative D, although proposes more acres of thinning and restoration than Alternative E, can be considered having less cumulative effects to the soil resource similar to Alternative E as a result of implementing the “cut-to-length” harvest operation. Alternative C poses the greatest risk

the soil resource. to No long-term loss of soil productivity is expected. No permanent roads or other permanent facilities are planned under any action alternative. Short-term soil loss is expected on temporary roads, areas of site preparation burn, and fire lines. 3.1.6: Monitoring The proposed project area will be monitored for compliance with Forest standards (BesManagement Practices) in accordance with the current Forest Land Management Plan. During vegetation operations, roads and skid trails account for more than 95 percent of the effects to soil productivity followed by site preparation which accounts for approximately 3 percent of the effects on soil productivity. An implementation and effectiveness monitoring plan of Forest standards (BMPs) for roads, skid trails, and site preparation me

63


Participant’s Biography Arthur J. Goddard, Forest Soil Scientist - B.S. Soil Science, University of Georgia, 1977M.S. Soil Science, University of Georgia, 1979 References Brown, Charles J. and C. Phillip Weatherspoon. 1990. Sustaining site productivity on forestlands: a user’s guide to good soil management. Division of Agriculture and Natural

esource; University

of California. Publication 21481: 13-18.

p.

2-4-5-T, and mposition. Can. J. For. Res. 16:6-9.

t

osium; 1971 April 14-16; harleston, S.C. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville,

heds. Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxical. 1:209-217.

rest weed control. Final Rep. Auburn, AL: U. S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., South. For.

eary, D. G.; Bush, P. B. Douglass, J. E. 1983. Offsite movement of hezazinone in

. Manage. 14:23-40.

t 24

R Bureau of Chemistry and Soils. 1937. Soil survey of Winston County, Alabama. 31

letcher, K. and Friedman, B. 1986. Effects of the herbicide glyphosphate, F2-4-D on forest litter co Grier, Charles C., Katherine M. Lee, Nalini M. Nadkarni, , Glen O. Klock, and Paul J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of forests of the United States and its relation to soil site factors and management practices; a review. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific NorthwesResearch Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-222 51p. Jorgensen, J.R. and C.S. Hodges, Jr. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on the microbial characteristics of soil. In: Proceedings of a SympCN.C. 1971: 68-76. Mayack, D. T.; Bush, P. B.; Neary, D. G.; Douglas, J. E. 1982. Impact of hexazinone on invertebrates after application to forested waters1 McKee, Jr. W.H., G. E. Hatchell and A. E. Tiarks. 1985. Managing site damage from logging. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Experiment Station Gen. Tech. Report SE-32. 21p. Michael, J. L. 1986. Fate of arsenal in forested watersheds after aerial application for foExp. Stn. Nstormflow and baseflow from forested watersheds. Weed Sci. 31:543-551. Neary, D. G.; Bush, P. B.; and Grant M. A. 1986. Water quality of ephemeral forest streams after site preparation with herbicide hexazinone. For. Ecol Neary, D. G.; L. A. Morris, and B. F. Swindel. 1985. Site preparation and nutrienmanagement in southern pine forests. Southfornet monthly alert Jan. 1986; item 183; p.

64


Pritchett W. L. and Richard E. Fisher. 1979. Properties and Management of Forest Soils.John Wiley and Sons. 500p.

alston, Charles W. and Glyndon E. Hatchell. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on

76-84

Association, Volume 30, No. 1: 27-34.

rleston, S.C. SDA For. Ser. Southeastern Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. 1971: 115-127

anagement in the Appalachian Mountains. Volume 1. 89-91

ntic coastal plain soils. Report FS-6200-7. 26p.

port of the President’s Advisory on Timber and the nvironment – April 1073. 40p.

eports

SDA Soil Conservation Service. 1972. Soil Survey of Chilton County, Alabama. 82p.

1p.

SDA Soil Conservation Service. 2001. “Internal Draft” Soil Survey of Hale County,

88p.

loosa County, Alabama. 18p.

oil chemical properties and nutrient vailability. In: Proceedings of a Symposium; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, S.C.

Rphysical properties of soil. In: Proceedings of a Symposium; 1971 April 14-16; Charelston, S.C. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. 1971: Robichaud, P. R. and T. A. Waldrop. Feb. 1994. A comparison of surface runoff and sediment yields from low and high severity site preparation burns. American Waters Resources Stone, Jr., Earl L. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on long-term productivity of coastal plain soils. In: Proceedings of a Symposium; 1971 April 14-16; ChaU USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final environmental impact statement vegetation m ____. 1973. Impact of soil compaction on the long term productivity of piedmont and atla ____. Hewlett, Lull, Reinhart, et al. 1977. The impact of timber harvest on soils and water. Reprinted from the ReE USDA National Forests in Alabama. 1988, 1993, 1994. Watershed monitoring ron file at Supervisor’s Office. U USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1979. Soil Survey of Dallas County, Alabama. 13 UAlabama. 46p. USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey of Perry County, Alabama. 1 USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Soil Survey of Tusca1 Wells, C.G. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on saUSDA For. Ser. Southeastern Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. 1971: 86-89

65


3.2: Water Quality 3.2.1: Issues

he major issue related to water quality raised during scoping with USDA Forest Service Temployees and the public, were concerns of the effects of sedimentation on water quality rom proposed activities. The proposed activities of concern were thinning, restoration, f

site preparation, temporary roads, prescribed fire and cumulative effects.

.2.2: Affecte3 d Environment

reek, Big Sandy Creek and Fivemile Creek are in the Black Warrior Basin. Proposed

n the headwaters) and will not be addressed in detail. Specific information on the

The proposed management activities will take place within six 5th level watersheds. ffonee Creek and Cahaba River are within the Cahaba Basin, Elliots Creek, Big Brush A

Cactivities within the Cahaba River Watershed and the Big Brush Creek Watershed were addressed in the analysis and process record and found to be minimal (less than thirty cres ia

relationship between Basins and 4th and 5th level HUCS as well as ownership are found in Figure 3.2-1 below.)

Figure 3.2-1: Basins and 4th and 5th level HUCS

MGTAREA BASIN HUC4 Name HUC4 HUC5 NAME HUC5 FSOWN PVTOWN ACRES

OK Cahaba Cahaba 03150202 Affonee Creek 03150202120 24.00% 76.00% 96,969

OK Black Warrior Lower Black Warrior 03160113 Elliotts Creek 03160113060 40.35% 59.65% 23,583

OK Black Warrior Lower Black Warrior 03160113 Big Brush Creek 03160113120 1.66% 98.34% 127,046

OK Black Warrior Lower Black Warrior 03160113 Big Sandy Creek 03160113030 30.10% 69.90% 113,246

OK Black Warrior Lower Black Warrior 03160113 Fivemile Creek 03160113090 26.52% 73.48% 70,655

OK Cahaba Cahaba 03150202 Cahaba River 03150202140 10.52% 89.48% 93,011

66


Figure 3.3-2: Map of the Watersheds within the Affected Environment

The Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District is well-forested as reflected in the land-use patterns of the watersheds. Forest cover is the predominant land use with greater than 80 to 94 percent forested. Agriculture was the next leading land use practice

67


5 to 19 percent with urbanization (which includes commercial and industrial areas) a distant e Oakmulgee District is typically high. The second highest state use designation, Outstanding Alabama Water, was applied to Affonee Creek and Cahaba Creek Watersheds. Point sources of pollution are downstream of National Forest lands and are relatively unaffected by Forest Service management. None of the affected watersheds being studied have any form of surface Public Water Supply. The only stream listed as impaired in the affected watersheds is a portion of the Cahaba River (from Hwy 82 bridge northward) in the Affonee Creek Watershed. The impairments to this stream are nutrients and habitat alteration from upstream influences, particularly municipal, land development and storm sewers with no impairments from Forest Service Lands. (Kopaska-Merkel and Moore, 2000.) ADEM’s designated uses can be found in Figure 3.2-3.

third, 1 to 3 percent. The quality of the waters flowing from this portion of th

Figure 3.2-3: Alabama Department of Environment Management Water Use Designations

Mgt Area Basin 5th HUC Name Stream Classification

OK Cahaba River 0315020212 Affonee Creek Affonee Creek S

OK Cahaba River 0315020212 Affonee Creek Blue Outtee Creek S

OK Cahaba River 0315020212 Affonee Creek Cahaba River OAW/S

OK Cahaba River 0315020214 Cahaba River Cahaba River OAW/S

OK Warrior River 0316011306 Elliotts Creek Elliotts Creek F&W

OK Warrior River 0316011309 Fivemile Creek Five Mile Creek F&W

OK Warrior River 0316011309 Fivemile Creek Payne Lake S OAW - Outstanding Alabama Water PWS –Public Water Supply S – Swimming and Other Whole Body Water – Contact Sports F&W – Fish and Wildlife

3.2.3: Environmental Effects Silvicultural practices (restoration and thinning) are known to potentially affect water quality, water quantity, channel morphology, and downstream designated uses. Thinning to restore and mimic longleaf structure and longleaf restoration cuts have the potential to cause the following direct effects: erosion, changes in ground cover condition, and changes in stand composition of streamside forest communities (Golden et al., 1984: Ursic, 1991; Belt et al., 1992; Brown and Binkley, 1994). Indirect effects could include sedimentation, changes in stream nutrient levels (particularly nitrates) increases in water yield, and changes in stream flow behavior (Golden et al., 1984; Brown and Binkley, 1994). A comparison of Alternatives obviously reveals that the No Action Alternative, Alternatives A has the least impact from thinning activities, Alternatives E and F have the lowest potential and Alternatives B, C, and D have the highest potential. An additional mitigation method is proposed in Alternative th method

D, cut-to-length. The cut-to-lengmitigates some of the erosion caused by skidding and cuts down on the number of skidder trails. Alternative D with this additional mitigation measure should have the

68


lowest potential for impacts although it is not indicated as such in the following chart.(See Figure 3.2-4.)

0100020003000400050006000

Acres

A B C D E F

Fi

Alternatives

gure 3.2-4: Thinning to Restore and Mimic Longleaf Structure

A compar have some potential for impacts from s B, C, D, E, and F. Elliotts Creek d sh e low ial for impacts while Affonee Creek and Big Sandy Creek show the highest potential for im

ison of Alternatives by ur 5 watersheds reveals that fo

thinning und r Alternativeth level watersheds

e Watershe ows th est potent

pacts. (See Figure 3.2-5)

Figu hinnre 3.2-5: T ing to Res itore and M mic Longleaf Structure -by W

1000.

Watershed

Acr

es

atershed

2500.0

2000.0

1500.0

0

500.0

0.0

Alternative A 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alternative B 2317.1 159.0 954.9 2194.4

Alternative C 2317.1 159.0 954.9 2194.4

Alternative D 2317.1 159.0 954.9 2194.4

Alternative E 2073.3 157.3 797.9 2114.4

Alternative F 2073 3 157 3 797 9 2114 4

Affonee Elliotts Fivemile Sandy

A comparison of Alternatives obviously reveals that the No Action Alternative, Alternative A has the least impact from restoration cuts. Alternative F shows the greatest potential for impacts and Alternative E shows the lowest potential for impacts. Alternatives B, C, and D show equal potential for impacts, although Alternative D, the cut-to-length alternative should have a lower potential for impacts. (See Figure 3.2-6)

69


02000

4000Acres60008000

A B C D E F

lternativesA

Figure 3.2-6: Restoration Cuts - Acres

A comparison of Alternatives by watershed reveals that 4 watersheds have some potential for impacts from restoration cutting under all the Action Alternatives. Elliotts Creek Watershed shows the least potential for impacts while Big Sandy Creek Watershed shows the highest potential for impacts. Affonee Creek Watershed has the next highest potential for impacts, followed by Fivemile Creek Watershed. (See Figure 3.2-7)

Figure: 3.2-7: Restoration Cuts by Watershed

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Acr

es


Alternative B 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative C 1869.1 114 1764.9 2576.71.8

Alternative D 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative E 1628.6 721.8 1620.5 2103.8

Alternative F 2112.9 1143.5 1921.9 2656.7

Watershed


emporary roads associated with thinning and restoration cuts are also known to

ill

Alternative D has the potential for fewer impacts, due to its cut-to-length system. (See Figure 3.2-8)

Tpotentially affect water quality, water quantity, channel morphology, and downstream designated uses. State Best Management Practices as well as Forest-Wide standards wbe applied to these roads as mitigation measures. Here again the No Action Alternative will have the least impact because there will be no silivacultural activities therefore no roads. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F have the same potential for impact.

70


020406080

100

Miles

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-8: Temporary Roads

A comparison of Alternatives by watersheds reveals that all 5th level watersheds have some potential for impacts from temporary roads under Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F. Elliotts Creek Watershed shows the lowest potential for impacts, while the Big Sandy Creek Watershed has the highest potential, followed closely by the Affonee Creek Watershed. (See Figure 3.2-9)

Figure 3.2-9: Temporary Roads by Watershed

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mile

s

Watershed

Alternative A 0 0 0 0

Alternative B 27.05 9 17.95 31.5

Alternative C 27.05 9 17.95 31.5

Alternative D 27.05 9 17.95 31.5

Alternative E 27.05 9 17.95 31.5

Alternative F 27.05 9 17.95 31.5


Water pollution by a herbicide can occur during storage, transport, application, clean up and/or container disposal. Direct effects of herbicide application are potential chemical contamination of surface and ground waters (Michael and Neary, 1993: VM EIS IV-103). Indirect effects are potential increases in sediment and water yield (VM EIS IV-103). Slight increases in stream nutrients, particularly nitrates (Neary et al., 1993), may also occur as an indirect effect. Herbicide applications are proposed in three ways, site prep, release, and mid-story control. Alternatives A and C have no proposed herbicide applications, therefore no potential effects. Alternatives B, D, E, and F do have proposed herbicide application, therefore there are potential impacts. The use of herbicides for site preparation and release show the highest potential for effects in Alternative F, Alternatives B and D are next highest, and Alternative E follows close behind.

71


Alternatives A and C have no proposed herbicide applications for Mid-story control. Alternatives B, D, and E have proposed applications of herbicides for Mid-story control but the potential for impacts is consistent across alternatives. (See Figures 3.2-10a-c)

02000

400060008000

Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-10a: Site Preperation Using Herbicide

Figure 3.2-10b: Release Using Herbicide

02000

4000Acres60008000

A B C D E F

Alternatives

0500

1000150020002500

Acres

A B C D E F

Figure 3.2-10c: Mid-story Control Using Herbicide

Alternatives

A comparison of the Alternatives by watershed reveals that 4 watersheds have potential impacts from herbicide use for site preparation and release under Alternatives B, D, E, and F. The Big Sandy Creek Watershed has the highest potential for impacts. The Elliotts Creek Watershed has the lowest potential for impact. The Affonee Creek Watershed shows the highest potential for impacts from Mid-story control using herbicides. The Elliotts Creek Watershed shows the lowest potential for impacts from Mid-story control using herbicides. (See Figures 3.2-11a-b)

72


Figure 3.2-11a: Site Preparation and Release: Herbicide by Watershed

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

Watershed

Acr

es


Alternative B 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative C 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alternative D 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative E 1628.6 721.8 1620.5 2103.8

Alternative F 2112.9 1143.5 1921.9 2656.7


Figure 3.2-11b: Mid-story Herbicide by Watershed

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

Watershed

Acr

es

800.0

1000.0

1200.0


Alternative B 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3


Alternative D 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3

Alternative E 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3

Alternative F 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3


Site preparation, release, mid-story control and/or prescribed burns are used under all alternatives except Alternative A. Alternative B, C, D, E, and F would have site preparation and prescribed. In addition Alternative C would have release and mid-story control burn. Prescribed, mid-story control and release burns are generally of low

73


intensity while site preparation burns are generally of high intensity. Direct effects from prescribed burning and under burns are potential changes in ground cover and increase in the hydrophobicity (water repellency) of a soil as well as erosion from plowed fire lines (VM EIS, Appendix B; Shahlaee et al., 1991). The severity of indirect effects depends on the intensity of the fire. Indirect effects are potential increase in sediment, storm flows and nutrient levels in the water column (VM EIS, IV-114). Site preparation burns show the greatest potential for impact under Alternative F. Alternative C has the least potential for impacts from site preparation burns of all the Action Alternatives. The potential for impacts from prescribed burns stays static across all the Action Alternatives. Release and mid-story control burns are proposed only under Alternative C. Therefore this is the only alternative with potential for impacts from these actions. (See Figure 3.2-12, Figure 3.2-13, Figure 3.2-14, and Figure 3.2-15.)

02000400060008000

Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-12: Site Preparation Burns

Figure 3.2-13: P escribed Burnsr

050000

100000150000Acres200000250000

A B C D E F

Alternatives

02000400060008000

Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-14:Release Burns

74


0500

1000150020002500

Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-15: Mid-story Control: Burns

A comparison of burns by watershed reveals that site preparation, release, mid-story control and prescribed burns are proposed in four watersheds. Site preparation, release and prescribed burns show the highest potential for impacts in the Big Sandy Creek Watershed. Affonee Creek Watershed shows the highest potential for impacts when mid-story control burns are used. (See Figure 3.2-16, Figure 3.2-17, Figure 3.2-18, and Figure 3.2-19)

Figure 3.2-16: Site Preparation: Burn by Watershed

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Watershed

Acr

es


Alternative B 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative C 0.0 1.1 0.0 332.5

Alternative D 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative E 1628.6 721.8 1620.5 2103.8

Alternative F 2112.9 1143.5 1921.9 2656.7


75


Figure 3.2-17: Prescribed Burns by Watershed

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

100000

Acr

es

0

10000

Watershed

Alternative A 0 0 0 0

Alternative B 71298 36922 23152 89753

Alternative C 71298 36922 23152 89753

Alternative D 71298 36922 23152 89753

Alternative E 71298 36922 23152 89753

Alternative F 71298 36922 23152 89753

Affonee Fivemile Elliotts Sandy

Figure 3.2-18: Release: Burns by Watershed

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Watershed

Acr

es


Alternative B 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alternative C 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alternative E 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Alternative F 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


76


Figure 3.2-19: Midstory Control: Burn by Watershed

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

Acr

es

0.0

200.0

400.0

Watershed



Alternative C 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3





The use of hand tools for release and mid-story control is proposed in some areas. The use of hand tools to aid in the release of desirable species would have very little potential or impacting water quality. The use of hand tools for release is only proposed in f

Alternative C. Under Alternative C the Big Sandy Creek Watershed shows the greatest potential for impacts from the use of hand tools for release. Hand tools are used for mid-story control in Alternatives B, D, E, and F, all alternatives have an equal potential for impacts. The Affonee Creek Watershed has the greatest potential for impacts when hand tools are used for mid-story control, closely followed by The Big Sandy Creek Watershed. (See Figure 3.2-20, Figure 3.2-21, Figure 3.2-22, and Figure 3.2-23)

02000

400060008000

Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-20: Release Using Hand Tools

77


0500

1000150020002500

Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

Figure 3.2-21: Mid-story Control: Hand Tools

Figure 3.2-22: Release: Hand Tools by Watershed

0.0

500.0

1000.0

Watershed

1500.0

2000.0

2500.0

3000.0

Acr

es



Alternative C 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7





78


Figure 3.2-23: Mid-story: Hand Tools by Watershed

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

Acr

es

200.0

0.0

Watershed


Alternative B 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3


Alternative D 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3

Alternative E 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3

Alternative F 1035.9 84.9 304.6 988.3


Drum chopping and shear and rake are proposed for site preparation under Alternative C. Direct effects from heavy mechanical site preparation (drum chopping, shear and rake)are potential changes in ground cover, increased exposure of soil, surface soil compaction

nd exp

osure of subsurface soil layers as a result of shearing operation , )

from equipment a(Blackburn et al., 1985). Indirect effects are potential increases in sediment, storm flowsnutrient levels in the water column and surface storage of runoff water. (VM EIS IV-112The drum chopping proposed under Alternative C should have little impact on water quality, although it has higher erosion coefficients than does some other site preparation methods. Shear and rake site preparation has the highest erosion coefficients of any of the site preparation methods and should not be used on slopes greater than five percent. (See Figure 3.2-24 a-b Acres Mechanical Site Preparation)

Figure 3.2-24

0500

1000150020002500

Acres

3000

1 2 3 4 5 6

Alternatives

a: Mechanical Site Preparation - Drum Chopping

79


0200400600800

10001200

Acres

A B C D E

Figure 3.2-24b: Shear and Rake Site Preparation

F

Alternatives

Drum chopping is proposed in all four of the watersheds under Alternative C. The Big Sandy Creek Watershed has the highest potential for impacts, followed by the FivemCreek Watershed, the Affonee Creek Watershed, and the Elliots Creek Waters

ile hed. Shear

rW teWate 5

-b: aration by Watershed)

and ake site preparation is proposed in the same four watersheds. Again big Sandy Creek a rshed shows the highest potential for impacts, followed by Affonee Creek

rshed, Elliots Creek Watershed and Fivemile Creek Watershed. (See Figure 3.2-2Acres Mechanical Site Prepa

Figure 3.2-25a: Site Preparation: Drum Chopping by Watershed

2000.0

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0A

1000.0cres

1200.0

1400.0

1600.0

1800.0




Alternative C 1474.6 861.4 1714.4 1824.0




Watershed

80


Figure 3.2-25b:Site Preparation: Shear and Rake by Watershed

150.0

200.0

250.0

300.0

350.0

400.0

450.0

Acr

es

100.0

50.0

0.0Affonee Elliotts Fivemile Sandy



Alternative C 394.5 279.3 50.5 420.1




Watershed

Hand or mechanical planting of young trees has no direct effect upon the water

ly

resource. Indirect effects (after a period of years) are potential decreases in water yield and changes in the composition of streamside forest communities. Alternative F has the highest potential for indirect effects. Alternatives B, C, and D follow closely behind, andAlternative E shows the lowest potential for indirect effects of the action alternatives. BigSandy Creek Watershed shows the greatest potential for indirect effects, followed closeby the Affonee Creek and the Fivemile Creek watersheds. Elliotts Creek Watershed shows the lowest potential for indirect effects. (See Figure 3.2-26 and Figure 3.2-26 below.)

Figure 3.2-26: Re-establishing Longleaf - Planting

80006000

02000

4000Acres

A B C D E F

Alternatives

81


Figure 3.2-27: Hand Planting by Watershed

2500.0

2000.0

0.0

500.0

1000.0

1500.0

Acr

e

3000.0

s



Alternative B 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative C 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative D 1869.1 1141.8 1764.9 2576.7

Alternative E 1628.6 721.8 1620.5 2103.8

Alternative F 2112.9 1143.5 1921.9 2656.7

Watershed

Alternative A Alternative A - the No Action Alternative has no new proposed actions. The current nfluences of the Southern Pine Beetle can be expected to coi ntinue to some degree.

at a rate of approximately 22,000 acres per

he proposed action calls for 5,644 acres of thinning, 7,393 acres of restoration cutting ts.

r

y control using a ulching and burning will occur on 2,420 acres. The proposed activity of primary

ve of concern is the

mount of temporary roads. These roads should have minimal impacts if mitigation measures are followed.

Alternative B The proposed action calls for 5,644 acres of thinning, 7,393 acres of restoration cutting and 86.7 miles of temporary roads associated with these thinning and restoration cuts.

he current prescribed burns will continue Tyear. Site preparation in the form of herbicide and burning will occur on 7,393 acres. Release using herbicide will occur on 7,393 acres. Planting of trees will occur on 7,393 acres. Mid-story control using hand tools and herbicide will occur on 2,420 acres. The proposed activity of primary concern is the amount of temporary roads. These roads should have minimal impacts if mitigation measures are followed. Alternative C Tand 86.7 miles of temporary roads associated with these thinning and restoration cuThe current prescribed burns will continue at a rate of approximately 22,000 acres peyear. Site preparation using a drum chopper will occur on 5,390 acres. Site preparation in the form of shear and rake will occur on 1,078 acres. Release using hand tools will occur on 7,393 acres. Planting of trees will occur on 7,393 acres. Mid-stormconcern is the use of shear and rake for site preparation. Shear and rake causes excessierosion and should not be used on slopes greater than five percent. Alsoa

82


Alternative D The proposed action calls for 5,644 acres of thinning, 7,393 acres of restoration cutting nd 86.7 miles of temporary roads associated with these thinning and restoration cuts.

inue icide cres.

lanting of trees will occur on 7,393 acres. Mid-story control using hand tools and

lternative E g ion

burns will continue at a rate of approximately 22,000 acres

alls for 5,150 acres of thinning, 7,887 acres of restoration cutting n

87

and d

will be considered successfully treated when 85% or reater vegetation cover is established within 2 years of the initial treatment.

A minimum 35-foot no equipment zone will be maintained around gully heads and

sidewalls. Timber may be selectively removed from within the 35 foot zone thru use of chainsaws and cable.

Resource activities that may affect water quality will implement State Best

Management Practices as a minimum to meet water quality objectives. FLMP standards that exceed State BMP’s will take precedence.

aThis alternative uses the cut-to-length logging system which affords less ground disturbance from thinning and restoration cuts. The current prescribed burns will contat a rate of approximately 22,000 acres per year. Site preparation in the form of herband burning will occur on 7,393 acres. Release using herbicide will occur on 7,393 aPherbicide will occur on 2,420 acres. The proposed activity of primary concern is the amount of temporary roads. These roads should have minimal impacts if mitigation measures are followed. AThe proposed action calls for 5,150 acres of thinning, 6,076 acres of restoration cuttinand less than 86.7 miles of temporary roads associated with these thinning and restoratcuts. The current prescribedper year. Site preparation in the form of herbicide and burning will occur on 6,076 acres. Release using herbicide will occur on 6,076 acres. Planting of trees will occur on 6,076 acres. Mid-story control using hand tools and herbicide will occur on 2,420 acres. The proposed activity of primary concern is the amount of temporary roads. These roads should have minimal impacts if mitigation measures are followed.

lternative F AThe proposed action cand less than 86.7 miles of temporary roads associated with these thinning and restoratiocuts. The current prescribed burns will continue at a rate of approximately 22,000 acres per year. Site preparation in the form of herbicide and burning will occur on 7,887 acres. Release using herbicide will occur on 7,887 acres. Planting of trees will occur on 7,8acres. Mid-story control using hand tools and herbicide will occur on 2,420 acres. The proposed activity of primary concern is the amount of temporary roads. These roads should have minimal impacts if mitigation measures are followed. 3.2.4: Mitigation Measures All areas requiring re-vegetation for erosion control will be treated during the springor fall grass planting seasons or within 6 months following the close out of the groundisturbing activity. The areasg

83


All soil disturbing activities (excluding roads and trails) will not take place on water-saturated soils. Standing water and puddling are evidence of a saturated condition. (Soil disturbing activities are not limited to timber harvesting.)

Slash burns are done so they do not consume all litter and duff and alter structure

and color of mineral soil on more than 20 percent of the area.

Water control structures necessary for the control of surface water movement from disturbed sites will be constructed during or within two weeks following construction for temporary roads and within two weeks following the close out of the disturbing activity for skid trails.

ed)

e. Unlike the impact of a single influence, which can be assessed, cumulative

nt

generally less than e natural variability. Changes in water nutrients or nutrient fluxes within streams as a

result of management activities are minor. The model used predicted sediment yields as the surrogate for determining cumulative impacts for water quality. Bounding the Effects Analysis A valid cumulative effects analysis must be bounded in space and time. For the purposes of this exercise in forest planning, 5th level watersheds are the appropriate spatial bounds for cumulative effects. The time period for this analysis will be 2003 through 2012. Modeling Sediment Yield Using the National Land use Classification Data (NLCD), a determination of land uses were made for 30-meter grids. These values were tabulated for each watershed including non-Forest Service lands. Results were used to identify estimated erosion values for entire watersheds.

Mineral soil exposure from ground disturbing activities (roads and trails exclud

will not exceed 10% on slopes exceeding 20% and 20% on slopes 20% or less.

Water control structures necessary for the control of surface water movement on firelines will be installed during fire line construction. Permanent fire lines will have water control structures maintained (refer to re-vegetation standard).

3.2.5: Cumulative Effects (Water) Cumulative watershed effects are caused by changes that accumulate in time and/or spacwatershed effects are caused by the incremental results of multiple influences. In thisanalysis, cumulative watershed effects are represented by sediment. Sediment is an appropriate measure to determine the effects of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands (Coats and Miller, 1981). Sedimeincreases can adversely affect fish productivity and diversity (Alexander and Hansen, 1986), degrade drinking water and affect recreational values. There may be other cumulative impacts such as increases in water yield as a result of harvesting methods. However, water yield models do not characterize the impacts of all management ctivities such as road construction and the increase in water yield isa

th

84


The erosion for roads was determined using the RAP roads layer to determine miles by surface type per watershed. The erosion from prescribed burns was also used. Erosion from timber harvest period of private forested lands was also considered. Southern Pine Beatle spots were used for their contribution to erosion. Coefficients for erosion and recovery rates were taken from the averages developed specifically for the Oakmulgee District of the Talladega National Forest in the Soil Erosion Calculation Process Record for the 1986 Land and Resource Management Plan. Erosion values (from land use) were multiplied by a sediment delivery coefficient based on watershed size determined from Rhoel (1964). This model sums the total number of sediment tons from all activities, including proposed activities as well as other actions and calculates sediment from erosion delivered to the mouth of the watershed.

All values were summarized in a spreadsheet by watershed for the baseline sediment yield and current sediment yield (Forest Service and private). The acres of proposed activities are placed in the sediment spreadsheet for each alternative and year. Data Interpretation The summary worksheet of the sediment model calculates the baseline, current, and

ment values for each watershed by alternative and year. To determine the

atershed Health Index (WHI) is a measure that characterizes the condition of t to current and future sediment load increases.

e p edensity of the riparian. As an example, if the percent forested riparian is high and road d s be upgr perce rovide

predicted sedipotential cumulative effects of water quality and associated beneficial uses these sediment values are expressed as a percent increase over the baseline. The baseline assumes an undisturbed forest floor with no roads. It should be recognized that using such a baseline results in high percentage increases since baseline values can indicate little to no erosion or sediment. The percentage values are only used as a mathematical index and should not be viewed as an indication of effects or impairment. This becomesclearer when the interpretation of this information is captured in a value added process call the Watershed Health Index (WHI) as described below. Watershed Health Index Wwatersheds with respec In order to establish WHIs, the current sediment average annual yield is determined andexpressed as a percent above the baseline conditions. Baseline conditions are considered to be those conditions existing at the time of pre-European settlement in the analyzed watersheds. The initial watershed health index is determined by using the relative abundance of locally adapted species with respect to sediment increases. Health is generalized into three categories of excellent, average and below average. These generalized categories are further refined from information determined from the East-Wide Watershed Assessment Process (EWAP). Factors taken from EWAP ar

erc nt National Forest ownership, percent of the riparian that is forested, and road

en ity is low for a watershed then a watershed with a below average condition would aded to average. This would indicate that, while a watershed may have a highnt increase of sediment, forested riparian areas are abundant enough to p

85


a qlow) W ee crema erse effect on water quality with respect t e Whedepe forest service

wnership is high or moderate the potential to adversely affect beneficial uses is e ownership is low the potential is not applicable. If the

ent model) remain within the range of

ersely affect eneficial uses is dependent upon the additional factor of forest service ownership. here forest service ownership is high or moderate the potential to affect beneficial uses

tively high or moderate. Where Forest Service ownership is low, the

orest objectives are determined by the WHI and their related potentials for affecting

xcellent – Forest Service objectives would be to maintain or improve aquatic health

ves should be onsidered. Examples of these additional objectives would be conducting watershed

th of the biota.

ervice can make meaningful contributions to watershed health. Apply rescriptions in the revised forest plan to correct the unhealthy situation.

ould have a measurable ositive or negative effect.

WHI

anagers to improve overall watershed condition and improve aquatic health. This is one advantage of analyzing entire watersheds. Not only can Forest Service activities and contributing effects be isolated but other watershed effects can be identified as well.

de uate habitat and protection for aquatic resources. EWAP results (high, medium and would be determined using natural breaks.

h re a watershed WHI is excellent, the probability (or potential) is low for adverse ffe ts to aquatic species. If the results of forest alternatives (from the sediment model)

in within this range there should be no advo b neficial uses (fish communities).

re a watershed WHI is average, the potential to adversely affect beneficial uses is ndent upon the additional factor of forest service ownership. Where

omoderate. Where Forest Servicresults of forest alternatives (from the sedimsediment increases established by the WHI there would likely be no additional adverse

es). effect on water quality with respect to beneficial uses (fish communiti Where a watershed with a WHI is below average, the potential to advbWis likely respecpotential to affect beneficial uses is assumed to be not applicable. Fbeneficial uses. Watershed WHIs and their respective objectives are: Ethrough the implementation of Riparian prescriptions. Average – Besides the objectives listed above, additional forest objecticassessments during project planning to demonstrate the source of the problem, and monitoring prior to project implementation to determine actual heal Below Average – In addition to objectives listed above, Forest objectives at the project level would seek to maintain or restore watershed health and aquatic systems where the Forest Sp Not Applicable – Because of the low percentage of national forest ownership it is unlikely that any additional combination of forest activities wp The likelihood to maintain or improve the WHI is excellent where forest ownership ishigh or moderate and improbable where forest ownership is low. The results of the and other information can also be used to develop partnerships with other landholders or m

86


Results of Analysis Using the WHI, all the watersheds received an excellent rank no mater the Alternative.

herefore, there are no significant potential impacts to the watersheds in the analysis area

n average percent increase over aseline by Alternative. Alternative C shows the highest potential for impacts mainly due

est, th method. This is

ecause no sight specific information exists in the way of erosion coefficients for the

he Oakmulgee, Alternative D would be very imilar. (See Figure 3.2-28)

Tby any Alternative. However, it is necessary to rank the watersheds based on therepotential impacts. The ranking will be done using abto the use of drum chopping and shear and rake site preparation. Alternative F ranked next highest due to the increase acreage. Alternatives B and D ranked next highalthough Alternative D should be less because of the cut-to-lengbTalladega National Forest – Oakmulgee District. Alternative E ranked lowest but if proper coefficients were available for ts

Figure 3.2-28: Average Percent Increase Over Baseline By Alternative

0100200

Percent

300

A B C D E F

Alternatives

e 3.2-

Another consideration in the cumulative effects analysis is the temporal or time. Proposed activities for the alternatives are set to begin in 2004 extending until 2012 xcept for prescribed burns. Prescribed burns are proposed for all alternatives but e

Alternative A. These prescribed burns are depicted through the duration of the analysis timeline or until 2012. Two things are apparent when reviewing the temporal section ofthe cumulative effects analysis. One, all the Action Alternatives have a period of six years (2004 – 2009) where the average percent increase over baseline peaks. Two, after

011 the percent increase over baseline for all alternatives fall back to the current percent 2increase over baseline or equal to Alternative A with prescribed burns. (See Figur29)

87


Figure 3.2-29: Average Percent Increase Over Baseline by Alternative by Year

250.0

300.0

350.0

100.0

150.0Perc

en

0.0

50.0

200.0

Year

t

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Alternative A 262.0 210.4 212.0 213.0 212.1 211.3 210.2 210.2 210.2 210.2

Alternative B 262.0 279.8 290.0 301.8 296.3 276.8 280.2 291.0 277.5 261.8

Alternative C 262.0 281.5 293.5 310.6 310.8 304.1 309.7 313.8 298.0 266.9

Alternative D 262.0 279.8 290.0 301.8 296.3 276.8 280.2 290.9 277.5 261.8

Alternative E 262.0 279.6 289.1 299.1 292.3 272.3 275.3 288.3 277.3 261.8

Alternative E 262.0 279.8 290.3 302.3 297.2 277.9 280.8 291.2 277.5 261.8

The final consideration in the cumulative effects analysis is the spatial element. The patial bounds for the analysis were the 5th level watersheds that have proposed activities

reek Watershed has the highest are

impacts. (See Figure 3.2-30)

swithin them. This spatial element considers the potential effects by watershed by Alternative using the average percent increase over baseline for the analysis period.

xamination of this analysis reveals that the Elliotts CEpotential for impacts. The reason for this is the size of the watershed. Although therefewer cumulative actions in this watershed, it also is the smallest by far and has less olerance for activities without potentialt

Figure 3.2-30: Average Percent Increase Over Baseline by Watershed

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450.00

Watershed

Perc

ent

Alternative A 191.64 240.75 201.15 200.16

Alternative B 268.33 349.28 260.71 282.86

Alternative C 281.18 381.44 268.95 296.42

Alternative D 268.33 349.23 260.71 282.85

Alternative E 267.40 342.42 260.00 281.36

Alternative F 269.12 349.30 261.42 283.08

AFFONEE ELLIOTTS FIVEMILE SANDY

88


Conclusions Based on the finding of the cumulative effects analysis and the Wetland Health Index, all

hin the analysis area are in excellent condition and will remain as such no ternative is selected. However, it is important to accomplish the Longleaf

native d health and water quality,

rimarily because of the use of heavy mechanical site preparation. Alternative C should not c he Elliotts because of its small size and thereby it’s increased response to sed e ire as a site

3.2Temporary roads associated with thinning and restoration cuts are known to potentially ffect water quality, water quantity, channel morphology, and downstream designated

uses. Ten percent of the total miles of temporary roads should be monitored to insure that mitiga res are samp onito a al m ta e

sing onitored to ensure that m tion e g used and are effective, particularly in the Elliotts Creek W Ten percent ds that use site preparation burns should be monitored. Should problems emerge a larger sample

ored and th follow itigation measures taken.

sting w onve al equ t is li to slo ss than

ing of material generated by timber activities or mechanical fuel treatments one so it do not consume all liter and do r th

lor o era mo f the area.

with a moderate to severe soil compaction ratings will operate mechanical site tments when soils are dry. Soils are considered dry when rutting

slippage is minimal.

site prepa ion i orm o ling hopp l be rest lopes l than rcent.

e site preparation methods are to be avoided on sustained slopes eding 5 percent. Proposals for shear and rake site preparation methods on

pes exce ng 5 t wil viewed by the Forest Soil Scientist. be based on Forest Soil Scientist reco datio

ant’s Biography Ant nB.SM.SA.B .

watersheds witmatter which AlEcosystem Restoration with as little impact on the water resource as possible. AlterC shows the greatest potential for impacts to watershep

be hosen without serious considerations. Special attention needs to be given to t Creek Watershed

im ntation. Reductions in sedimentation could be achieved by reducing the use of f preparation method.

.6: Monitoring

a

tion measu implemred and

ented and are effective. Should problems emmitigation

erge a larger ken. Site prle should be m

fire should be mddition easures

measures arparation

u itigaatershed.

beinof the stan

should be monit

Timber harve

e ing m

ith c ntion ipmen mited pes le 40 percent

Burn(slash) is dstructure and co

Soils

es duff and es not alte e f inm l s l onoi re than 20 percent o

preparation treaand/or equipment

Mechanicalto areas with

rat n the f f a rol drum c er wil ricted s

Shear and rakexce

e ss 30 e p

sustained slo edi percen l be reDecisions will

articip

mmen ns.

Pho y Jay Edwards, Forest Hydrologist . Physical Science and Physical Geography, Troy State University, 1992. . Physical Geography, University of Southern Mississippi, 1994. .D PhD. Physical Geography, Louisiana State University, 1996.

89


ReAngerm . 1995. Ecological attributes of extinction-prone species: loss of

eshwater fishes of Virginia. Conserv. Biol. 9:143-158.

G. R.; Hansen, E. A. 1986. Sand bed load in a brook trout stream. N. Am. J. ish. Manage. 6:9-23.

Bur B . L. Mayden. 1992. Phylogenetics and North American freshwater fish . Am c ater fishes. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

oats, R. N.; Miller, T. O. 1981. Cumulative silvicultural impacts on watershed: A nviron. Manage. 5:147-160.

40

Dissmeyer, G. E ement Activities in the te and

rivate Forestry

EPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment . S. ain

Research Statio , Idaho.

dy, R.D., P.N y, S.C. Svirsky, M.R. Whitworth, and L.S. Ischinger.

he sustainable biosphere initiative: an

water

Roe , eas, delivery ratios, and influencing morphological fact . .

ferences eier, P.L

fr Alexander, F

r, . M., and Res Pages 18-75 in R . L . Mayden, ed. Systematics, historical ecology, and North eri an freshw

Chydrologic and regulatory dilemma. E Dissmeyer, G. E.; Foster, G. R. 1984. A Guide for Predicting Sheet and Rill Erosion on Forest Land. USDA-Forest Service, Southern Region. Technical Publication R8-TP6.

ages. p

.; Stump, R. F. 1978. Predicted Erosion Rates for Forest Manag Southeast. U. S. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. Sta, Southeastern Area. Atlanta GA. 39 pages. P

Elliot, W. J., Hall, D. E., and D. L. Scheele. December, 1999. WEPP:Road (Draft

2/1999) W1Delivery. U Department of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service, Rocky Mount

n and San Dimas Technology and Development Center, Moscow

. Seeley, T.M. MurraJu1984. 1982 National Fisheries Survey. Vol. I Technical Report: Initial findings. USFWSFWS/OBS-84/06. 140 pp.

ubchenco, J.A., and 15 coauthors. 1991. TLecological research agenda. Ecology 72:371-412. McKinney, M.L. and J.L. Lockwood. 2001. Biotic homogenization: a sequential and selective process. Pp. 1-17 in J.L. Lockwood and M.L.McKinney, eds. Biotic homogenization. Kluwer Plenum/Academic Press, New York. Ricciardi, A., and J.B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction rates of North American freshfaun . a Conserv. Biol. 13:1220-1222.

hl J. W. 1962. Sediment source arors IASH Comm of Land Eros, Pub 59:202-213

Scharf, F.S., F. Juanes, and M. Sutherland. 1998. Inferring ecological relationships from the edges of scatter diagrams: comparison of regression techniques. Ecology 79:448-468.

90


Scott, M.C., and G.S. Helfman. 2001. Native invasions, homogenization, and the mismeasure of integrity of fish assemblages. Fisheries 26(11):6-15.

habitat limitations from wedge-shaped patterns of variation in standing stock. Transactions of the Am Fisheries Society 125:104-117. Warren, M.L. Jr., and B.M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the United States: Overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19(1):6-17.

L. r, S als ar a . .J. .R L. n, obison . Ro .C. Starnes.

2000. Diversity, distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fishes of the southern United States. Fisheries 25(10):7-31. Waters, T.F. 1995. Sediment in streams: es, bio l effe d coAmerican Fisheries Society Monograph 7. Albright, Ray and Kevin Leftwich. 1999. A Watershed Analysis for the National Forests in Alabama. Golden, M.S., C.L. Tuttle, J.S. Hush and J. . Bradley, II. 1984. Forest Activities and Wa ality A Agric. Exp. Stn. Bulletin No. 555. 87p. Ursic, S.J. 1991. Hydrologic Effects of Clearcutting and Stripcutting Loblolly Pine in the Coastal Plain. W sources Bulletin 27(6):925-937. Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin and T. Merril. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for

e Protection of : Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 35pp.

n

N SS tion from Burned Forest SiResources Bulletin. 27(3):485-493. M .G. Neary. 1993. Herbic rest E Enviro. Toxi. Chem. 12:405-41

Dissipation and Environmental

Terrell, J.W., B.S. Cade, J. Carpenter, and J.M. Thompson. 1996. Modeling stream fish

erican

Warren, M.F

Jr., B.M. Bur. K , R.

.J. W Mayde

h, H.L. B t Jr., R.C. C shner, Dss, and W

A. Etnier, Breeman, B uhajda H.W. R , S.T

so rcu logica cts an, ntr l. o

M Iter Qu in Alabama. L

ater Re

th Water Qualityand Range Policy Analysis Group. Report No. 8 Univ. Brown, Charles J. and C. Phillip Weatherspoon. 1990. Sustaining site productivity oforestlands: a user’s guide to good soil management. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources; University of California. Publication 21481: 13-18. Brown, Charles J. and D. Binkley. 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in

orth American Forests. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-248.

.L. Nutter, E.R. Burroughshalaee, A.K., Wediment Produc

, Jr. and L.A. Morris. 1991. Runoff and tes in the Georgia Piedmont. Water

ichael, J.L. and D ide Dissipation Studies in Southern Focosystems. 0.

Neary, D.G., P.B. Bush and J.L. Michael. 1993. Fate,Effects of Pesticides in Southern Forests: A Review of a Decade of Research Progress. Enviro. Toxi. Chem. 12: 411-428.

91


Miller, James A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Segment 6. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-G. U.S. Geological Survey. Kopaska-Merkel, David C. and James D. Moore. 2000. Water in Alabama. Circular 122O. Geological Survey of Alabama. Nicolo, Mike. 1982. Analysis of the Management Situation. National Forests in Alabama.

and & Resource Management Plan. L

92


3.3: Overstory Vegetation 3.3.1: Issues The relationship of overstory vegetation to the significant issues considered in this analysis can be expressed in the following concerns:

• The rate of longleaf restoration needed to deal with existing loblolly decline problems.

• Timber harvesting methods used have the least impact on soils, water quality, groundwater, and plant diversity.

Figure 3.3-1 – Environmental Effects to Overstory Vegetation by Alternative

Alternatives

ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT

with (Indicators)

A No

Action

B Proposed

Action

C No

Herbicide &

Less Prescribed

Burning

D Low

Impact Harvest

E Less

Restoration &

Less Thinning

F Most

Restoration

AOC 1 &AOC 2 Restoration Cuts-Changes in 10 yrs. (Cut Acres and % of Project Area Acres Affected)

0

0%

7,393

8.5%

7,393

8.5%

7,393

8.5%

6,076

7.0%

7,887

9.0%

AOC 1 &AOC 2 Changes in 10 yrs. due to Application of Herbicides (Acres of Application and Risk to Non-Target

None

Minimal

None

Minimal

Minimal

Minimal

Vegetation)

0 7,393 x 2 0 7,393 x 2 6,076 x 2 7,887 x 2

AOC 3 Thinning-Changes in 10 yrs. (Cut Acres and % of Project Area Acres Affected)

0%

3.2%

3.2%

3.2%

2.7%

2.7%

0 2,813 2.813 2,813 2319 2319

AOC 4 Thinning-Changes in 10 yrs. (Cut Acres and % of Project Area Acres

0

0%

2,831

3.2%

2,831

3.2%

2,831

3.2%

2831

3.2%

283

3.2%

Affected)

1

• Protection of old growth and trees possibly suitable for future old growth. • RCW thinning treatments to be accomplished in a manner that would result in

stands of optimum foraging habitat. • Sites that are suitable for hardwood or hardwood pine sites should not be

converted to longleaf pine.

93


• Herbicide use in site preparation and release may have effects on non target species

Proposed activities that would have an effect on overstory vegetation include the following:

• Restoration cuts • Thinning • Site preparation, which would include use of herbicides and prescribed burning • Planting

3.3.2: Affected Environment Operational Definitions: The environmental effects discussion throughout this section focuses on stands and forest type as landscape units: Stands are convenient units of landscapes for analysis, planning and implementing courses of action (Boyce, 1995).

A stand is an area of trees delimited by measurable or

haracteristics observable features, such as age class of dominant trees, roads, streams, kinds of dominant trees, and physical c

Criteria for defining stands almost always include terms that imply area, stand age, and forest type.

A forest type is a group of stands with sufficient similarity in biological and physical features to be consistently identified by different observers

Forest types are classed according to the tree species that are dominant or co-dominant based on Forest Service Handbook 2409.26d, which generally conform to "Forest CoTypes of the United States and Canada". Tiering: The discussion of environmental effects on overstory vegetation is tiered to the Revised Forest Plan for the National Forests in Alabama. Chapter 3 of

ver

the Revised d Forest Plan includes management prescriptions describing how to manage different lan

areas. Each management area has a certain emphasis that will direct management activities on that piece of land. This emphasis is reflected in the management prescriptions applied. All proposed treatment areas in this analysis fall within the Prescriptions that follow:

• 7D – Concentrated Recreation Zone • 7.E.2 – Dispersed Recreation • 8.D.1 – RCW Sub-HMA • 9.D – Restoration of Longleaf Pine Forests

Chapter 2 of this Longleaf Restoration EIS outlines the desired future condition (DFC) for Areas of Concern (AOC) 1-4. These DFCs are the goals for the AOCs. Figure 3.3-2

94


summ i of progress (in acres) that each alternative moves the existing condition toward the DFC. Figure 3.3-2: Progress Toward Revised Forest Plan Objectives by Alternative (acres)

ar zes the amount

A REVISED FOREST PLAN OBJECTIVES

A B C D E F

Objective Number

Description of the

Objective

No Action

Proposed Action

& Less

Prescribed Burning

Impact Harvest

Restoration &

Less Thinning

Restor

No Herbicide

Low

Less

Most ation

1.2

Restore Upland

0

Longleaf 7,393

7,393

7,393

6,076

7,887

1.4Thin

Overstocked 0 2,813

2,813

2,813

319

2,319

Loblolly

2,

1.5

2,831

2,831

2,831

Woodland Restoration

0

2,831

2,831

12.

Stages-Create

0 7,393

7,393

7,393

6,076

7,887

3 Manage Forest Succession

(0-10) 16.2 Create

Upland Fire Climax

Communities

0

7,393

7,393

7,393

6,076

7,8

87

Current District -Wide Forest Type Classification There are a total of 154,284 forested acres on the Oakmulgee District, according to current CISC data. A general breakdown the district-wide distribution of overstory egetation is shown in Figure 1-1 - The Oakmulgee Today- At A Glance. Figure 3.3-v

3 provides a description of the species composition of each of the major forest types. Figure 3.3-3 - Major Forest Types and their Overstory Species Composition. This forest type classification using overstory composition defines a total system including associated tree species, understory and ground cover along with ecological relationships. Fo sre t Type Overstory Species Composition Pine in overstory Pines At least 70% Pine hardwood 51 to 69% in overstory Pines Hardwood pine 51 to 69% in overstory Hardwoods Hardwood At least 70% in overstory Hardwoods

Current Project Area Forest Type Classification Southern pine forests today are very different from pre-colonial forest communities, not only in extent but also in species composition, age, and structure (Ware et al. 1993, Noel

95


et al 1998). Original pine forests were old, open, and contained a two-layered structureof canopy trees and diverse, pyrophytic grass and forbs groundcovers. These

forests

were dominated by longleaf in the coastal plain, longleaf/shortleaf/loblolly in the Piedmont and interior highlands, and slash in south Florida. Much o oday’s pine forests are young, dense, and dominated by loblolly pine, with a substantial hardwood component resultant of fire exclusion or the exclusive use of dormant season burning. Today’s pine forests have dense, shade-tolerant mid-stories and little or no groundcover (Ware et al. 1993). The total forested area in the four project area watersheds

f t

totals about 87,336 (CISC) acres. Collectively, the treatment area refers to the total acres proposed for treatment within the project area. Figure 3.3-4 and Figure 3.3-5 show the current project area vegetative conditions by Forest Type under Alternative A. They also show the percentages of each Forest Type as represented in the project area.

Figure 3.3-4: 2003 Forest Type Age Class Distribution. A baseline estimate for the stand condition in 2003 with No Action for the Project Area Watersheds.

2003 Forest Type Age Class Distribution - Alternative A-No Action Age Longleaf Loblolly Pine/ Shortleaf Hwd/ All Total %

Class Pine Pine Hwd Pine Pine Hardwood 0-10 3,267 13 115 3,395 4%

11-20 6,079 2,677 129 44 68 9,610 11% 121-30 440 2,676 173 42 642 3,973 5% 31-40 1,365 3,311 62 90 92 4,920 641-50 787 731 265 46 186

% 2,015 2%

51-60 638 1,468 44 176 507 2,833 361-70 5,692 5,591 1,602 42 1,561 3,608

% 18,096 21

71-80 9,491 3,351 3,50%

9 238 3,055 7,402 27,046 31% 81-90 3,010 929 1,404 3,51,145 160 57 10,205 12% 91-100 2 1,169 2,9820 84 175 71 60 3% 100+ 5961,223 71 58 335 2,283 3%

Totals 32,812 20,902 7,104 498 7,465 18,555 87,336 % 38% 24% 8% 1% 9% 21% 100%

96


0

5000

10000

15000

Acr

es

20000

25000

30000

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 100+

for the stand condition in 2003 with No Action for the Project Area Watersheds.

Figure 3.3-5:2003 Age Class Distribution-Alternative A-NoActionThis is the baseline estimate

Age Class

od/pine hortleaf

pine. Longleaf pine, which comprises approximately 37,812 acres, is the most prevalent ecies. The ecological management type or desired condition for the upland sites is

longleaf pine with a ground cover of vaccinium species, other low shrubs, bluestem grasses, panicum grasses, and bracken fern. Land Use History: Fire frequency and intensity determined the composition, structure and pattern of pre-settlement forests that grew in the part of Alabama that is currently the Oakmulgee District. On the dry, upland sites, the fire-climax longleaf pine forest type, with its associated fire-adapted species of oaks and hickories, dominated on this landscape (Spurr, 1964). Longleaf pine dominated because it evolved over eons to withstand higher fire temperatures than other forest types. Lightning fires started on the high ground where resin soaked needles, dry grasses, and herbs caused the greatest fire intensity. When the flames burned down the slope into moister surroundings, the heat became less intense. In this transition zone between the uplands and bottoms, a mix of longleaf pine, loblolly pine, shortleaf pine and, hardwoods could survive. The bottoms were predominantly less fire-adapted hardwood species. During the last 200 years, on the Oakmulgee District, there have been many events that changed the pre settlement natural vegetation conditions. In the early 1800’s stands of longleaf pine were cleared for building materials and for agricultural purposes. Between 1900 and 1940 large–scale timber operations and subsistence farmpine from the uplands. Large-scale reforestation efforts by the Forest Service that followed, planted loblolly pine on uplands instead of longleaf pine. During the 1940’s

Of the 87,336 forested acres in the project area 61,316 acres (71%) are in pine or pine/hardwood forest types and 26,020 acres (29%) are in hardwood or hardwoforest types. The overstory pine species consist of longleaf, loblolly, and some s

sp

ing removed longleaf

97


prevention and control of wildfires were used to protect young loblolly pine plantations. ss of longleaf pine plant communities and an increase of loblolly

ine and mixed pine hardwood plant communities on upland sites. In addition, the heavy rowth of brush and hardwood saplings has choked out many of the native understory

x disease syndrome resulting from the teraction of a variety of host, site, and stand factors with biotic and abiotic stressors.

Declining loblolly pine sta agement concern on the OakmDistrict stress type (biotic orabiotic), s, root di se, ed suscepti

These events caused a lopgspecies. Loblolly pine became established on poor upland sites that were more suited to longleaf pine. These loblolly pine trees are growing out of their optimum natural growing conditions. This situation has caused many of the southern pine beetle and loblolly decline problems that we are experiencing on the Oakmulgee District today. Loblolly Pine Decline (Eckhardt 2003) Loblolly pine decline can be described as a complein

nds have been a man ulgee since the 1960’s. Figure 3.3-6 illustrates, according to how these interactions lead to root feeding insect attackbility to SPB attack, and tree mortality in a stand.

sea increas

Figure 3.3-6 - Loblolly Decline Cycle. This figure shows sequence and relationship betwestress, root feeding insect attack, tree disease, and tree mortality.

en tree

d by

Loblolly decline is portrayed as a spiral of one or more predisposing factors followeone or more inciting conditions. Two factors that predispose trees to decline are sitecondition and host. The decline sites in the project area are predominantly upland sites with a history of previous agriculture that are better suited for long term management of longleaf pine. The inciting conditions include fine root deterioration and soil factors.(Eckhardt and Others 2004) The symptoms of loblolly decline include sparse

98


crowns, reduced radial growth, deterioration of fine roots, and increased stand decline and/or mortality by age 50. A three year study revealed an association between loblolpine decline and the debilitation of root systems by Leptographium species. These species are vectored by root feeding insects. Populations of root feeding i

ly

nsects are ffected by site conditions including landform, drought, and effects of wildfires and

iotic stress factors that produce, in a stand, gradual general deterioration of trees, and often ends in the death of trees. Condition

. It

• High Risk nts in AOC 1- 3.

icuf the f C

er toents fo eas

aprescribed burns. As loblolly pine stands decline with increased stresses and stand age, they also become more susceptible to attacks by southern pine beetle.

For this Longleaf Restoration EIS, two methods requiring detailed field observations were used to evaluate decline risk- (1)silvicultural field examinations and (2)the LoblollyDecline Risk Map (LDRM) developed by Dr. Lori Eckhardt. In 2002, silvicultural field examinations of over 500 stands were completed to identify health risks, problems, and concerns regarding the general severity of decline. The second tool, the LDRM, makes it possible to evaluate the sustainability of AOC 1-3 stands. The LDRM does not apply toAOC 4 stands because those are longleaf stands on native sites.

The LDRM can be used in making ecosystem management decisions because it summarizes specifically ordered abiotic and baclass of pine stands and their susceptibility to stress can be predicted using the LDRMdefines four levels of risk to decline:

• Minimal Risk • Low Risk • Moderate Risk

Use of the LDRM makes it possible to develop priorities for treatmeTreatments are proposed in this analysis that will change the current condition of declining loblolly pine stands (AOC 1), damaged loblolly pine stands (AOC 2), or overstocked loblolly pine stands (AOC 3) to a condition of healthy stands of longleaf pine in the long-term. The effects of harvest treatments and silv ltural treatments on the overstory were evaluated within each o four Areas o oncern identified for this analysis. For more information on the Areas of Concern, ref Background-Chapter 1. For more information on treatm r the four Ar of Concern, refer to the Proposed Action (Alternative B) –Chapter 2.

A rn 1rea of Conce Stands Acres Loblolly, Shortleaf, & Pine/hardwood dominant on upland landforms/native longleaf sites and exhibiting signs of mortality and loss of vigor with expected

years. (Generally sites greater than

189 6,697

mortality within 1040 years of age)

The focus of restoration in AOC 1 stands is to establish native longleaf pine commutypes that have long-term sustainability. AOC 1 stands were identified as a priority for treatment early in the development of the Proposed Action because they were

nity

in the worst

99


condition and had the highest risk based on age. Longleaf pine does exist in varying amo t ually healthy it is sca e fficient quantity to provide for natural regeneration thro h in the overstory and b e grasses and pyrophytic forbs Risk m provides a basic tool that can be

sed on

sing unsustainable loblolly pine stands.

ing to

ty

un s in most of the AOC 1 stands. However, even though it is ustter d and present in an insuug out the stand. AOC 1 stands commonly have 5-25% hardwoods a rushy understory that has suppressed nativ

apping technology available through the LDRM, a landscape scale, to map and display forest health threats in AOC 1 stands. In u

applying the LDRM to this analysis, the predisposing factors most likely to be influenced by management in AOC 1 stands are as follows:

• Physiological age of the overstory species • The topographic positioning of overstory species

igure 3.3-7 displays use of the LDRM in accesF

It also aids in identifying inclusions or areas that might be of less risk for decline.

The LDRM can be used to evaluate potential stress levels of loblolly stands and help make systematic, informed, and reliable long-term management decisions. By referrFigure 3.3-7 – it is possible to see that the greater part of stand 27 is identified as At High Risk. Because a great deal of this stand is on upland landforms, is older than 50 and is At High Risk (for growth loss, susceptibility to SPB, and mortality), it is a high priorifor restoration to longleaf pine.

AOC 1C-1, std 2

C-1, std 25AOC 3

7

At Lower RiskAt Higher Risk

Figure 3.3-7 – Prioritizing Management Strategies in AOC 1

The LDRM defines four levels of risk to decline. In the examhere, (High Risk) and

AOC 1 C-1, st56 acre loblolly pinstand. It is 66 year

d 27 is a e s old

and is occupying a site that is more suited to

een thinned

ly

blolly . Pine ages 45

poletimber Pine

sawtimber average diameter is 14” DBH.

ple shown (Moderate Risk)

were combined to form the Category-(At High Risk). (Low Risk) and (Minimal Risk) were combined to form the Category-(At Lower Risk).

longleaf pine. Thisstand has btwo times previousand is composed primarily of lopine sawtimbersawtimber averBA and pineaverages 20 BA.

100


Area of Concern 2 Stands Acres Remnants of Loblolly sites present on upland landforms/native longleaf sites that have been

severely 20 696

attacked by SPB. (Generally sites 20-40 years of age)

Since 1993, the Oakmulgee District, along with other areas of Alabama and the soutexperienced an increase in SPB activity. SPB activity is cyclic. The outbreak trigger isnot well understood or explained by research. The SPB attacks and subsequent controland salvage activities have resulted in a number of scattered openings in loblolly pinestands, most of which had not been thinned. The majority of these openings occur withthe 20-40-year-old lobl

h,

in olly pine stands. When several of these openings are present in a

s e

stand, the stand begins to lose its structure because the openings are invaded by hardwood species like red maple and sweetgum. As a result of these changes in speciecomposition, the stand can become a candidate for restoration to longleaf pine. There ar20 loblolly pine stands that have lost their stand identity and integrity and are growing onsites more suited to longleaf pine.

Area of Concern 3 Stands Acres Loblolly pine dominant on upland landforms/native longleaf sites, and in some cases on lowland landforms, in overcrowded conditions & at risk for SPB infestations. (Generally sites 20- 40 years of age)

83 2,813

Between 1940 and 1976, a large number of upland sites on the Oakmulgee District were

lanted with loblolly pine. As the loblolly pine stands reach about age 20, they become

enced

• The amount of competition that the overstory trees are experiencing

pdenser, decrease radial growth, and become more susceptible to SPB attack. The LDRM can be used to map and display forest health threats in AOC 3 stands. In applying the LDRM to this analysis, the predisposing factors most likely to be influby management in AOC 3 stands are as follows:

• The physiological age of the overstory species • The density of the stand

Figure 3.3-8 displays an example of how the LDRM can be used to prioritize management strategies to achieve the desired future condition in AOC 3 stands.

101


insect or disease damaged trees. The proposed

In this example, the LDRM can be used to make reliable long-term management decisions. By referring to Figure 3.3-8 – it is possible to see that stand 25 is about equally divided between At High Risk and At Lower Risk categories. Because this stand is only 34 years old and not predominantly At High Risk, it is not a high priority candidate for restoration at this time. However, thinning is needed to reduce the density of trees within this stand. Thinning will improve growth, enhance stand health, and recover potential mortality by removingthinning is designed to retain healthy well-spaced trees in the stand and may improve stand health and longevity by reducing crowding.

Area of Concern 4 Stands Acres Longleaf pines present on native longleaf sites that are not currently in optimum conditions for RCW

habitat, 90 2,831

or representative of native longleaf conditions. There are more than 1,000 longleaf pine stands in the project area. Current inventory information was available for less than 200 longleaf pine dominated stands. Because the goal was to improve stand structure, only 90 stands were selected for treatment because they are not characteristic of historic conditions since they are too dense, contain a hardwood midstory, and lack the native understory plants. Thinning from below in the overstory would improve stand health, promote open park-like conditions, and control midstory encroachment. With a proper burning regime, thinning these stands would encourage the establishment of a herbaceous understory.

AOC 1

AOC 3

C-1, std 27C 1, std 25-

At Lower RiskAt Higher Risk

AOC 3, C-1, std 25 isa 109 acre loblolly

pine plantation. It is 34 years old and a part

e that is d to

longleaf pine. This stand has not been thinned and is composed primarily of loblolly pine

Pine imber averages

88 BA and pine

DBH.

Figure 3.3-8 – Prioritizing Management Strategies in AOC 3

The LDRM defines four levels of risk e. In the example shown

(Minimal Risk) were combined to the Category-(At Lower Risk).

to declinof the stand is occupying a sitmore suite

here, (High Risk) and (Moderate Risk) were combined to form the Category-(At High Risk). (Low Risk) and

form

poletimber. polet

sawtimber averages 33 BA (Total 121 BA). Pine poletimber average diameter is 8”

102


3.3.3: Environmental Effects Alternative A (No Action): This alternative has no proposed treatments. The overstocked pine stands would still be at risk to epidemic SPB populations. Loblolly

ine and pine hardwood stands would continue to die from SPB and loblolly decline be affected by canopy closure and hardwood

stribution in the project area would continue to owly change to light seeded hardwood species due to natural succession and natural

occ e s, wildfires, floods, and wind damage. Midsto e in size and density with the absence of prescribed bur g A p n ant species gradually rep in ccessional

eci s would be restricted to gaps provided by natural occurrences. Horizontal diversity

the

w owever, the

ecies mix would gradually change to shade-tolerant species over time.

lants and animals associated with early

ith damagesceptible to

arvest activities would n

e B (P d Action e Prefe ternati

pdisease. Longleaf pine stands wouldencroachment in the understory and midstory. Species composition and age class disl

urr nces such as insect and disease outbreakry species would increas

nin and logging activities.

ote tial effect of this alternative would lead to shade-tolerlac g shade-intolerant species at all canopy levels. Early to mid-su

espin the form of seral stage habitats, and vertical diversity within and among stands would tend to become more homogenous as all stands move toward older seral conditions. Vertical diversity would likely increase in most stands as midstory plants develop inolder stands and differentiation into multi-layered canopies occurs in younger stands. Plant species abundance and biomass would basically remain the same since no neregeneration areas or young stands of significant size would be created. Hsp This alternative would provide no stands in the 0-10 age class over time (See Figure3.3-3). In 2003 about 70% of the project area was occupied by stands over age 60. As treesbecome older, stressed, and decline in vigor, the probability of insect and disease infestation becomes higher. Young healthy stands would not be available to provide early successional habitat. Consequently those psuccession would decline. The age-class distribution would remain imbalanced; with a higher percentage of the project area being occupied by stands in the 60-year-or-older age classes. Loblolly pine and hardwood species would continue to grow and occupy the midstory. This would reduce foraging habitat for the RCW. Eventually, loblolly pine and hardwood species would invade any stand openings caused by natural mortality. Also, they would suppress any longleaf seedlings and would dominate the sites, causing longleaf pine acreage to be further reduced. Since this alternative would not allow for any cutting to improve timber quality, the quality of commercially valuable timber would decline because of an increase in treeswsu

and decay. Tree mortality would increase as stands mature and are more insects and disease. However, minor damage that might result from timber

h ot occur. Alternativ ropose ) and th rred Al ve

mplish tAlternative B re the prop atments to acco he purponeed as well as address issues identified for this project. See Figure 3.3-1 for a synopsis

presents osed tre needed se and

103


o ct Alte s B D d o y v tat su ary tre activities p d for Alternative B is as s:

7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Site Prep. – Herbicide 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Site Prep. Burn 7,3 cre (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, A 2 = acreHand Plant Longleaf 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, ARelease – Herbicide 7,3 cre (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, A 2 = acreThinning 5,6 cre (A 3 = 813a , A 4 = 1 acrRCW idstory tro 2,4 cre (AOC 4 =2,420 acres) (Hand Tools and Herbicide) Prescribed Burning 87,0 -acr n a ea tatio Are f Conce 1 &The posed re atio uts w d re ve 7, acr f lob y p sho f pinand pine hardwood in 209 stands so longleaf pi can plan nd torati of thnative ecosystem problems associated with loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and pine hardwood growing on l lea es wo be to be rectThese activities have the general effects on overstory vegetation that follow:

• • • Vigorous sprouting from the root systems of hardwood species • Increase in early succession stage habitat • Control of stocking levels • Potential to effect vulnerable wildlife habitat

he stands proposed for restoration in AOC 1 and AOC 2 consists of areas where loblolly ave

e midstory and parts of the overstory Longleaf pine would remain uncut in ese stands except where the overstocked condition of the longleaf pine indicates a need

est Wide tandards FW-2 and FW-4.

on and releas e consistent with a

,(SERA ,

hapter 3 of the Rev

erations are complete, the restoration stands would contain variable with scattered

nmerchantable sawlog size trees that would require treatment. To prepare these stands ld

f the effe s of rnativeropose

, C, , E, an F on verstor follow

ege ion. A mm the atment

Restoration cut

93 a s OC 696 s) OC 2 = 696 acres) OC93 a s 696 s)

44 a20 a

s s

OC 2, cres OC 2,83 es) M Con l

00 es o 2-5 y r ro n

as o pro

rn stor

2 n c oul mo 393 es o loll ine, rtlea e,

nes be ted a res on e can begin. Forest health

ong f sit uld gin cor ed.

Change in species composition to native plant communities Improved stand health

Tand shortleaf pine have not done well. In these stands heavy brush or hardwoods hoccupied ththfor thinning. Snags and hardwood den trees would be managed according to ForS All site preparati e treatments using herbicides would bHerbicide risk analysis is based on the Syr cuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), Triclopyr-Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, Final Report (March, 2003) ), Imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper, and Stalker Formulations)Final Report (May, 1999), the Revised Forest Plan, label instructions, and the standardsincluded C ised Forest Plan. After the logging opdensity of grasses, vines, low brush, sapling and pole size timber ufor planting would require brown-and-burn site preparation treatments. Herbicides woube applied using the backpack selective foliar application method. In this method a sprayer is carried by backpack and herbicide is applied to selected target vegetation.

104


A crew, using backpack sprayers and handguns equipped with spray tips, will apply herbicide as a foliar spray in a water mixture onto existing herbaceous and woody vegetation. See Appendix C, Contract Specifications, for a detailed description of the site preparation treatment using herbicides. To control broadleaf weeds and woody plants, a mix of Tricolpyr (Garlon 4 or equivalproduct), Imazapyr (Arsenal or equivalent product), and an adjuvant (Cide Kickor equivalent product) in water would be used. Target woody vegetation includes shrub, loblolly pine seedling or sapling less than five feet in height, and hardwood seedling or sapling less than five feet in height. To apply this treatment, the crew would directspray onto the target foliage, being sure to cover the growing tips, while keeping it off the terminal shoots and needles of any longleaf pine growing in the stand. The cut surface method is the most specific method of tr

ent

the

eatment; only those plants rgeted for treatment would be affected by the herbicide. This individual stem treatment roposed would limit the effects of herbicide to overall vegetation. For loblolly pine and

height, the crew would inject with Tricolpyr ion

ethod uses a narrow bit axe or hatchet to cut through the bark and into the sapwood of sing a uti tle to

ter a atmen burn treatment. Prescribed burnin

sprout rowth for 1-2 ing would also remove the heavy fuel and vegetation from the

edbe tation thereby providing a ort period when the condition would be better for pine seedlings to become established

n

d s for longleaf pine as listed

Standard FW-53 of the Revised Forest Plan. Over a ten year period, Alternative B

ould be done. However, herbicide release may e needed because of prolific hardwood rootstock not killed during site preparation.

liar pplication method and the hack and squirt method. Except for the herbicide mix that

taphardwood tree stems greater than 5 feet in(Garlon 3A or equivalent product) using the hack and squirt method. This injectmthe target tree, u lity spray bot apply herbicide into the cut. The crew wouldnot treat areas or vegetation that have been marked or designated by the Forest Service asleave vegetation. No longleaf pine would be injected. At least one month af herbicide tre t, restoration stands would receive a prescribed g in combination with herbicides would control the response of hardwood root s by suppressing their gseasons. Prescribed burnground, creating a se d for pine seeds and herbaceous vegeshbefore hardwood sprouts return. Effects of prescribed burning are discussed further ithe VMEIS IV-33-46. After the prescribed burn, approximately 538 longleaf pine containerized seedlings per acre would be planted in the restoration areas. In the recent past, regeneration activities as proposed in Alternative B result in 80-90% survival of planted pines. Regeneratestands would be within the target level of restocking standardinwould increase the proportion of early successional habitat in the project area from 3.9% to 8.5% based upon 2003 figures. Planted stands would be assessed for the need for release at the time of the first year survival check. If it is determined that logging activities, site preparation, prescribed burns, and planting have reduced competition on the young longleaf pine seedlings to acceptable levels, no herbicide release wb If needed, release by herbicide would be applied using the backpack selective foa

105


would be used, t ackpack sele e foliar application methhe release b ctiv od would be applied or si n, a

squirt meth useeight e ap

atments using her

t woody vegetation by killing individual hardwood stems at the erbicid ormone, thus disrupting

s

e ly, yield a higher percentage of healthy trees with good form, and

• Improved stand health • Stocking levels would be controlled and improved • Potential for SPB epidemic would be reduced

would be reduced

to effect vu life

ir igor PB attack. Thinning outgrow weaker trees or

ve eno ver, in order to tands in AOC 3 require “thinning from below” to reduce

wn , slow

ey, e

in the same manner as f te preparatio s described earlier in this section. The release hack and od would be d on loblolly pine and hardwood tree stems greater than 5 feet in h , and would b plied in the same manner as for site preparation. See Appendix C, Contract Specifications, for a detailed description of the release tre bicides. General herbicides affecroot. Triclopyr is a h e that mimics auxin, a plant growth hthe normal growth and viability of plants. (SERA 2003) The "Forestry Use Herbicide Labels and Safety Data Sheets" for triclopyr and imazapyr are available for review at theOakmulgee District office. These labels list vegetation that each herbicide targets. Generally, triclopyr provides control on most species of southern hardwoods but provideno control on grasses. Imazapyr provides control of most southern hardwoods plusgrasses. When combined, the chemicals provide a control over a greater spectrum of vegetation. In Alternative B, site preparation and release with herbicides would allow longleaf pinto grow more quickresult in trees less susceptible to insects and diseases. Thinnings in Area of Concern 3 Alternative B proposes to thin 2,813 acres in Area of Concern 3. These thinning activities would have the general effects on overstory vegetation that follow:

• Potential for catastrophic wildfires• Potential to stimulate the growth of native grasses and pyrophytic forbs • Increased availability of water and nutrients for remaining trees • Potential lnerable wild habitat

There are currently several thousand acres of loblolly pine stands in the project area thatdo not represent natural conditions. Loblolly pine naturally occurs in this area, but it didnot grow in young plantations as it does today. Over time, these plantations develop intooverstocked stands and become susceptible to SPB attack.

Thinning may be beneficial in crowded young pine stands and in oe health and v and lower the risk of S

verstocked patches of older trees to increase thoccurs naturally in pine stands when vigorous individual trees

ees that do not ha ugh sunlight reaching their crown. Howetrachieve the DFC, the selected scompetition and remove the types of trees most subject to SPB attack. The poorer croclasses-(suppressed and intermediate trees) would be cut first. These smallergrowing trees are more susceptible to SPB attack (Haines, and Liles 1976; Ku Sweenand Shelburne 1976). Dominant and co-dominant trees with large crowns would b

106


favored because they are best suited to respond after release and have the most potentiafor RCW foraging and nesting habitat.

Thinning guidelines depend on the close relationship between site quality, stand agestand density, amount of live crown, and rate of growth. .The degree of tleave tree spacing needed to re

l

, hinning and

duce the risk of SPB attack is governed by site conditions et per

ld be an or of the remaining trees. Damaged and diseased trees would be removed

om the stands and some small holes would be created. Thinning of poletimber and prove the

quality of the timpro c d be less k after they are thinned. Thinning establishes and mavegetatThe sm We are interested in monitoring the response of these young loblolly pine plantations to thinning. In particular, stand response will be monitored to see if thinning helps reduce dec e ThinniThis alternative proposes to thin 2,831 acres in Area of Concern 4, longleaf on native sites that is too densely stocked. These thinning activities would have the general effects on

• • Improved stand health

• • Potential for catastrophic wildfires would be reduced

low” grasses, forbs,

and shrubs. AOC 4 stands have a tree density that is too high and average pine tree sp iex eov c native groundcover.

a as

particular to each location. In general a reduction of basal area to 50-70 square feacre is recommended for overstocked stands of immature pines. Wide spacing distributesgrowth on a selected number of desirable trees

The major effect of thinning in young loblolly pine plantations in AOC 3 wouincrease in vigfrimmature sawtimber stands would increase growth rates of remaining trees; im

ber by removing damaged, poorly formed, or diseased trees; and du e more vigorous stands. Loblolly pine in these densely stocked plantations woul

susceptible to SPB attacintains overstory stand composition objectives. It also creates openings that promote

ive diversity, and increases the growth of midstory and understory vegetation. all openings created could allow some longleaf seedlings to become established

lin symptoms or allows the thinned stands to survive beyond age 50.

ngs in Area of Concern - 4

overstory vegetation that follow:

First step toward woodland restoration

• Stocking levels would be controlled and improved Potential for SPB epidemic would be reduced

• Increased availability of water and nutrients for remaining trees In order to achieve the DFC, the selected stands in AOC 4 require “thinning from beto reduce competition and promote the growth of shade intolerant native

ac ng that is too close. Overcrowded stand conditions increase forest health risks and raging habitat. In addition, ce d acceptable thresholds for RCW nesting and fo

er rowded stand condition contributes to a loss of Thinning in the longleaf pine stands along with midstory treatments would be a combined management strategy to begin restoring an open midstory and understory, resulting in "park-like" condition. This thinning would be a move toward featuring longleaf pine the dominant tree species. Damaged and diseased pine trees would be removed from the

107


stands and some small holes would be created. Grasses, vines, and other herbaceousspecies are likely to increase in these openings.

hinning guidelines depend on the close relationship between si

te quality, stand age,

lestands D i eF pt g. Us ure an example is highlighted where a stand n aved r of es i ed from 80B 0BA. his example, the stand bethinnin . After th

Tstand density, amount of live crown, and rate of growth. The degree of thinning and

ave tree spacing needed to move vegetation conditions in overstocked longleaf pine yi

n AOC 4 t3.3-9 prov

oward the ides genera

FC is governed bl information on h

site condow the leav

tions particular to e trees would be s

ach stand. aced after igure

hinnin ing Fig 3.3-9, with a rage iamete 13 inch s reduc A to 4 In t fore

g would have approximately 87 trees per acre spaced approximately 22 feet apartinning, the resulting stand would have 43 trees per acre spaced 32 feet apart.

Figure 3.3-9: Average Trees per Acre (TPA) and Spacing for Leave Trees [Calculated using average stand (DBH) and average stand (BA)]

Average Stand Basal Area (In Square Feet)

40 BA 50 BA 60 BA 70 BA 80 BA

Average Stand

DBH

(Inches) Spacing Spacing Spacing. Spacing.

TPA Average TPA Average TPA Average TPA Average TPA Average Spacing

7 150 17 187 15 224 14 262 13 299 12

8 115 19 143 17 172 16 201 15 229 14

9 91 22 113 20 136 18 158 17 181 16

10 73 25 92 22 110 20 128 18 147 17

11 61 27 76 24 91 22 106 20 121 19

12 51 29 64 26 76 24 89 22 102 21

13 43 32 54 28 65 26 76 24 87 22

14 37 34 47 30 56 28 65 26 75 24

Figure 3.3-9 - Average Trees per Acre and Average Spacing for Leave Trees. This guide is inning. It is based on the assumptions that all ance in each stand is controlled by the diameter

for use in understanding leave tree spacing after thstands have a normal distribution and that the varidistribution of the entire project area.

108


Alternative C (Modified Proposed Action-No Herbicide and Less Prescribed Burning) A summary of the treatment activities proposed for Alternative C is as follows: Restoration cut 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Site Prep. Burn 1,280 acres (AOC 1 = 1,288 acres) Site Prep -Rolling Chopper 4,696 acres (AOC 1 = 4,373 acres, AOC 2 = 596 acres)

OC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Rel eThinnin 5,644 acres (AOC 3 = 2,813acres, AOC 4 = 2,831 acres) Mid to 0 acres (AOC 4 =2,420 acres)

of restoration. Site preparation methods associated with

il d cutting vegetative debris (stumps, brush, etc.) followed by pushing and piling

soil d ntinuous pile known as a windrow. This trea e ect the overstory because of soil and org c ber har t thods, techniques, and equipment that

ave edards and guidelines contained in The Final Environmental

Site Prep- Shear and Rake 1,144 acres (AOC 1 = 1,044 acres, AOC 2 = 100 acres) Hand Plant Longleaf 7,393 acres (A

eas - Hand Tool and Burn 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) g

-s ry Control 2,42 (Mulcher and Burn) Prescribed Burning 87,000-acre on a 2-5 year rotation The effects of Alternative C on the overstory would be similar to Alternative B except that the use of mechanical equipment for site preparation would cause more damage to the residual stand and site than the use of herbicides. This alternative proposes 5,644 acres of thinning and 7,393 acresrestoration are as follows: site preparation burn, rolling chopper, and shear and rake. The use of a rolling chopper has the potential to affect the overstory through soil compaction and soil erosion. The shear and pile site preparation method involves scraping the sosurface an

an vegetative debris into a long and cotm nt has the potential has the potential to affani matter loss and high soil compaction possibility. However, all proposed timves s and cultural treatments utilize proven me

b en extensively analyzed for use in forestry applications in the Forest Land hManagement Plan and the stanImpact Statement for Vegetation Management in the Costal Plain/Piedmont (VMFEIS). Application and maintenance of mitigating standards would result in minimizing impactsfrom proposed timber harvests and cultural treatments. Alternative D (Low Impact Harvest). A summary of the treatment activities proposed for Alternative D is as follows: Restoration cut 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Site Prep. – Herbicide 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Site Prep. Burn 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres)Hand Plant Longleaf 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres)

elease – Herbicide 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, A

OC 2 = 696 acres) s)

RThinning 5,644 acres (AOC 3 = 2,813acres, AOC 4 = 2,831 acreRCW Mid-story Control 2,420 acres (AOC 4 =2,420 acres) (Hand Tools and Herbicide) Prescribed Burning 87,000-acres on a 2-5 year rotation

109


Alternative D is the same as the Proposed Action, with the exception that all timber harvest treatments would be accomplished by cut-to-length logging equipment. Alternative B and the other action alternatives (C, E, & F) would use conventional logging systems to harvest the restoration and thin units. A conventional logging system

this area is a feller-buncher, grapple skidder, and loader system. Alternative D would rder logging system (cut-to-length logging equipment) for all

e

on would

inuse a harvester, forwarestoration cuts and thinnings. The effects of Alternative D on the overstory would be similar to Alternative B, C, E, and F except that the use of the cut-to-length system would cause less damage to the residual stand and site than the conventional system. Also, the cut-to-length system would requirfewer roads and landings than the conventional system. The reduced use of woods roads and landings would give the treatment stands a less disturbed appearance after treatment. Damage to the remaining overstory trees, ground disturbance and soil compactibe less using the cut-to-length system. Alternative E (Less Restoration and Less Thinning) A ummary of the treatment activities proposed for Alternative E is as follows: s

Site es) ite 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres)

(AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) 93 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres)

)

ide) rescribed Burning 87,000-acres on a 2-5 year rotation

Action, but Alternative E proposes a more conservative approach to restoring

els and develop conditions favorable to the RCW. It would include a five-

-like us layer. As a result, this alternative

ould produce less good quality foraging habitat for the RCW, as compared to

Restoration cut 6,076 acres (AOC 1 = 6,076 acres)

Prep. – Herbicide 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acr Prep. Burn S

Hand Plant Longleaf 7,393 acres Release – Herbicide 7,3Thinning 5,644 acres (AOC 3 = 2,813acres, AOC 4 = 2,831 acresRCW Mid-story Control 2,420 acres (AOC 4 =2,420 acres) (Hand Tools and HerbicP

The effects on overstory vegetation in Alternative E would be the same as Alternative B except that fewer sites would be affected. Alternative E is similar in design to the Proposedthe longleaf ecosystem in the project area. Like the Proposed Action, this alternative would move forest-stand compositions, structures, and densities toward historical stocking levyear program of thinning and restoration cuts, but it would be restoring the longleaf ecosystem at a slower rate. Fewer off-site areas, totaling approximately 6,076 acres, would be converted to longleaf pine as compared to approximately 7,393 acres in the

roposed Action. P

The main long-term effect to overstory vegetation of Alternative E as compared to Alternative B is that, over time, Alternative E would create fewer acres of open parkstands of longleaf pine with a grass/forb herbaceowAlternative B

110


Alternative F (Most Restoration) oposed for Alternative F is as follows:

7,887 acres (AOC 1 = 7,191 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) s)

es)

)

res on a 2-5 year rotation

tempts to balance the rate of longleaf ecosystem restoration needed to prove forest health with habitat needs of the RCW. It is similar in design to the

gressive approach to restoring the longleaf

s in

lternative B, is that over time, Alternative F would create more acres of open park-like

or

ps ot

in

A

summary of the treatment activities pr

Restoration cut Site Prep. – Herbicide 7,887 acres (AOC 1 = 7,191 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acreSite Prep. Burn 7,887 acres (AOC 1 = 7,191 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acrHand Plant Longleaf 7,887 acres (AOC 1 = 7,191 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Release – Herbicide 7,393 acres (AOC 1 = 6,697 acres, AOC 2 = 696 acres) Thinning 5,150 acres (AOC 3 = 2,319acres, AOC 4 = 2,831 acresRCW Mid-story Control 2,420 acres (AOC 4 =2,420 acres) (Hand Tools and Herbicide)

rescribed Burning 87,000-acP

Alternative F atimProposed Action, but it proposes a more agecosystem in the project area. Like the Proposed Action, this alternative would move forest stand compositions, structures, and densities toward historical stocking levels and develop conditions favorable to the RCW. It would include a five-year program of restoration cuts and some intermediate thinning in longleaf stands that would restore the

ngleaf ecosystem at a faster rate. More off-site areas, totaling approximately 7,887 loacres, would be converted to longleaf pine as compared to approximately 7,393 acrethe Proposed Action. In addition, less thinning is proposed in this alternative (approximately 5,150 acres).

The main long-term effect to overstory vegetation of Alternative F as compared to Astands of longleaf pine with a grass/forb herbaceous layer. As a result, this alternativewould produce more good quality foraging habitat for the RCW, as compared to Alternative B

3.3.4: Mitigation Measures for Effects on Overstory Vegetation

• All inclusion areas and reserve trees (including longleaf pine) within the cutting units shall not be treated.

• No longleaf pine would be treated with herbicides in the site preparationrelease treatments. To insure that this happens, a clause in the herbicide contractwill state that the contractor will not treat areas or vegetation that have beenmarked or designated by the Forest Service as leave vegetation. (ReferenceAppendix C)

• Some of the loblolly pine stands have scattered individual stems as well as clum

of existing longleaf pine. All existing longleaf pine in these stands that do nshow insect or disease attack will be left up to a leave Basal Area as specifiedthe Revised Forest Plan.

111


• When Herbicides are used in treatments, all chemical work will be done usupervision of a Certified Pesticide Applicator. All inclusion areas atrees (longleaf) within the treatment areas shall not be treated.

nder nd reserve

Treatment types and zones of application will comply with the Revised Forest Plan and, will be consistent with label instructions.

3.3.5: Cumulative Effects on Overstory Vegetation The project area includes 87,336 acres. Treatments within the analysis would have cumulative effects on vegetation in the three primary areas that follow:

• Composition Changes • Effects on Old Growth and trees suitable for old growth within the next 10-20 years • Overstory Diversity and Understory Diversity

Composition Changes Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F would increase the proportion of early successional habitat in the project area. Alternative E would increase it the least and Alternative F would increase it the most. Figure 3.3-10 and Figure 3.3-11 show the current project area vegetative conditions by Forest Type acres in 2004 and 2014 under Alternative B. They also show the decreases in the Loblolly pine, Shortleaf pine, and Pine Hardwood Forest Type acres as a result of converting stands in these categories to longleaf pine. The Longleaf pine Forest Type acres show a corresponding increase during the same period as a result of the planting of longleaf pine in the restoration stands.

•

Figure 3.3-10: Alternative B-Forest Composition Changes 2004-2014-Numerical Estimate (Acres)

Longleaf Loblolly Pine/Hardwood Shortleaf Hardwood/Pine Hardw Total 2004 32,812 20,902 7,104 498 7465 1 ,555 87,336

87,336

rnative

ood 8

2014 38,920 14,038 6,695 186 8942 18,555Figure 3.3-7 - Alternative B Forest Composition Changes 2004- 2014-Numerical Estimate. This is a numerical estimate of the Forest Type changes in acres that will occur under AlteBin the Project Area Watersheds.

112


Longleaf Loblolly Pine/Hwd Shortleaf Hwd/Pine Hwd

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

Acr

es i

Forest Type

gure 3.3-11: Alternative B-Forest Composition Changes 2004 - 2014

20042014

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000e

Proj

ect A

rea

Fi

hn

t

Figure 3.3-11 - Alternative B Forest Composition Changes 2004- 2014. In the Project Area Watersheds, longleaf pine acres will increase significantly over a ten year period while loblolly pine hardwood acres will decrease.

pine and

ld Growth Old growth forests are ecosystems distinguished by old tattributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stdiffer from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics waccumulation of large wood material, number of canopy ecosystem function.

The age at which old growth develops and the specific scharacterize old growth will vary widely according to fo and disturbance regime. Old growth in fire-dependent fomay not differ greatly from young forests in the number accumulation of downed woody material. However, old ed from younger growth by several of the following attribu

• Large trees for the species and site. • Wide variation in tree sizes and spacing. • Accumulations of large-sized dead standing and

to earlier stages. • Decadence in the form of broken or deformed top• Multiple canopy layers.

Orees and related structural and development that typically hich may include tree size, layers, species composition, and

tructural attributes that rest type, climate, site conditionsrest types, like longleaf pine, of canopy layers for growth is typically distinguishtes:

fallen trees that are high relative

s or boles and root decay.

113


• Canopy gaps and understory patchiness.

All of the Action Alternatives (Alternatives B, C, D, E, and, F) propose prescribed burning and thinning for RCW habitat improvements in 7 potential old growth longleaf pine stands on the Oakmulgee District. These 7 treatment stands (263 total acres) are currently over 80 years old ranging from 81 to 97 years old. These stands appear to be from natural regeneration from the previous stands before they were cut 90-100 years ago. They typically have a fairly large component of 70 year old hardwoods that have, in some portions of these stands, replaced young longleaf pines that were in the canopy gaps. Due to the lack of a natural fire regime during the last 70 years, these hardwood

ave occupied the midstory in several of these stands. s

he RCW thinning proposed in this project would greatly enhance these stands for RCW esting site requirements. The goals for that purpose are: to open the stands by reducing e Basal Area to 40-60 BA of mature longleaf pine; remove midstory and control

understory hardwoods and; provide nesting cavity inserts in suitable large older longleaf trees.

The work proposed in this project would have an effect on the following attributes of Old Growth in these 7 stands over 80 years old:

• Accumulations of large-sized dead standing and fallen trees that are high relative to earlier stages and,

• Multiple canopy layers.

However, the fire-maintained longleaf ecosystem generally has less dead material than old growth in other forest types because frequent fires consume the dead material. In these longleaf thinnings much of the unhealthy pine and hardwood material would be removed before it dies and is burned up once it falls. In addition, due to the shade-intolerance of longleaf and its oak/hickory hardwood associates, there is less layering in the canopy of natural longleaf.

Once the evidence of tree removal resulting from this project has diminished, the AOC 4 thinnings that are proposed for these areas would help these potential old-growth stands meet the other old growth conditions that are more typical attributes of old-growth longleaf:

• Large trees for the species and site. acing.

Overstory Species Diversity

verstory. More than anything else, the restoration cuts and thinnings in combination with growing season burns would stimulate the growth of native grasses and pyrophytic forbs because it would increase the amount of light reaching the forest floor. The threshold for dramatic increases in understory species diversity is expected to be somewhere around 40-60 BA. The proposed RCW thinnings of 40 to 60 BA, with a goal of creating restored woodland condition, would prolong the

h

Tnth

• Wide variation in tree sizes and sp• Decadence in the form of broken or deformed tops or boles and root decay. • Canopy gaps and understory patchiness.

The proposed restoration cuts and thinnings would decrease overstory species diversity. The desired longleaf ecosystem on these upland sites is one of the most diverse plant communities known. Most of this plant diversity in the longleaf plant community exists in the understory and not in the o

114


period that light reaches the forest floor before the canopy closes once again. The extra light reaching the ground at 40-60 BA in combination with a fire-regime including growing season burns would stimulate the herbaceous layer. Over time, horizontal diversity in the form of seral stage habitats and vertical diversity within and among stands would be maintained. As existing healthy loblolly, longleaf, and mixed stands grow, the diversity of plants would decrease during canopy closure, but increase again as the stands open naturally or are opened through future intermediate cuts. Vertical diversity would likely increase in most healthy pine and mixed stands as midstory plants develop in older stands and separation into multi-layered canopies occurs in younger stands. Plant species abundance (richness) and biomass would remain high and likely increase until canopy closure occurs. Then species intolerant to shading conditions, such as grasses and forbs, would begin to decline. 3.3.6 Monitoring Treatment actions taken in the project area would be monitored for compliance with Forest Standards and Guidelines (BMP’s) in accordance with the Revised Forest Plan. Effectiveness monitoring would be accomplished by following the methodology outlined in The Plan for Soil Monitoring of Logging Operations and Site Preparation Burns on National Forests in Alabama. This project would also be included in the Soil and Water Standard and Guidelines Monitoring Plan, which is developed by the Forest Hydrologist. This will check the compliance and effectiveness of Standards and Guidelines

Monitoring of the activities in the project area would occur in the following ways:

• A certified timber sale administrator would m nitor timber sale operations. station technician, and/or silviculturist would

monitor site preparation, planting, and release treatments.

zone protection, snag retention, and erosion control measures.

lanning Team Leader and Silviculturist, B.S. orest Management, University of Georgia, 1967; M.F. Forest Administration, University

eferences oyce, Stephen G.1995.Landscape Forestry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY.

239 pp.

Eckhardt, L.G. 2003. Biology and ecology of Leptographium species and their vectors as components of loblolly decline. Ph.D Dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), 1999. Imazapyr (Arsenal, Chopper, and Stalker Formulations). Final Report. Submitted to USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. Riverdale, MD.

o• A certified pesticide applicator, refore

• The district biologist, district timber management assistant, and timber sale administrator would monitor stream

Participant’s Biography ames H. Shores Jr., Oakmulgee District PJ

Fof Georgia, 1969. RB

115


Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA), 2003. Triclopyr-Revised Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments, Final Report. Submitted to USDA Forest Service Health Protection Staff, Arlington, VA. Eckhardt, Lori G., Nolan J. Hess, Roger D. Menard, and Art J. Goddard. .2004. Assessment of Loblolly Pine Decline on the Oakmulgee Ranger District, Talladega National Forest, Alabama. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Alexandria Field Office, Pineville,LA. Report No. 2004-02-01. 42pp.

116


3.4: Understory Vegetation 3.4.1: Issues Without prescribed fire, the removal or reduction of the existing overstory pines will increase the amount of sunlight to the forest floor, stimulating the growth of existing small trees such as red maple, sweet gum, and tulip tree. This response will increase theamount of shade to the existing longleaf pine-associated understory species - warm season grasses, composites, and native legumes. Most of the herbaceous longleaf pine associates are not shade tolerant and an increase in small trees and woody brush will limit their habitat within the project area. Mechanical disturbance from proposed treatments may have an effect on plant composition. 3.4.2: Affected Environment

orested stands within the boundaries of the proposed project are located primarily in the and

n.

ominated by small trees, including black gum, sweet gum, red maple, sassafras,

nt

): Stand

p 48 Stand 2 (lower slopes and hollow); Comp 51 Stand 1; nd Comp 62 Stand 13; T23, R6E, SW1/4 SE1/4 Sec. 10 – Comp16 Stand 29

that are typical of sand hills community. This community type is rare n the Oakmulgee and some stands have already been converted to pure pine stands

(loblolly). Sand hill communities are typified by longleaf pine and small oaks such as

FGordo Formation Landtype Association (LTA) of the Upper Clay Hills Subsectionthe Coker Formation LTA of the Middle Coastal Plains - Upper Loam Hills Subsection. Both LTAs are located in the northwest and central west portion of the district. Each stand proposed for restoration or thinning has been surveyed by a botanist for federally listed Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened species as will as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and locally rare species. The findings from these surveys are discussed in Appendix B: Biological Assessment and Appendix C: Biological Evaluatio Through the botanical survey the botanists surveyed each stand and completed a site survey form. These forms contain a general habitat description of each site. Most sites are described as dense pine sites (either loblolly or longleaf pine) with a dense understory ddogwood, tulip tree, and various oak species. The botanists sometimes provided general management guidelines and comments about sites. They also recommended managemestrategies for the stands visited. Fifteen stands are recommended as special communities deserving special management recommendations. These are summarized as followed: Manage parts of these stands as hardwood sites: (COMPARTMENT/STANDComp 24 Stand 4; Comp 36 Stand 45; Comp 36 Stand10 (lower slopes); Comp 3611 (lower slopes); 36/44 (mesic slopes); Comp 36 Stand 45; Comp 42 Stand 47 (hollow--west side); Comp 45 Stand 2 (lower slopes); Comp 46 Stand 20 (hollow); Comp 47 Stand15 (lower slopes); Coma Manage as sand hills community (Thin and burn) (COMPARTMENT/STAND) –Comp 7 Stand 17. Many of the stands in Compartment 7 are on poor, sandy, unproductive soils o

117


turkey oak, blue jack oak, and dwarf post oak. Burning will help restore herbaceous species. These sites are best left as natural communities because the soils are unproductive and not suitable for growing dense stands of longleaf pine.

Special community

Figure 3.4-1: Botanist's Management Recommendations

Burning

Hardwood removalRe

Thinning

com

men

ded

Act

ion

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Number of Stands

The general findings from the botanists’ surveys conclude that the stands surveyed do not

orms an penetrable blanket over the forest floor so that light-dependent herbaceous species

ow ssamine and muscadine, blanket the forest floor, forming an impenetrable carpet in

le luestem were not noted as

ccurring in any of the stands.

meet the desired future condition of open park-like stands of longleaf pine (or loblolly) with some hardwood inclusions and with an understory of herbaceous vegetation composed of grasses and forbs. Presently, stands are overcrowded with various pine species, especially off-site loblolly pine. Due to lack of fire, pine straw fimseeds are unable to germinate. Not only are light-dependent herbaceous species seeds unable to germinate because of overcrowding of pine species, but also small trees are dominant in the understory further shading the forest floor. Vines, especially yellJesome stands. Shading prevents bluestem and broom sedge grass seeds from germinating and becoming established as the grassy herbaceous layer. Under current conditions, the herbaceous species that should carpet the forest floor have no chance of gaining a foothold in these stands. Figure 3.4-2 summarizes the most common species in these stands. While broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus) is noted in some of the stands, littbluestem was only noted in one stand. Indian grass and big bo

118


Figure 3.4-2: Common Species in Herbaceous Layer before Treatment

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Number of Stands

Broomsedge

Little Bluestem

Honeysuckle

Yellow Jessamine

Bracken Fern

Grasses such as Indian grass, broom sedge species, and little bluestem are common on theroadsides of the Oakm

ulgee District. Sunflowers, whorled tickseeds, black-eyed Susans,

range-fringed orchids, meadow beauties, butterfly weeds and rattlesnake master are a e roadsides of the Oakmulgee

here because roadsides are frequently bush-

story

en, s will move into newly opened stands either from

see ro the existing seed bank under the pine straw litte a His i

1913, the Geological Survey of Alabama published Economic Botany of Alabama

2,

onograph 10, by Roland M. Harper. Since transportation facilities over the state had greatly improved since 1913, Harper was able to traverse the state by automobile and

lso

done

ovisual treat during the summer and fall months along thDistrict. These species flourish and thrivehogged to prevent a build up of small trees on the verge. While the roadsides are maintained primarily for driver safety, roadside vegetation is an indicator of the speciesthat will become established in the forest interior if the pines are thinned, the midremoved, and fire re-introduced on a regular rotation schedule. If these actions are takit is reasonable to expect these specie

d f m adjacent roadside plants or fromr l yer.

tor cal Forests of Alabama Inwritten by Dr. Roland M. Harper. Prior to 1942, the State Geological Survey commissioned Dr. Harper to re-write and bring his original treatise up to date. In 194the State Geological Survey published this treatise entitled Forests of Alabama, M

train more completely than previously documented in his 1913 monograph. He visited every county at least once over the course of gathering information for the 1942 monograph. Harper was not only a superb chronicler of the forests he visited, but he aphotographed many of the sites he visited, especially superb stands of timber. He was appreciative of the longleaf pine and lamented that, as the trees were cut, little was to ensure longleaf pine regeneration. Fire was being eliminated from the forests, and the practice of allowing cows and other livestock free range over county woods was beginning to be outlawed county by county.

119


Roland Harper’s photograph collection is housed at the W.S. Hoole Special Collections library located in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, on the campus of the University of Alabama. These black and white photographs show the forests of Alabama as they existed around the turn of the century (early 1900s). Included in this report are six photographs taken inHale, Perry, Bibb, and Tuscaloosa Counties. These photographs provide the best indication that the upland forest structure was primarily a bi-layered system. On ridgeslongleaf pines were spaced at various distances from one another (but not crowded) w

a scattering of large oaks in the over story alongside thlongleaf pine. Longleaf pines began to drop out of the over story on m

, ith

present e

esic mid- to lower- slopes replaced by various

d

nd e

pine trunks in some photographs. These photographs represent the

)

g ed

hardwood species. The herbaceous layer made up the second layer of the bi-layered longleaf pine ecosystem anappears to be composed primarily of grasses; probably various broom sedge and bluestem species. Fire scars ascorch marks are visible on th

desired future condition (DFCthat the Oakmulgee District is hoping to reestablish. See Chapter 2 of this Longleaf Restoration EIS for a description of the DFC. Specifically, by followinObjective 1.5 of the RevisForest Plan, overstocked plantations and dense stands would be restored to a

woodland condition.

Figure 3.4-3: Virgin pine forest 3 or 4 miles SE of Blocton, Bibb Co. Tree in right foreground 99 in. around. Virgin pine forest on coal measures, Bibb Co. 9:32 AM. February 15, 1906. W.S. Hoole Special Collections Library

120


W. S. Hoole Special Collections Library Figure 3.4-4 - Stereoscopic view looking N into small ravine. Pinus palustris in foreground. 12:27 PM. June 19, 1911. (Note fire scars on trees in foreground)

W. S. Hoole Special Collections Library Figure 3.4-5: Stereoscopic view about 6 ¾ miles S. of Pearson, looking SSW through hilly virgin pine forest (left image); Pinus palustris among hills in N.W. part of Bibb Co. 11:28 AM. May 13, 1911.

121


W. S. Hoole Special Collections Library

igure 3.4-6: TF wo big pines and sundry smaller ones, in Bibb Co about 5 miles S. of Pearson. 10:40 AM. May 13, 1911.

122


W. S. Hoole Special Collections Library

Figure 3.4-7: Looking NE down another valley, almost the same place (Bibb CoOaks scarcer. Rocks in foregroun

.). d. 11:04 AM. May 13, 1911.

123


W. S. Hoole Special Collections Library Figure 3.4-8: Patch of Osmunda cinnamomea on hill among longleaf pines about 23

iles SE of Tuscaloosa. 2:12 PM. May 13, 1911. m Harper divided the state into forest regions based upon natural divisions using

rom the geological map. ccording to the Regional Map of Alabama included in his monographs (Harper 1913,

192 1corresp belt thato Harpconsist o Ha rOakmucorresp compasses portions of Tus l Harper stal plain in ata” (Harper 1943) that sweeps cross the state from the northwestern corner to a little south of the middle of the eastern

pine belt, the

ar r tral longleaf pine hills roughly was 900 ua m ing in all traces of

topography, soil, climate and other natural features (Harper 1913, 1928, 1943). Harper noted that, since the geological formations influenced the soil and topography so directly, his map of forest regions does not differ significantly fA

8, 943), the Oakmulgee District falls within the central pine belt which roughly onds with the Fall Line Hills on a geologic map. Within the broad central pinet traverses the state from west to east is the central longleaf pine belt. According er, the boundaries of the central longleaf pine belt are not contiguous but instead of a chain of seven islands, separated by rivers and large creeks. According t

rpe ’s rough regional map, a large and significant portion of the westernmost lgee District falls within this central longleaf pine belt. This forest region largely onds with the Gordo Landtype Association and en

ca oosa, Bibb, Perry and Hale Counties.

describes the central pine belt as the oldest and innermost portion of the coa Alabama, consisting “of a clayey and sandy str

aborder. He describes three forest types within this region: The short-leafcentral longleaf pine hills, and the Eutaw belt. Much of the project area for the current area appears to fall within the long-leaf pine belt. H pe (1943) estimated that the area of the cen

re iles. Unlike the shortleaf pine belt, this region is lacksqcalcareous formations. This is historical evidence that most of the Oakmulgee Ranger District falls within the central longleaf pine belt because there are few calcareous glades or barrens on the Oakmulgee like those that occur to the north of the District. The

124


topography of this region is hilly for the coastal plain. According to Harper, the originaforests were dominated by longleaf pine in the uplands with some small to medium-sioaks in the understory. Lower slopes and valleys include other pines and various hardwoods. Fire was frequent on the longleaf pine uplands and spread to varying distances down the slopes depending on wind, weather, and other environmental factors.

l zed

t the time of his writing the piece for the 1943 publication, Harper noted, “The pines do

. In

resent

o nger practiced in this region, further reduced the fire frequency in this region (Harper

ed his Plant Life of Alabama in cooperation with the eological Survey of Alabama. It was published by the USDA, Division of Botany, in

of

ork orks

ork, ed as

e District region in any great detail (Mohr 1901).

r Forest lands in Central Alabama, by Franklin W. Reed, was

anwestern part of the Oakmulgee District, Wi f o tha e in a reaso Pri o limited

ost li as cut before transfer of ownership to the USDA

Anot seem to be reproducing themselves very well now, perhaps because fire is now too infrequent to remove dead leaves and give the seeds a chance to germinate” (Harper 1943). In this monograph, Harper wrote, “… since 1913, sawmills operating in the region had an average capacity of 40,000 feet a day. One particular splendid stand, ten miles east of Tuscaloosa, on a road to Birmingham, consisted mainly of longleaf pine1911, turpentine still was operating in this forest. In or around 1930, several hundred acres of this stand were cut completely, and protected from fire. This resulted in pgrowth of oak saplings interspersed with shortleaf pine and only a few longleaf pine saplings” (Harper 1943). Harper noted that free-range grazing, once outlawed or nlo1928, 1943). Charles Mohr, Ph.D., preparG1901. His treatment of the plant life of Alabama was the result of nearly 40 yearstraveling through the state. Rather than just enumerating the species he observed, his work attempted to and largely succeeded in systematically relating his findings with ecological principles relating plant life in the field and describing the ecological conditions of the plant life. To date, Mohr’s Plant Life of Alabama is the only such wdescribing the plants and ecological conditions of the plants of Alabama. Other ware in progress but have not yet been published. According to the map in Mohr’s wmost of the western portions of the Oakmulgee District are located in region 9, namThe Central Belt of Longleaf Pine. Unfortunately, Mohr does not describe the herbaceous vegetation of the Oakmulge In 1905, A Working Plan fopublished by the USDA Forest Service – Bulletin No. 68. Reed was a Forest Assistant with the USDA Forest Service. The plan he presented was for two tracts of longleaf pinein Alabama, both owned by the Kaul Timber Company. One tract was located in NW

oosa County, and the other was located in Bibb, Tuscaloosa, Hale, and Perry Cos. This Cl d would eventually be transferred to USDA ownership, and now comprises the

that part which makes up the Oakmulgee ldli e Management Area. The purpose of his working plan was to design a strategy st th Kaul Timber Company could obtain a second crop of timber from its lands with

nable length of time.

or t 1905, few railroads occurred in this area and large lumbering enterprises were, so that the forests Reed surveyed were primarily virgin forests (Reed 1905). kely, all of the longleaf timber wM

Forest Service.

125


Reed noted that the lands he surveyed occurred in the “Central Belt of Longleaf Pine,” r. Charles Mohr (Reed 1905). Reed described the soil of the area as

cking in loam and composed of quartz sand, intermixed with quartz pebbles and stained

ongleaf pine covered 55,159 acres or 87.8% of the tract he surveyed. The largest part of

sisted of shortleaf, loblolly, and ardwoods, mixed with longleaf, and sometimes replacing it totally (Reed 1905). These

ents 5, 14, 24, in areas around Keeton Corner, and ompartments 65, and 71 at the southern edge of the forest near Moore, AL.

t into blocks based upon township and range. In each block e noted the number of acres of land and the percentage of longleaf pine land over the

oamier soils contained more shortleaf, loblolly nd hardwoods. His findings are summarized below:

7, 18, 1, 30, 31, and 32. Longleaf pine land comprised ,565 acres or 66.9% of the 3,831 total acres. He described the soil as deep and slightly amy with loblolly and shortleaf playing an important part in the forest on longleaf pine

land. The eastern half of sections 18 and 19 had pure longleaf stands. Block II – T23N R6E sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. Longleaf pine land comprised 5,293 or 85.9% of the 6,158 total acres. He described the soil as a pure, sand, deep and dry. The longleaf pine was found in pure stands even growing in hollows as well as on slopes and ridges. The longleaf reached its best development here, and there was practically no hardwood undergrowth. Block III – T23N R6E sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 2, 33, 34, 35, and 36. Longleaf pine land comprised 6, 832 acres or 78.7% of the 8, 680 total acres. He described the area as hilly with steep slopes. The majority of longleaf stands were pure, but some had scattered inclusions of loblolly, shortleaf, and hardwoods. Block IV – T23N R7E sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 17, and 18. Longleaf pine land comprised 2,713 acres or 71.3% of the 3,805 total areas. This block was similar to Block I, in that it contained a greater proportion of loblolly and shortleaf pine than longleaf pine. Block V – T23N R7E sections 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. T23N R8E sections 6, 7, 18, 19, 30, and 31. Longleaf pine land comprised 18,279 acres or 79.8% of the 22,899 total acres. He described the land as rough and hilly with much sandstone in evidence. The longleaf pine stands were pure longleaf. Hardwood undergrowth occurred infrequently or was entirely lacking except on northern and western exposures. Block VI – T22N R7E sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, and 29. T22N R8E sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 17 and 18. Longleaf pine land

according to Dlawith iron oxide and little suited to agriculture. Lthe tract consisted of pure open stands of longleaf pine. However, he notes a few localities where the forests on more loamy soils conhareas correspond to areas located in compartments 37 and 20 at the western edge of the Oakmulgee District, CompartmC Reed (1905) divided the trachtract. He also commented on the relative proportions of shortleaf, loblolly, and hardwoods in each block. In general, the la Block I – T23N R6E sections2lo

126


comprised 13,384 acres or 75.9% osimilar to Block V, with more loblo

f the 17,620 total acres. He described this block as lly and shortleaf in the southern parts of sections 28

nd 29.

,

at

t

.4.3: Environmental Effects ised

a Block VII – T22N R7E sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, and 36. T22N R8E sections 19, 2029, 30, 31, and 32. The longleaf pine occurred in practically pure stands in this block except in sections 27 and 34 where the proportions of loblolly, shortleaf, and hardwood were quite large. Reed (1905) believed that fire was destructive to the longleaf pine forest. He also blamedfire for the disappearance of large canebrake thickets. Because of free range grazing thwas not outlawed in most counties until later in the 1900s, the woods were probably set on fire frequently and intentionally to promote forage for cows and hogs. Note that Reed’s opinion (Reed 1905) and Harper’s opinion (Harper 1913, 1942) of fire are in starkcontrast to one another. Present day forest ecologists and longleaf pine experts have demonstrated that lack of fire is detrimental to longleaf pine regeneration and fire suppression contributed to the disappearance of the large canebrake thickets that once blanketed creek bottoms in Alabama. Roland Harper has proven to be a forest ecologisahead of his times. 3The discussion of environmental effects on under story vegetation is tiered to the RevForest Plan. Chapter 3 of the Revised Forest Plan includes management prescriptions describing how to manage different land areas. This emphasis is reflected in the management prescriptions applied. All proposed treatment areas in this analysis fallwithin the Prescriptions that follow:

• 7.E.2 – Dispersed Recreation • 8.D.1 – RCW Sub-HMA • 9.D – Restoration of Longleaf Pine Forests • 9.F – Rare Communities

Disturbance of vegetation from management practices including timber harvest, site preparation, and reforestation will result in vegetation changes. The following chart shows the management practices and acres that will be affected by the treatments.

127


Figure 3.4-9:Treatments by Alternative

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000


Alternative

Acr

es

Thin Restoration

Silvicultural rowded pine stands to 40-80 BA will open the canopy d increase the likelihood tsu s like grasses, com will germinate. Thincreases th e DFC ol nfortu rubby spincrease. T e DFC cannot be m s, preferably in the g e dy enThinning to about 7 rest canopy, and needle cast from the remaining t i S act ill prb ener ilable trees, so these sites gs per acre on a 9 ft. by 9 ft. spacing. Site below) followed by site

burning to prepare planting sites. Although this is an intensive treatment, grasses of

of ng

practice (thinning): The silvicultural practice of thinning overc an hat seeds of

is action pen, park-

n-loving specie posites, and legumese likelihood that these thinned pi

ike stands. Uh

ne stands will meet thnately, canopy thinning also allows woody sh

et fully in these stands unless hot fire

f oecies to

rowing season, ar implemented on a rotational basis to reduce woo0 BA will open the fo

croachment.

rees will be suffic ent to carry prescribed fire.

ilvicultural pr ice (restoration): Restoration of longleaf pine wva

imarily occur y artificial reg ation. In most stands, longleaf pines are not a

will be planted with 538 longleaf pine seedlinpreparation will be by herbicide (see effects

to act as seed

prepsuch as little bluestem, big bluestem, broom sedge and Indian grass benefit becausereduced competition from woody species. In two or three years post planting when burning is eliminated in these stands to lessen longleaf pine and loblolly seedling mortality, woody species will begin to creep back into the stands and diversity in the herbaceous layer will decrease. The grass/forb herbaceous layer that is an integral partthe open, park-like stands DFC is best maintained by rotational growing season burniregardless of longleaf pine and loblolly seedling stage.

128


Stocking rate: The longleaf pine stocking rate of 538 seedlings per acre is similar to thestocking rate recommended by others involved in longleaf pine ecosystem restoratiolongleaf pine system in the same physiographic province that is actively managed withsimilar DFC is th

n. A

a e Fort Benning Army Reservation. Foresters at the Fort Benning

eservation plant enough longleaf pine seedlings so that the seedlings emerge from the s

nds where longleaf pine restoration must be accomplished by rtificial regeneration will be treated with Imzapyr (Arsenal or equivalent product) and

s ted seedlings at least temporarily. However, Garlon alone, which is less

kely to kill desirable grasses, is also less effective at killing hardwood rootstocks. Over t

h that

hieved

as st

mer and fall months.

s section above, and summarized in the botanists’

f

Rgrass stage. The Georgia Department of Forestry recommends for private landownerwho want to establish longleaf pine, a stocking rate of 500 seedlings per acre. This stocking rate is sufficient to ensure adequate pine stocking rate and pine straw cast to carry prescribed fires without jeopardizing the herbaceous layer, which is an integral component of the longleaf pine ecosystem. Herbicide effects: StaaTriclopyr (Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 or equivalent products). Arsenal kills many grasseswhile many asters and composites are only marginally controlled by Arsenal. Since Arsenal is soil active, it works below ground on rootstocks and serves as a good control agent on sweet gum and red maple. At the end of the second growing season, herbicide will be applied to competing vegetation to eliminate or greatly reduce woody and grass/forb competition. This Arsenal Garlon mixture will reduce grasses and forbaround the trealitime, grasses and forbs will be re-established around treated seedlings and will benefifrom reduced hardwood competition. Soils on the Oakmulgee are productive enougthis second treatment with Arsenal is necessary to gain control over competing hardwoods like red maple and sweetgum. Any short-term effects to grasses and forbs will be offset over time by reduced hardwood competition. Grasses and forbs will bequickly re-established from seed banks and seed from adjacent vegetation. Reducing hardwood competition is integral to establishing and maintaining open park-like stands and restoring woodland conditions. Once the seedlings have been released and acabout a ¾” root collar diameter at ground level, rotational prescribed fire will maintain stands composed of young longleaf pine trees with associated grasses and forbs in the herbaceous layer. Desired Future Condition (DFC): Desired future condition (DFC) for the treated areare open “park-like” stands with longleaf pine as the dominant over story tree. The forefloor is covered with grasses including Indian grass; various broom sedge species, little bluestem and big bluestem. Asters, sunflowers, compass plants, blue curls, black-eyed Susans, and narrow-leaf sunflowers, are just some of the forbs that will carpet the forest floor providing food and nectar for forest-dwelling animals and visual beauty for forest visitors, especially during sum As indicated in the existing conditionfindings table, no stand in the proposed project area meets the criteria for desired future condition. Alternative A (No Action): Under this alternative, no action is taken on off-site areas to promote longleaf pine ecosystem restoration. The No Action alternative does not meet Revised Forest Plan Objectives 1.2, restoration of native species, and 1.5, restoration o

129


structure and composition. If the no action alternative is selected, hardwood mid storywill continue to encroach in the pine stands and the herbaceous layer will be further suppressed. None of the stands will move toward the DFC. In 2003, the Regional Director, Southeast Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and thAssistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks signed the Recovery Plafor the red-cockaded woodpecker. The recovery plan outlin

e n

es recovery standards for anaging foraging habitat for RCW for Federal agencies. The definition of good quality

es of

at

eas

is

ant, fire-dependent herbs totaling 40% or more of ground and mid story ce every 5 years will be met

tional basis.

In o bi-layered system with pines in the

ear. The Fort Benning Reservation, also in the Fall Line Hills physiographic region, has by thinning, mid story reduction, and burning every munication). Fire rotations of 3-5 years favors

e n

AOC 4 thi ng will open p the canop woody

an i h o the s s tow D , i g tt h e a

so s w seherbaceous s ill o unity to b ome ablished ese . stated above, a prescribed burning rotation of 2- ears ikely to b ost vemoving these owa D

mforaging habitat, as defined in the revised plan, has some large old pines, low densitismall and medium pines, sparse or no hardwood mid story, and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover. The standard for groundcover is as follows: Groundcovers of native bunchgrass and/or other native, fire-tolerant, fire-dependent herbs total 40 percent or more of ground and mid story plants and are dense enough to carry growing season fire least once every 5 years. If no action is taken, the RCW Recovery Plan standard for groundcover in foraging arof the RCW will not be met. Alternative B (Proposed Action): In AOC 3 thinning would take place on 2,813 acres of 20-40 year old loblolly sites. This treatment will open up the forest floor to moredirect sunlight and woody shrubs will increase. If prescribed burning, preferably duringthe growing season, is implemented in these stands along with mid story reduction, thtreatment will increase the herbaceous composition in these stands and the DFC of open park-like stands will be met. Also the RCW Recovery Plan standard for groundcover of native fire-tolerplants dense enough to carry growing season fire at least onon those acres.

Needle cast continues to provide enough fuel to carry prescribed fire on a rotarder to change the forest structure to the historical

over story and an herbaceous understory, prescribed burning is recommended every 2-3 ychanged the structure of their forests

om2-3 years (Tom Green, personal cwoody vegetation and the oak, sweet gum and red maple component is likely to increasin these stands with this rotation. The Oakmulgee District has more productive soils thaFort Benning, necessitating the need for burning at least every 2-3 years to keep mid story woody encroachment at bay. In nning will occur on 2,813 acres of longleaf pine stands. Thinni

y and the forest floor will receive more direct sunlight allowing ushrubs d vines to

s co d wncrease. Tith in

inning itself will n bu , li

t movee

tand ard ther will ch

FCnge, but if it

favoring continuous light pine straw. Aluple grow season rning

, woor depthrub

and charactill be dedy s crea d, and

pecies w have an pport ec est in th stands As i3 y is l e m effecti n

acres t rds the FC.

130


S l t ent ( ora ) Restoration cuts in AOC 1 and 2 will occur o7 res of e da or d ining loblolly, shortleaf pine and pine hardwood to r ese lon i repar n lanting e d to ong n ing sur . ide tre f bprep burning ll many com woody b mall h d s.

ous sp (grasse om es, legum ) w n have oopportunity in which to become established. Once the longleaf pine seedlings are p fre f f d ne whet r rb a ails. If

e m r fiv ar e th a elolly p edling herb us l

7,393 acres that will be cleared of offsite

et tion

s

ction - no Herbicide and Less Prescribed

ilvicultura reatm Rest tion n ,393 ac offsit maged eclestore th sites to gleaf p ne. Site p atio and p methods will bemploye insure l leaf pi e seedl vival Herbic atment ollowed y site

will ki peting shru s and s ardwoo sapling Herbace ecies s, c posit es ill the a wind w of

lanted, crib

quency ois eli

ire will d fo

etermi

her os to

not the he

aceous lival of

yer prevl longlpres

bd fire ine se

inates, the

up toaceo

e yeayer will be out competed by woody species. If

nsure e surv l af and lofire is used to help release longleaf pine seedlings from the grass stage two or three years post planting, herbaceous species will continue to thrive. The first year after treatment, herbaceous species will predominate, but woody species will begin to out-compete herbaceous species in the 2nd and 3rd years following the initial treatment and longleaf pine planting. Silvicultural treatment (Herbicide) On declining loblolly pine, shortleaf pine, and pine/hardwood, the initial clearing will be followed by herbicide application. The herbicides that will be used are Imazapyr (Arsenal or equivalent product), Triclopyr Amine (Garlon 3A or equivalent product), and Triclopyr Ester (Garlon 4 or equivalent product). Arsenal is very effective against many woody species including sweet gum, red maple, and green briar, and also very effective against many grasses and forbs. The initial use of this herbicide mixture on the herbaceous layer will be minimal because these stands are overcrowded with pine, swegum, red maple, and oak and the herbaceous layer is minimal. Following site preparaby herbiciding and burning, the herbaceous component will dramatically increase on these acres. Following the first year survival check of longleaf seedlings, stands will be evaluated to determine if vegetation is competing with the seedlings. If necessary, standwill be treated again with the herbicide mixture to release planted seedlings from competition. This treatment is likely to have an effect on the herbaceous layer because by this time, grasses and forbs should be prevalent throughout these stands. Although a econd treatment with the herbicide mixture will temporarily decrease grass/forb s

diversity in the herbaceous layer, this second treatment is necessary to kill persistent hardwood rootstocks. Over time, once the mid story hardwood competition is minimized, herbaceous vegetation like grasses, legumes, and composites will once again thrive in these stands. Reducing mid story hardwood competition is necessary to maintain the grassy herbaceous layer, an integral part of the DFC. Once control of hardwoods is achieved through herbicide use, the herbaceous layer can be maintained by burning stands on a rotational basis.

lternative C (modified proposed aABurning) In this alternative the same numbers of acres will undergo timber harvest treatments. No herbicide will be used for site preparation or pine release. Instead, site preparation will be done with mechanized equipment or burning. Mid story control will be accomplished through use of mechanical equipment and burning.

131


On the 2,813 acres of 20-40 year old offsite trees stands that will be thinned, this treatment will likely result in more woody encroachment over time because there will be

f

ely

eting the DFC on these acres. However, because no herbicide will be used,

persistent rootstocks and disturb the deep pine straw layer. hardwoods will re-sprout quickly from rootstocks. If this trgrowing season burning, herbaceous vegetation would flourno difference in stocking rate between this alternative and a FC for herbaceous vegetation would be met the first year, it wilgrowing season burning is implemented on a 2-3 year rotati Alternative D (low impact harvest): The effects of this alalternative B because the stocking rate of longleaf pine, buruse stays the same. Woody and herbaceous vegetation wou aten down in the short term. Less soil disturbance means fewer invasive species to become established in these stands. Alternative E (less restoration and less thinning): In thiseffects are similar to those described for alternative B, but le impacted. Fewer acres will meet the DFC of open park-likeherbaceous layer. Less acreage will be available over time endangered RCW. Alternative F (most restoration): In this alternative the same amount of longleaf pine acreage would be thinned. Mid story treatments that includ ide, mechanized treatments and growing season burning will push these stands towards the DFC. More acreage will be included for restoration. The 7,887 restoration acres would be harvested, treated with herbicide, and then burned during site prep. This will temporarily give the herbaceous vegetation a chance to out compete woody vegetation, but the herbaceous layer component will begin to decline on these acres after the second or third year until

less prescribed burning in these stands and woody species will re-sprout from persistent rootstocks. Reducing the hardwood mid story is essential to maintaining the DFC oopen park-like stands with a grassy herbaceous layer. On 2, 831 acres of longleaf pine stands that will be thinned, mid story control will be accomplished by the use of mechanical equipment and burning. This treatment is likto eliminate woody vegetation and allow herbaceous species to become established thereby methe DFC will not persist, because woody species will re-sprout from rootstocks after the 1st or 2nd year. To perpetuate the DFC, burning must be continued on a 2-3 year rotation to keep the woody vegetation from out-competing the herbaceous layer. Growing seasonburning would be the best treatment. Mechanical treatment may mimic the bush hoggingthat is done along the roadsides, which helps to maintain the herbaceous cover along the roadsides. However roadside vegetation does not have to contend with a thick pine straw layer that inhibits seed germination in these pine stands. Mechanized treatment that breaks up the pine straw layer followed by growing season burning is likely a good treatment to perpetuate the DFC. On 7,393 acres of off site restoration sites, woody vegetation will come back much quicker because no herbicide will be used. Drum-chopping would break up wood

Mid story shrubs and eatment were followed by ish in these stands. There is lternative B. While the Dl not be perpetuated until onal schedule.

ternative are similar to ning rotation, and herbicide ld be less trampled and beopportunities for weedy

alternative, treatments ss acreage overall would be stands with a grassy/forb for foraging for the

e herbic

132


growing season burning can be implemented on a 2-3 year rotational basis. Since stocking rate of longleaf pine, herbicide use, and burning regimens will be the same as

of rstory,

r

e to

ver in foraging stands, a

ion

• Diversity in the herbaceous vegetation

Thinning, mid story removal, burning: Thinning overstocked pine stands along with mid story removal and burning will increase the divcomposites and other forbs. Burning will change thJessamine and muscadine, forcing these vines from floor into a vertical structure climbing trees for heiggreatest the first and second years following prescrib ase the 3rd-5th years. Growing season burning has the greate erbaceous diversity. Stands burned during the dormant season will have less herbaceous diversity. Restoration – clearcutting, reforestation: Herbacfollowing treatment. After replanting and releasing diversity will temporarily decrease. However, once in these stands and rotational prescribed burning is impbegin to increase again. This has been shown on For(Tom Green, personal communication). Desirable g room sedge, Indian grass and big bluestem can only flouris

those recommended for Alternative B, the only difference between this alternative and alternative B is the number of acres impacted. Over time, more acres will meet the definition of the DFC described as open park-like stands with a grass/forb herbaceous layer. More acreage will be available over time for foraging for the endangered RCW. 3.4.4: Mitigation Measures To meet the Desired Future Condition of Woodland Restoration, consisting primarilybi-layered forest displaying an open park-like appearance, with an herbaceous undethe following mitigation measures should be applied.

• Stocking rate should be similar to that recommended by Georgia Department of Forestry and employed by Fort Benning Reservation, which is also in the Fall Line Hills physiographic province. The Oakmulgee District’s proposed stocking rate of 538 longleaf seedlings on a 9 ft. X 9 ft. grid is similar to that used by othestate and federal agencies involved in long-leaf pine ecosystem restoration.

• To reduce effects to the grassy herbaceous layer following planting of longleaf seedlings, pine release should be accomplished by the least amount of herbicideffectively kill persistent hardwood rootstocks.

• To meet the RCW Recovery Plan standard for groundcoburning rotation of 2-3 years is recommended. Burning during the growing season is the best treatment to stimulate herbaceous vegetation but burning frequently enough is also a consideration.

3.4.5 Cumulative Effect on Understory Vegetation Treatments within the analysis area will have cumulative effects on understory vegetatin the following area:

ersity of grasses, native legumes, e growing habit of vines like yellow a horizontal structure on the forest ht. Herbaceous diversity will be ed fire and will begin to decrest potential to increase h

eous diversity will increase 1-3 years seedlings with herbicide, herbaceous hardwood competition is reducedlemented, herbaceous diversity will t Benning Military Reservation rass species like bluestem; bh in stands where hardwood

133


competition is minimal. Over time, these young longleaf stands will provide excellenforaging habitat for the endangered RCW because the herbaceous layer is intact. Herbiciding – site preparation: Herbicide us

t

e following pine removal and prior to forestation will help remove woody species and allow species diversity to increase in e herbaceous understory.

cide use to release pine seedlings will reduce

ut its use. A healthy and diverse grass/forb intained in stands where hardwood midstory blocks

est floor. Grassy herbaceous vegetation can only be nlight reaches the forest floor and prescribed fire prepares on.

imple process or complicated one depending on the level of on undertaking the monitoring. A simple but effective ize woodland structure achievement, is as follows:

r species composition restoration through silvicultural tract monitoring.

• Objective 1.5 Monitor woodland restorations by the amount of hardwood kill

Part I. Geological Survey of labama, Monograph 8, Tuscaloosa, AL. 222 pp.

Economic botany of Alabama. gical Survey of

AL. 3

ests of Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama, Monograph aloosa, AL. 230 pp.

reth Herbiciding – pine release: Herbiherbaceous diversity in the herbaceous layer temporarily. However, herbicide use isnecessary to kill persistent rootstocks of hardwoods. Once hardwood competition is reduced, herbaceous diversity will increase. Over time, the herbaceous layer benefits from herbicide use because the DFC of open park-like stands will be achieved much quicker with herbicide use than withoherbaceous layer cannot be masunlight from reaching the formaintained in stands where suthe seed bed for seed germinati 3.4.6: Monitoring Monitoring can be a rather sbotanical expertise of the persmonitoring scheme, to recogn

• Objective 1.2 Monitocon

following herbicide contracts and burning. Use photo points to evaluate herbaceous layer development.

• Objective 1.5 Monitor RCW foraging improvements by basal area reduction checks and herbaceous layer development. The goal is 40% ground cover ingrasses and pyrophytic forbs.

Biography: Suzanne Oberholster, Botanist, M.S. Botany, Auburn University, 1989; B.A. History, Auburn University, 1986. References:

Economic botany of Alabama.Harper, Roland. 1913. A

Harper, Roland. 1928. Alabama, Mon

Part II. Geoloograph 9, Tuscaloosa,

Harper, Roland. 1943. For

57 pp.

10, Tusc

134


Mohr, Charles. 1901. Plant Life of Alabama, Volume 6. U.S. National Herbarium,

Washington, D.C., 921 pp. Reed, Franklin W. 1905. A working plan for forest lands in central Alabama. USDAForest Service Bulletin No. 68. 73 pp. W.S. Hoole Special Collections Library, The Roland Harper’s Photograph Collection, The University of Alabama.

135


3.5: Wildlife Resources 3.5.1: Issues One of the primary objectives of this proposal is to “encourage a natural diversity of plant and animal communities, including those understory species historically associated

ith longleaf pine”. This section will address the species-habitat relationships of several e predicted understory responses to management treatments

in the Proposed A terest by rganizations, managers and f ers. re Management Indicator

e effects of Forest Plan imp ntation. ll of these species have nderstory plant condit or to op park-like forest structur ,

round cover develo t. Unde ry conditions and foresge as a result of the effects of restoration ative ecosystem species

ion, structure and function. Replacing off-site pine plantations and loblolly and gleaf and hardwood stands will restore native

osition. Restoring ow too dense will be done through thinning, burning and midstory removal to restore

, nce

cies) nsitive,

y,

otential treatment effects through streamside management zone and Riparian Corridor Prescription rest ents in upland

any species would be protec are nity ionsern species not impacted, or found to be unaffected E are not discussed further in the EIS.

revealed that the red-cockaded woodpecker is the viability rience meaningfully changed hab ndition ion. Fo is

il in Section 3.6. The red-cockaded wlationship to the health and condition of upland pine woodland habitats. This

implementation “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of

wwildlife species relative to th

ction and its alternatives. These species are of high inconservation o orest us They aSpecies (MIS) of th leme Acritical lifecycle ties to u ions, en, ewhich allows herbaceous g pmen rsto t structure will chan of ncompositshortleaf pine stands with native lonecosystem species comp woodland structure to forest stands that arennative ecosystem structure. Once composition and structure have been restoredprescribed burning and other management techniques, which mimic natural disturbapatterns, will insure the restoration of native ecosystem function. Wildlife resource considerations and analyses evaluated for the Proposed Action are reported in the Biological Assessment (BA) of federally listed species, the Biological Evaluation (BE) of Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, and in this section of the analysis. The Revised Forest Plan, its Environmental Impact Statement, biological analysis, and biological evaluation were reviewed to determine the scope of potentially affected communities and species. This project’s BA (~30 species) and BE (~45 speevaluated the over 75 species of viability concern (federally proposed or listed, seor locally rare) with potential occurrence on Oakmulgee District. The biological analyses were supported by unprecedented surveys. Surveys and their findings are discussed in the biological evaluation and in the Understory Section of this document. In summarthe BA and BE found that most viability concern species would be protected fromp

rictions, or by virtue of the focus of management treatmpine stands. M ted by r commu restrict or restoration treatments. Viability concby the Proposed Action in the BA or BThe Biological Assessment concern species most likely to expe

roposed Actitat co s with

implementation of the Pnalyzed in greater deta

r this reason, the red-cockaded woodpeckeoodpecker has a direct

r arecharacteristic makes it not only a federally listed species to evaluate, but also a Forest Plan designated management indicator species for the Proposed Action. Management indicator species (MIS) were selected to monitor Forest Plan

136


management activities” (36 CFR 219 (a) (1)). They are to be used during planning to help compare effects of alternatives (36 CFR 219.19(a) (2)), and as a focus for

to diversity of plant and animal ommunities. Other elements used for comprehensive planning for plant and animal

diveecobiological evaluations and assessments at both the forest plan and site-specific project levels; and evaluation of risk to species of viability concern at the forest plan level. Table 3.5-1 shows the MIS species whose habitats ar te ally af ted b the P oseActions and its Alternatives. The remaining M sp list th vis ForPl are not expected to be affected by the opo Act or A s in Table 3.5-1 were c e ey p ide anin l co f the potential effects of the Proposed Actions and its Alternatives. They are expected to be sensitive to the changes prop ed, t rely avil n th ativeco oration, and they re ex cted t serve indicators om uccess within declining, off-site reason for each MIS’s selection and relates the ives for m em in Revised Forest Plan.

T tor Species ected r us nd primary reason(s) for lection Talladega National Fores Oak lgee District

e

Reason for ctionR ted R sed

rest

monitoring (36 CFR 219.19(a) (6)). Twelve species were selected as managementindicator species for the revised Forest Plan (Table 2-10, page 2-48, Revised Forest Plan). The MIS process is but one tool used to develop management strategies and monitoring programs designed to meet NFMA requirements relatedc

rsity include: objectives and standards for maintenance and restoration of desired logical conditions based on knowledge of overall ecosystem structure and function;

e po nti fec y rop d IS ecies ed in

re Res

ed i n

est itan utilize habitats that

The specieP ed o s

lternatives. mparisons o

hosen becaus th rov me gfu

os hey he y o e n mmunities proposed for rest a pe o as f anagement s communities. Table 3.5-1 also lists the

m to Object anag ent the

able 3.5-1: Management Indica sel fo-

e amutheir se t

Common Nam Sele

ela eviFoO

Planivesbject

Red-cockaded Woodpecker

To help indicate management effects to mid- and late- successi

1.2, 1.4, 1.5, 12.1onal pine and pine-oak forest.

, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 16.1, 18.1

Eastern wild turkey To help indicate management effects on meeting hunting 1.3, 1.2, 1.3, 16.3 demand for this species.

Northern bobwhite quail

To help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species.

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 16.1, 18.1

Hooded warbler To help indicate management effects on mesic deciduous forest and mesic oak and oak-pine forest communities.

16.2, 16.4

Prairie Warbler To help indicate management effects on creating and maintaining early successional forest (low e

1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 16.4levation)

communities and other early successional habitats.

Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) occupies a wide range of habitats; with

sified habitats providing optimum conditions (Schroeder 1985). This includes e mast-producing stands during fall and winter, shrub-d

divermatur ominated stands for nesting, nd herb-dominated communities, including agricultural clearings for brood rearing.

h as presc ent of herba 3).

The Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) inhabits a wide variety of vegetation types, particularly early successional stages. It occurs in croplands, grasslands, pastures, fallow

aHabitat conditions for wild turkey can be enhanced by management activities suc

ribed burning, thinning (Hurst 1978; Pack et al. 1988), and the developmceous openings (Nenno and Lindzey 1979, Healy and Nenno 198

137


fields, grass-brush rangelands, open pinelands, open mixeopen canopy (<50%) pinelands and mixed pine-hardwood

d pine-hardwood forests. The forests that have diverse

etation, provide ideal habitat in the south (Brennan 1999, DeVos and

In t owth of mountain laurel

a The al bre h scattered trees, pine plantations, clearcuts, ays. Large openings

t. Pophab

sparrow is a fugitive species, breeding wherever fires created suitable conditions. It requires a well-developed grass and herb layer with limited shrub and hardwood midstory components. The ideal habitat was originally the extensive longleaf pine woodlands of the South. It is able to colonize recent clearcuts and early seral stages of old field succession but such habitat remains suitable only for a short time. Habitats include dry open pine with an understory groundcover of grasses and shrubs, overgrown fields with thickets and briers, grassy orchards, and large clearcuts (Natureserve, 2003).

Eastern wild turkey and Northern bobwhite quail are species that are hunted. Their populations may be affected by hunting mortality to the point that fluctuations in their population levels could be external to habitat conditions. Therefore, although they are discussed herein with regard to potential effects of management on their habitat needs, the potential effects of hunting harvest will also be weighed during monitoring of their population levels. Both species are best utilized as indicators of management effects on meeting hunting demand.

3.5.2: Affected Environment Oakmulgee is located within the East Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Area as identified by the Partners in Flight (PIF) Bird Conservation Plan (BCP). The specific habitat proposed for restoration in the Proposed Action is identified as one of seven priority species habitat suites in the BCP. This habitat suite is listed as Longleaf Pine-Slash Pine and the BCP establishes an objective to increase longleaf pine forest acreage by over 4 million acres by 2025. This objective was established in order to recover habitat, not

groundcover vegMueller 1993). Hooded warblers are long-distance migrants that utilize the understory of deciduous forest, especially along streams and ravine edges, and thickets in riverine forests for nesting. It inhabits both young and mature forests but is most abundant in the latter. A dense shrub layer and scant ground cover are important in the deciduous stands it prefers.

he southeast it is common in mountain ravines with dense grand rhododendron and in bottomland swamps with dense pepperbush and giant cane (N tureserve, 2004).

prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) prefers upland scrub-shrub habitats. Optimeding habitats are usually associated with brushy communities, fallow fields wit

and powerline right-of-wsurrounding or containing clumps of shrubs are typical components of breeding habita

ulations typically use sites only for short periods of time because preferred breeding itat (early seral) coincides with rapid structural change in plant structure and

composition. Bachman’s sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) is a habitat specialist. Historically, it was found in mature to old growth southern pine woodland subject to frequent growing-season fires. Although it was not chosen to be a Revised Forest Plan MIS, it is of interestdue to its declining populations and close association to fire-maintained woodlands. The

138


only for red-cockaded woodpeckers, but also for Bachman’s sparrows, brown-headednuthatch, prairie warbler, northern bobwhite qu

ail, and Southeastern American kestrels,

ote s

rn Coastal Plain. The NBCAlabam(NBCI, Appendix). The NBCI describes currenmar ine plantations, high t site pbobmaturedshaded out understory vegetation, and greatly reduced habitat quality for quail and other early su y the NBCI in• Re-e•

a• As feasible, use long rotations and fr

Treatme he NBCI. 3.5.3: Alt

all of which are considered of high conservation concern by PIF. It is important to nthat Longleaf Pine themselves are not critical to the survival of these species, rather it iopen, park-like, longleaf pine (or shortleaf pine or pine-oak) that exists in a woodland structure, that is the critical niche shared by these species. Most longleaf that persists today exists in a closed-canopied, dense forest condition. Another relevant, landscape-scale, wildlife conservation and restoration plan which provides management guidance to Forest Service managers is the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (NBCI). Oakmulgee District lies within Bird Conservation Region 27: Southeastern Coastal Plain in the NBCI. Northern bobwhites are a decliningspecies throughout their range. Breeding bird surveys indicate that northern bobwhites declined 5% per year from 1982 through 1999 in the Southeaste

I sets goals for habitat restoration and management, and for population growth. In a bobwhite quail numbers may have declined by as much as 85% since 1980

t southern pine forest condition as “only ginally suitable for habitation by quail, or not suitable at all. Within p stocking rates, short rotations, a lack of prescribed burning, and changes in pre-planpre aration methods have all contributed to a degradation of habitat quality for whites. Many mixed pine hardwood stands resulting from natural succession have

, developed closed canopy overstories and hardwood midstories which have

ccessional species” (Dimmick et al. 2002). Habitat objectives prescribed bclude: stablish 150,000 acres of longleaf on public land;

Improve the ground cover conditions for quail in existing longleaf stands on 985,000cres of public land (and 475,000 acres of private land);

equent understory disturbance in the management of all pine forests on public lands.

nts included in the Proposed Action are consistent with the goals of t

Environmental Effects ernative A – No Action

The current conditions for the Oakmulgee District based on data from the Continuous Inventory of Stand Conditions (CISC) in 2003 are listed in Figure 3.5-2. Only 4 % of the area is currently in young forest condition. Under the No Action Alternative no new early seral habitats will be created.

Figure 3.5-2: Age Class Distribution in 2003 Alternative A

Age Class

Longleaf Pine

LoblollyPine

Pine/Hwd

ShortleafPine

Hwd/Pine

All Hardwood

Total %

0-10 3,267 13 0 0 0 115 3,395 4%11-20 6,079 2,677 129 0 44 681 9,610 11%21-30 440 2,676 173 0 42 642 3,973 5%31-40 1,365 3,311 62 0 90 92 4,920 6%

139


41-50 787 731 265 0 46 186 2,015 2% 51-60 638 1,468 44 0 176 507 2,833 3% 61-70 5,692 5,591 1,602 42 1,561 3,608 18,096 21% 71-80 9,491 3,351 3,509 238 3,055 7,402 27,046 32% 81-90 3,010 929 1,145 160 1,404 3,557 10,205 12%

91-100 820 84 175 0 712 1,169 2,960 3% 100+ 1,223 71 0 58 335 596 2,283 3% Total 32,812 20,902 7,104 498 7,465 18,555 87,336

% 38% 24% 8% 1% 9% 21% 100% Existing early seral habitats will grow into dense, closed canopied forest with little to no ground re will favor the developmewarbler i l be nega e Alternative B – Proposed Action PIF’s L g Upland oManagemeand its A te d in ManagemePlan. The Habitat Group stands, almLonGro pear as if oak habitats are being proposed for conversion to pine

s, are being proposed for restoration back to native longleaf pine stands. Over 70% of Oakmulgee Division’s Oak and Oak Pine Habitat

ese stands is lo ted on uplands sites, which are off-site for loblolly pines, more suited to mesic drainages. Th pen stands of trees, generally forming 25 to 60 percent canopy closure composed of pi

pen, park-lihe gleaf woodlands provides optimha bitats for the prairie warbler andNo bird species for the longleaf

bjective of the d

Direct and Indirect Effects of Restoration (AOC 1 and AOC2) The primary objective of restoration is to establish native longleaf community types with long-term sustainability and suitability as upland woodland communities for RCW, quail, Bachman’s sparrows and other woodland associate wildlife species. Restoring these stands to native longleaf types (DFCs) would provide long-term, valuable woodland habitats because this tree species is longer-lived, fire-adapted, and better co-adapted to

covers for ground-nesting birds and their offspring. Canopy closunt of shade-tolerant midstory canopy layers throughout the area. Hooded

w ll be benefited however all of the remaining MIS and Bachman’s sparrows willy impacted. tiv

on leaf Pine – Shortleaf Pine type corresponds to the Forest Community Type –ngleaf Pine Forest and W L oodland as described in the FEIS Land and Resource nt Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (p. 3-113). The Proposed Action rnatives propose treatml ents in three of the Major Habitat Groups describent Area 3 – Oakmulgee Division Table on page 2-6 of the Revised Forest Proposed Action seeks to restore Oak and Oak Pine

ost entirely comprised of loblolly pine plantations and forest stands, to Upland gleaf Habitat Groups. Because of the more generic categorization of the Habitat up names, it could ap

habitats by the Proposed Action. That is not the case, however, as the reality is merely that off-site loblolly pine stand

Groups are comprised of loblolly pine stands. A large portion of th ca

e Revised Forest Plan defines woodlands as, “one or pine-oak canopies.” Savannas are

usually defined as having lower tree densities than woodlands. The o ke rbaceous understory component of restored lonbitat for Bachman’s sparrow; and improved ha

al

rthern bobwhite quail. These species are listed as priority pine community type by PIF. Woodland Restoration is also an oForest Plan (Objective 1.5, p 2-10).

Revise

140


w

Figure 3.5-3: Longleaf stands leftyears will develop dense, woconditions. This compartment wa

unburned for eight ody understory

s burned in 1996.

oodland habitats and RCW utilization. The longevity of longleaf pine, coupled with its overstory tree species in woodland stands.

omplish restoration will create early seral habitat rs, Eastern wild turkey broods, and Northern

rly seral habitats would also benefit Bachman’s form of young pine stands would be beneficial to fter planting. With the application of herbicides, to escribed fire to maintain grass component, the

be extended to at least 10 years following

ds that would be employed in the Proposed Action and use of chemicals and prescribed burning. Chemicals

sed Action are triclopyr (Garlon or equivalent product) product). Herbicide risk analysis is based on the sociates (SERA), Triclopyr-Revised Human Health

inal Report (March, 2003) and SERA, Imazapyr mulations,) May 1999. For effects of this chemical on

pyr ction of

encroachment in the absence of fire. Chemical controls are sometimes necessary to reduce unnaturally well developed, hardwood rootstocks, so that fires can then be employed in maintaining the habitat. A fire that would be adequate in severity to kill advanced hardwood midstory rootstocks, would likely have catastrophic effects to overstory trees as well. That risk is not acceptable in RCW nesting and foraging habitats, nor is it tenable in restoring sustainable woodland communities.

fire adaptations, make it the optimal Regeneration harvest employed to accconditions, favorable to prairie warblebobwhite quail. A portion of the easparrows. Early seral habitats in thethese species for at least five years acontrol competing hardwoods, and prutility of these stands to these species canplanting.

Restoration site preparation methosome of its alternatives include the proposed for use under the Propoand imazapyr (Arsenal or equivalent Syracuse Environmental Research Asand Ecological Risk Assessments, F(Arsenal, Chopper, and Stalker Forbirds, it reports, “No mortality was observed at Imazapyr concentrations of up to 5000 ppm in the diet” (SARA, 1999). The EPA has classified triclopyr TEA and TricloBEE (Garlon) as practically non-toxic to birds”. Please refer to the Understory SeChapter 3B for a complete discussion of midstory hardwood, or woody vegetation

141


Direct and Indirect Effects of Thinning and Midstory Treatments (AOC3 and AOC4) AOC 3 treatments include thinning young loblolly plantations that have not yet begun to show signs of Loblolly Decline. These stands are dense plantation stands generally 20-40years of age. AOC4 treatments are similar thinnings in site-appropriate, native longleaf. Both thinning treatments will be beneficial in restoring woodland structure to dense foresstands. Thinning the overstory would change the density, structure, and compositio

t n of

mulate the growth of native legumes, forbs and insect production, which would benefit the

r ground-nesting birds. The combination of thinning,

oodland associates treatments would result in more contiguous habitats.

es,

of time to re-nest following disturbance; so sually catastrophic to populations. Despite these losses of

itat

f g

Indirect effects to woodland associates, including RCW, Northern

rs

the stand. An open canopy would stigrasses. This should result in improved nesting and brood rearing fomidstory treatments, and prescribed burning stimulates the production of herbaceous vegetation and other plants. Reference Appendix C: Herbicide Specifications for a detailed description of midstory treatments using herbicides. Without an action to thin longleaf and loblolly stands, that still retain their structure, there would continue to be a decreased quantity and quality of habitat for woodland associates. Thinning would also allow prescribed burns to be more effective in restoring and maintaining native ground cover by decreasing canopy closure. Thinning longleaf pines coordinated with effective prescribed burning would result in improved quality of habitats for wand early-seral associates. TheThinning would result in an overall improvement of current conditions.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Prescribed Burning Prescribe burning provides benefits for a long list of species associated with southern pine/bunchgrass ecosystems, many of which are rare, threatened and endangered” (Revised RCW Recovery Plan, p.106). Direct effects of prescribed fire, even when employed within prescription guidelines, may result in the loss of some mature treindividual mature birds and some nests in growing season burns. Most ground-nesting birds are resident species and have plentynesting losses are not u

individuals and productivity, habimprovements, and the resultant increases in future productivity is thought to offset losses due to management effects. Avoidance oprescribed burning during the nestinseason is not recommended, since nesting season coincides with timing favorable for other important ecological fire effects.

bobwhite quail, and prairie warblefrom prescribe burning, will be increased nesting and forging habitat by removing encroaching hardwood midstory and restoring the herbaceous ground-covers. Eastern

Figure 3.5-4: Longleaf stands that are managed with thinning and prescribe burns (growing season) should look like this stand which is suitable habitat for quail, turkey, Bachman’s sparrow and prairie warbler.

142


wild turkey and Northern bobwhite quail will receive expanded brood rearing areas. More insects and more fertile forage plants will be produced in a flush of growth following prescribed burns. Greater nutritive value of foods is positively linked to greater fertility and productivity in wildlife. 3.5.4: Cumulative Effects on Wildlife ResouComparison of Alternatives Alternatives B, C, and D propose the same amount of different site prep methods for each. Alternative E probe treated, while Alternative F proposes the most acres treated. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would be the same as described in Alternative B. Alternative E will impact fewer acres with restoration harvest, however only approximately 500 acres are treated differently between the two alternatives. Alternative F will impact a greater number of acres with restoration harvest, but on500 acres are treated differently than the Proposed Action.

Alternative A serves as the benchmark or baseline for order to show change or effect on the environment. Thand considered in detail in the analysis. Alternative A

lth

ression, and routine road maintenance. Alternative A would not implement ervation

rces

acres to receive harvests, but poses the least amount of acres to

the other action alternatives in is alternative was fully developed would take no steps to promote

restoration of the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. There would be no timber harvesting or other stand treatments to improve wildlife habitat or to address forest heaissues related to the declining off-site loblolly and shortleaf dominated uplands that are better suited for longleaf. Custodial forest management would occur but would be limited to resource protection measures such as erosion control, insect and disease control, wildfire supp

143

ly

FLRMP objectives, PIF Bird Conservation Area Plan, Northern Bobwhite ConsInitiative goals or RCW Recovery Plan directives.

Alternative B: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern

TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut, Site Prep. – Herbicide, Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn, Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings, Release – Herbicides

6,697 ac 696 ac

Thinning 2,813 ac 2,831 acMidstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

Figure: 3.5-5:

02,0004,0006,0008,000

10,00012,00014,000

A B C

Acres Range of Alternatives

D E F G HSpecies RestorationLongleaf Structure RestorationSPB Prevention/Mimic Longleaf


Alternative B proposes action that would begin to address the forest health problems, estoration needs, and RCW population needs of the District. This alternative is desr

toigned

target the four specific areas of immediate concern identified (AOC1, AOC2, AOC3, ng-term

strategy to phase out all off-site loblolly and shortleaf dominated upland stands and to restore the native longleaf ecosystem where appropriate. The Proposed Action plus RCW

risks and promote a s e, he bitat and upland w land habitats on a sustained basis.

nts by Area of Concern

AOC4) for this analysis. The Proposed Action would be one step in an overall lo

Habitat Improvements would greatly reduce forest health tablalthy, and productive forest that provides optimal RCW ha ood

Alternative C: Summary of TreatmeTREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,697 696 Sit 80 e Prep. – Prescribe Burn 1,2Sit 73 596 e Prep. – Rolling Chopper 4,3Site Prep. – Shear and Rake 1,044 100 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 696 Release – Hand Tools and Burn 6,697 696 Thinning 2,813 ,831 2Midstory Control – Mulch and Burn 2,420 Prescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-yea n r rotatio

Alternative C was developed in response to the issues regarding understory vegetation and water quality. There is concern for restoring and maintaining the native understory species of the longleaf ecosystem. Also of concern to the public is the potential effect of herbicide use and prescribed burning. This alternative would include a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts identical to the Proposed Action (Alternative B). However, related site prep treatments would be modified to reduce the amount of prescribed burning and eliminate the use of herbicides. This alternative would not be as successful in restoring RCW habitat, native ecosystems, or woodland conditions, in the short term.

Alternative D: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,697 696 Site Prep. – Herbicide 6,697 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,697 696 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 696 Release – Herbicides 6,697 696 Thinning 2,813 2,831 Midstory Control – Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420 Prescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

Alternative D was developed to respond to the soil and water issue. This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action, except that the timber harvest treatments would be accomplished using cut-to-length logging equipment instead of conventional logging

144


equipment. The use of cut-to-length equipment was recommended during the scopinperiod. In Alabama, a conventional logging system normally utilizes a feller-buncher, grapple skidder, and loader/slasher. In contraharvester/forwarder. If it were possible to delays to treatments, effects to RCW anProposed Action.

Alternative E: Summary of

g

st, a cut-to-length logging system uses a implement this exclusive sale type without

d woodland associates would be the same as

Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,076 Site Prep. – Herbicide 6,076 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,076 696 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,076 696 Release – Herbicides 6,076 696 Thinning 2,319 2,831Midstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420Prescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

While similar in design to the Proposed Acconservative approach to restoring the longlalternative responds to the RCW issue. Thterm habitat needs of the RCW with the ratimprove forest health (and provide for longwould include a five-year program of thinnthan the Proposed Action. Fewer off-sitefewer areas would be thinne

tion, Alternative E proposes a more eaf ecosystem in the project area. This

ere is concern about how to balance the short-e of longleaf ecosystem restoration needed to -term sustained RCW habitat). Alternative E ing and restoration cuts but at lower levels

areas would be converted to longleaf pine and d than in the Proposed Action. This alternative may satisfy

CW habitat needs in the short-term; however environmental factors (drought, SPB pidemics, etc.) could cause catastrophic habitat losses if this alternative were

plemented. A catastrophic loss of habitat could take several hundred years of pwise replacement of

Reimmanagement to overcome; whereas a management implemented, stehigh-risk habitats with native ecosystems (as in the Proposed Action) would provide sustainable RCW and woodland habitats over the long-term.

Alternative F: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut, Site Prep. – Herbicide, Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn, Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings, Release – Herbicides

7,191 696

Thinning 2,319 2,831Midstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420Prescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

Alternative F responds to the RCW issue and concern about how to balance the rate of longleaf ecosystem restoration needed to improve forest health with short-term habitat needs of the RCW. While similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative F proposes a more

gressive approach to restoring the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. Alternative F ag

145


w ff-s

T es from current c ds. It also summarizes th

ould include a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts; however, more oite areas would be converted to longleaf pine than in the Proposed Action.

able 3.5-6 displays the relative expected RCW population changondition of each alternative, over both short- and long-term perioe verbal descriptions provided in the analysis above.

Table 3.5-6: Expected population trends1 of Wildlife Resources by Forest Health EIS alternative, Oakmulgee District. Population trends are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality.

A B C D E F R ed-cockaded Woodpecker Short-term -- + + + + = Long-term -- ++ ++ ++ + ++ E astern wild turkey Short-term + + + + - + Long-term -- + + + + + Northern bobwhite quail Short-term - + + + + + Long-term -- ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Hooded warbler Short-term + - - - - - Long-term + = = = = = Prairie Warbler Short-term - + + + + + Long-term -- + + + + +

1 Population trend expressed as change from current levels: “++” = relatively large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no chdecrease, “—“ relatively large decrease.

3.5.5: Monitoring Monitoring of these species will be accomplished according to the Revised Forest Plan. Landbird monitoring is conducted according to the Southern Landbird Monitoring PlaResults of this monitoring are summarized in the Annual M&E Report. Gamebirds will also be monitored through state game harvest reports. These results aralso summarized for MIS in the annual M&E Report.

ange, “-“ =

n.

e

servation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association

References: Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie. 2002. The Northern bobwhite

conof Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 96 pp.

NatureServe. 2004. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. Version 3.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: June 1, 2004).

146


3.6: Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) 3.6.1: Issues Issues related to RCW are discussed in detail in Chapter 1. In summary, the proposed treatments may have short-term negative and long-term beneficial effects on RCW populations in the analysis area. The following specific concerns have been identified:

• Projected decline of loblolly and shortleaf pine stands in the project area may potential or existing RCW habitat as those trees succumb.

remove

d old loblolly and shortleaf pine by

n a

e

• Short-term negative effects, incurred as mature anstands are restored to young longleaf seedlings, of RCW habitat loss may be offset the long-term benefits from restored, site-correct, native ecosystems. This is especially likely to be the case given the likelihood of the imminent loss of the existing, off-site habitat without the proposed treatment.

• Proposed restoration cuts may remove foraging habitat at a rate faster than can be replaced by regeneration of the restored longleaf areas or the growth of other nearby pine stands, thus leaving certain RCW clusters without suitable foraging habitat.

3.6.2: Affected Environment In 1993 there were 94 known active cluster sites within the analysis area, based o100% survey of known sites. In 2003 another 100% survey of known active sites found 91 active sites within the analysis area. While this is less than a 3.2% decline within thproject area, it increases the relative importance of these active clusters in sustaining the

Currently, only 3 of 91 active RCW clusters meet the Revised Recovery

include: dense stands of smaller pines, not

arger pines A, midstory

Plan guidelines forgood quality foraging habitat (GQFH). Problems in addition to loblolly decline

enough lor total Bencroachment, and insufficient pine and pine-hardwood acres available for foraging.

ElliottsAffonee

Sandy

Fivemile

Figure 3.6-1 – Existing Conditions (2003) of Active Clusters, RCWFAT Analysis

Forest Service OwnershipOakmulgee RD Boundary<120 acres GQFH>120 Acres GQFHProject Area Watersheds

147


overall District population. Currently the analysis area supports 90% of the District population as opposed to 78% 10 years ago.

The Revised RCW Recovery Plan provides direction for restoring and maintaining adequate habitats for population growth. It also recommends a 5% annual population growth rate and sets population goals for each recovery management unit, in order to reach Recovery of the species. Oakmulgee is designated a secondary support populationin the Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain witthe time of de-listing (Recovery Plan, p. 158Recovery Standard for federal lands being m

Good quality foraging habitat has some largmedium pines, sparse or no hardwood midsto(Recovery Plan, p. 188). The Recovery StandHabitat (GQFH) includes all of the following

1. 18 or more stems/ac that are over 60

h a target of 250 potentially breeding clusters at

). The Revised Recovery Plan defines a anaged for increasing RCW population size.

e old pines, low densities of small and ry, and a bunchgrass and forb groundcover ard definition of Good Quality Foraging characteristics:

years in age and > 14 inches in diameter at l area for these pines is 20 ft2/ac.

bh is between 0 – 40 ft2/ac.

bh is below 10 ft2/ac and below 20 stems/ac.

breast height (dbh). Minimum basa

2. Basal area of pines 10 – 14 inches d

3. Basal area of pines < 10 inches d

4. Basal area of all pines > 10 inchadditive basal area for pines in c

es dbh is at least 40 ft2/ac. That is, the minimum ategories 10 - 14 inches dbh and pine > 14 inches

d/or other native, fire-tolerant fire- ground and midstory plants are dense

fire at least once every five years.

r if a hardwood midstory is present, it is sparse

in

e complicated territory and foraging overlap that occurs in

ery large or tightly aggregated populations. The technique first creates 0.5-mile oraging circles around each cluster, and then applies tabular stand data (from CISC, in is case) to determine availability of foraging habitat within the newly created polygon. here foraging circles overlap, the area is partitioned into equal sections and allocated

accordingly (Recovery Plan p. 195). The authors of this analytical tool, which is referred to as RCWFAT (RCW Foraging Analysis Technique), are Don Lipscomb and Tom

is 40 ft2/ac.

5. Groundcovers of native bunchgrass andependent herbs total 40% or more ofenough to carry growing season

6. No hardwood midstory exists, oand less than 7 feet in height.

7. Canopy hardwoods are absent, or less than 10% of the number of canopy trees longleaf forests and less than 30 % in loblolly and shortleaf forests.

8. All of this habitat exists within 0.5 miles of the center of the cluster, and preferably, 50% or more is within 0.25 miles of the cluster center.

9. Foraging habitat is not separated by more than 200 feet of non-foraging areas.

Revised Recovery Plan guidelines also offer direction for assessing foraging habitats. The standard field method of determining a cluster’s foraging area is to follow each member of the cluster throughout a day’s foraging and add all of the area covered by each of the cluster members into one foraging territory. An alternative approach has been developed to graphically assess foraging habitat allocation. It uses geographic information systems (GIS) based on the Foraging Recovery Standard. This techniquewas developed to assist with thvfthW

148


WUt ard. Lipscomb and Williams w , and they entered into a Challenge C a to assist in this ana esented and discussedhere

RCWFAT j ntory data to decide what GQFHcha h forest stand. The program kicks o erated by thprogram as follows:

ve adequate numbers of trees

e total amount of

derstory too denmeet GQFH?

• Reason 5 - Hardwood understory too dense? – Is the hardwood understory too dense to meet GQFH?

• Reason 6 – Hardwood Overstory composition too high? – Are hardwood overstory trees too numerous?

Figure 3.6-2 displays the results of the RCWFAT run for current conditions within the analysis area.

Figure 3.6-2 – Summary of RCWFAT Analysis of Existing Condition in active RCW Cluster Foraging Partitions

illiams of Clemson University. They have been working closely with Ralph Costa, SFWS RCW Coordinator and Recovery Plan Team Leader, in developing this analysis

ool, and in adapting it to the new Foraging Recovery Standere sought out by Oakmulgee District for their expertise

ost-Share Agreement with National Forests in Alabamlysis. Results of the Oakmulgee RCWFAT analysis are pr in.

udges various parameters of forest inveracteristics are met and which are lacking in eac

ut stands that do not meet GQFH parameters. These reasons are enum e

• Reason 1 - Too young? - Are the trees over 60 years of age? • Reason 2 - Lacks large pine? - Do the stands ha

that are over 14” in diameter? • Reason 3 - Lacks total BA required? - Do the stands lack th

basal area necessary? • Reason 4 - Pine understory too dense? – Is the pine un se to

Total Number of Partitions meeting GQFH guideline of > 120 acres 3

Number of Partitions with GQFH > 100 – 119 acres 5

Number of Partitions with GQFH > 75 - 99 acres 2

Total Partitions meeting Foraging Standard for Stability (> 75 acres): 10


Number of Partitions with no acres meeting GQFH guidelines 30

Total Number of Acres of GQFH in all Analysis Area Partitions: 2709

149


150

The RCWFAT analysis on existing conditions revealed that only 3 of the 91 known active cluster foraging partitions currently have sufficient good quality foraging habitat (GQFH). The remaining 88 cluster partitions failed to meet the Revised RCW Recovery Plan guidelines for one, or more, of the six criteria used to define GQFH (Figure 3.6-1). RCWFAT produces output, which lists all of the reasons a stand of trees does not meet the definition of GQFH. In order to glean more from the analysis than simply a “Pass or Fail” for each foraging partitions; several thresholds were established annumber of foraging partitions movingforaging of 120 acres of GQFH (RecoRecovery Plan’s recommendations is recovery standard can be demonstrated, most projects can be implemented. Five foraging partitions currently have between 100 and 119 acres of GQFH. Seventy-five acres of GQFH was established by the RCW Recovery Plan as necessary foraging for populations being managed for stability (generally populations on private land), rather than growth (Recovery Plan, p. 292). Currently, two foraging partitions have between 75 and 99 acres of GQFH, and six partitions have between 50 and 74 acres of GQFH. Another statistic that could be usedto make comparisons between existing condition and post-treatments conditions is the number oGQFH acres. Current conditions prodwith no GQFH acres allocated to themrom each of the 91 foraging parti

tione analysis area.

Finally, fifteen of the 88 foraging parthave the required 120 acres of pine an

fth

F Figure 3.6-3: Cluster 405 es Not Meet Recovery Plan Guidelines

Photo taken October 2003 Do

d fo tovethat

f foraging partitions, which are assessed to have no uce 30 foraging partitions of active RCW clus. Cumulatively, adding all of the GQFH acre

llowed throughout this analysis to measure the ward meeting the Recovery Standard for ry Plan, p.196). The major theme of the

if reasonable progress toward meeting the

ters s

s, only 2,709 acres of GQFH currently exist within

itions not meeting the Recovery Standard do not d pine/hardwood available to that cluster. Lack of

Figure 3.6-4: Cluster 125 Meets Recovery Plan Guidelines

Photo taken October 2003


adequate pine and pine-hardwood acres is often due to the severe aggregation of clusters

ese cluster partitions were so found to have degraded conditions within the limited pine and pine-hardwood

ns cluster sites do not meet GQFH is own in Figure 3.6-3. This photo shows heavy encroachment of hardwood understory

erstory (Reason 6) near the nest trees of Cluster 405.

r sites

into

ed

the long term, the Oakmulgee RCW population would eventually be st from the lack of recovery efforts. In the long-, and short-terms, Forest Service would

into limited suitable habitat, or isolation of clusters on “islands” of suitable habitat surrounded by private lands or unsuitable hardwood stands. Thalhabitats available to them. An example of two reasosh(Reason 5) and hardwood ov

3.6.3: Environmental Effects

Alternative A – No Action Under this alternative RCW habitat conditions will continue to decline. Open, park-like habitat shown in Figure 3.6-4 would soon become encroached by woody understory trees and shrubs, like the habitat in Figure 3.6-3. Within 5 to 10 years, this alternative would allow habitat conditions within the three clusters that currently meet Revised Recovery Plan Guidelines (Figure 3.6-1) to degrade out of compliance. The downward trend in active RCW clusters would continue. The prescribed annual 5 percent increase in active clusters outlined in the RCW Recovery Plan would not be achieved.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects of the No Action alternative would be a loss of GQFH within the clustesites and foraging partitions. The 7,393 acres (AOCs 1 & 2) of upland longleaf would not be restored, precluding future, sustainable, native habitats for additional cluster sites. The 11 cluster sites with loblolly and shortleaf stands at a higher risk of decline would experience continued die-off of these trees, inviting other cavity competitorsthe RCW territory. The 2,813 acres in AOC 3 would be at continued risk to SPB infestation. The 2,831 acres of existing longleaf found in AOC 4 would not be addressallowing this habitat to further degrade.

Cumulative Effects: From 1997 to 2003 the District installed 544 inserts in cluster sites that did not have enough cavity trees. In that same time period there have been 1,571 acres of midstory work completed, and 64,446 acres of dormant season and 39,285 acres of growing season prescribed burns have been conducted. These actions were considered as “stop-gap” measures merely to maintain what suitable habitat remains and to mitigate short-term habitat needs. Under the No Action Alternative none of this work would continue, nor would other habitat improvements. The loblolly decline situation would not be addressedand these stands would eventually die-off, re-seeding back to loblolly, and starting the cycle over again. Inlonot be meeting Recovery Plan requirements.

Alternative B – Proposed Action A second RCWFAT analysis was run on projected post-Proposed Action conditions. Implementation of Alternative B would bring an additional 2 clusters into compliance with RCW Recovery Plan guidelines. Combined with the three clusters that are currently in compliance, a total of 5 of 91 (~5%) clusters would meet RCW Recovery Plan guidelines by 2009. Two of the existing three clusters already in compliance would be

151


Elliotts

Sandy

Fivemile

Affonee

Figure 3.6-5 – Summary of Effects of Proposed Action

improved further through the proposed actions. An additional 45 clusters would have areas within their foraging partition improved through this alternative; although these actions alone would not bring them into compliance with the RCW Recovery Plan. The proposed treatments that would improve habitat include the thinning in AOC 3 and AOC4, the midstory treatment in AOC 4, and prescribed burning.

Of the 86 partitions that would nomeet RCW Recovery Plan guidelines upon implementation

Forest Service OwnershipOakmulgee RD BoundaryPA Does Not Change GQFHPA would reduce GQFHPA would improve but not meet>120 Acres GQFH with PAProject Area Watersheds

have loblolly and/or shortleaf pstands that were recognized by RCWFAT as GQFH, and may

variety of stress-related conditionmidstory removal, and burning fuMost of these stands are also fire supprewoody vegetation, as in Figure 3.6-3, anguidelines.

Figure 3.6-6 displays the results of thimplementation of the Proposed Action analysis shows that now two additional foraging partitions meet the Recovery Standardfor foraging. After implementation of Alternative B, five of the 91 known active cluster foraging partitions would have sufficient GQFH. Post-Proposed Action, six partitions are proj

t

of the Proposed Action, 10 partitions

ine

currently be serving as foraging habitat (albeit poor foraging habitat). Six of these 10 partitions include stands that are considered by the Loblolly Decline Risk Map (LDRM) to be at higher risk for loblolly decline. Please refer to Chapter 1 and the Overstory Section of Chapter 3B for discussion regarding the LDRM and decision criteria used. To remove these pines would appear, during a remote analysis, to remove foraging habitat from those cluster sites. However, given the risk for loblolly decline it is highly likely that these stands would fall apart and die from a

s. RCW habitat improvement practices of thinning, rther exacerbate loblolly decline (Eckhardt, 2004).

ssed and severely encroached with fire-intolerant d do not, upon field inspection, meet GQFH

e RCWFAT run for conditions following (Alternative B) within the analysis area. The

foraging ected to have between 100 and 119 acres of GQFH. Three would be

reased to have between 75 and 99 acres of GQFH. Fourteen partitions would now incmeet the RCW Recovery Plan foraging standard for stability (usu. private lands), by having > 75 acres of GQFH. The Proposed Action would not change the GQFH of 65 of the foraging partitions, and it would reduce the available acres of GQFH for 7 foraging partitions. The number of foraging partitions which are allocated no GQFH acres is reduced following implementation of the Proposed Action (Alternative B) to 28. The

152


cumulative amount of GQFH acres from all of the 91 foraging partitions is increased 3,179 following implementation of the Proposed Action. This increase shows an overallbenefit from the Proposed Action to available RCW habitat in the analysis area.

Figure 3.6-6: Projected Effects of Proposed Action on active RCW Cluster Foraging Partitions

to

Total Number of Partitions with GQFH acres increased: 19

Number of Partitions meeting GQFH guideline of > 120 acres 5





Total Number of Partitions with GQFH acres unchanged: 65

Total Number of Partitions with GQFH acres reduced: 7

Total Number of Partitions with no acres meeting GQFH guidelines 28

Total Number of Acres of GQFH in all Analysis Area Partitions: 3,179

153


### ##AOC1

AOC4

AOC1

Potential Foraging HabitatLoblolly/Hardwood

Figure 3.6-7: Proposed Actions Improves Cluster #382

An example of an improved foraging partition, as a result of implementation of thProposed Action is Cluster 382. RCWFAT analysis of existing condition showed 111 acres of GQFH. GQFH appears in the map as forest stands encircled by red outlines. Upon implementation of the Proposed

LongleafLoblollyShortleaf

GQFH per RCWFAT1/2 Mile Foraging Partition

# Active RCW Trees

e

Action, thirteen acres of damaged, over-ature loblolly (> 60 yrs) that RCWFAT

categorized as Grestored to native longleaf (AOC1). The

o eled

ed left-center of the foraging

enty-red to a

woodland structure through thinning,

into compliance st

s of Restoration (A 1 and A 2) storation is to estab ative lo eaf community types with

. Restoring these stands to native Condition) w

nger-lived and bette

off-ceive

n dard definition. Only in ten of these partitions are the loblolly stands being

moved indicated as GQFH. The majority of this subset is on LDRM higher risk sites, be sustainable for any meaningful length of time.

mQFH will be removed and

stand being proposed for restoration tlongleaf by regeneration harvest is labAOC1, and is the light green stand outlinin red, in thepartition, shown in Figure 3.6-7. Twseven acres of longleaf will be resto

midstory removal and thinning (AOC4). This stand is shown in dark green, labeled AOC4, in the upper right of the foraging partition. It will become GQFH following treatments. On balance, the foraging partition, and therefore RCW fitness, will be increased by a net value of 14 acres. This increase brings the foraging partition

with the Revised RCW andards. Recovery Plan

Direct and Indirect Effect OC OCThe primary objective of re lish n ngllong-term sustainability and suitability for RCW

Future longleaf types (Desired habitat because this tree species is lo

ould provide long-term, valuable RCW r co-adapted to RCW utilization.

Longleaf is selected for planting to achieve the site-adapted, native forest community type, better adapted to exist within a frequently burned, woodland structure. The longevity of longleaf pine, coupled with its fire adaptations, make it better foraging and nesting substrate for the RCW. Figure 3.6-8 reports the number of foraging partitions affected by AOC1 and AOC2 treatments, in the removal of damaged and decliningsite loblolly pine stands. Fifty-four of the 91 foraging partitions are proposed to rethese treatments. In the majority of these partitions (40 of 54), the damaged and declining loblolly stands are not recognized as GQFH by RCWFAT or the Recovery Plaforaging stanreand they are not anticipated to

154


Figure 3.6-8: P ondwithin Active Partitions roposed Action Treatment Effects on RCW Habitat C ition

Total with foraging habitat improved through ing, mid y AOC3 and AOC4): 45

thinn storremoval, and burning (

Improvement helps meet or maintain GQFH guideline 19 Improvements made; would not yet meet GQFH guideline 26

Total with higher risk pine and pine-hardwood stands removed (AOC1 and AOC2): 40

Where removed stands were recognized as GQFH: 6 Where removed stands were not recognized as GQFH: 34

Total with lower risk pine and pine-hardwood stands removed (AOC1 and AOC2): 14

Where removed stands were recognized as GQFH: 4 Where removed stands were not recognized as GQFH: 10

Restoration site preparation methods that would be employed in the Proposed Action and some of its alternatives include the use of chemicals and prescribed burning. Chemicals proposed for use under the Proposed Action are triclopyr (Garlon or equivalent product) and imazapyr (A is based on the

ronmental Research Associat A), Hum lth Assessments, Final Report (March, 2003) and SERA, Imazapyr

Stalker Formulations,) 1999. effects of is chemical on lity was observed a apyr c ntrations o up to 5000

ARA, 1999). The EPA has classified triclopyr TEA and Triclopyr rlon) as practically non-toxic to birds”. The RCW Recovery refers t

ecessary “ in clusters recently abandoy male because of excessive hardwoods,” but warns that areas

treated with mechanical or chemical means of midstory reduction should soon be eous

ion

.

y 20-40 years of age. AOC4 treatments are

milar thinnings in site-appropriate, native longleaf. Both thinning treatments will be eneficial to future RCW habitat. Thinning the overstory would change the density,

position of the stand. An open canopy would stimulate the growth of ative legumes, forbs and grasses. This should result in improved insect production,

rsenal or equivalent product). Herbicide risk analysis Syracuse Envi es (SER Triclopyr-Revised an Heaand Ecological Risk(Arsenal, Chopper, and May For thbirds, it reports, “No morta t Imaz once fppm in the diet” (SBEE (Ga Plan o chemical control of hardwoods as n ned or supporting only a solitar“included in a prescribed fire program to restore and maintain appropriate herbacground covers (Revised Recovery Plan, p.114).” Please refer to the Understory Sectof Chapter 3B for a complete discussion of midstory hardwood, or woody vegetation encroachment in the absence of fire. Chemical controls are sometimes necessary to reduce unnaturally-well-developed, hardwood rootstocks, so that fires can then be employed in maintaining the habitat. A fire that would be adequate in severity to kill advanced hardwood midstory rootstocks, would likely have catastrophic effects to overstory trees as well. That risk is not acceptable in RCW nesting and foraging habitats

Direct and Indirect Effects of Thinning and Midstory Treatment (AOC3 and AOC4) Forty-five foraging partitions would be improved by treatments in AOC3 and AOC4 under the Proposed Action, as shown in Figure 3.6-8. AOC3 are thinnings in young loblolly plantations that have not yet begun to show signs of Loblolly Decline. Thesestands are dense plantation stands generallsibstructure, and comn

155


which would ben treatments, and ning stimulates the productio bac geta oth s.

cificatio a deta description of midstory action to thin longleaf and loblolly stands, that

ere would continue to be a decreased qualirescribed burns to be more effective in restoring and

decreas oordinated with effective prescribed burning would result in improved quality of

. The treatments would result in more contiguous habitats.

g chgrass

e rare, threatened and endangered” (Revised Recovery prescribed fir oyed within prescription

and Revised Recovery Plan guidelines, m es are bu d durin been m naging RCW habitats with prescribed fire, and has burned 64,446 acres of dormant seasoncavity es havstanda for ac tree before or during the safe burn-out of fuels aroun ose tre sting seaso e to pr able, with standard mitigations givecomp ated by g the nesting seas ded, since nesting season coincides with timing favorable for ot Indirect effects ed woodpeckers, through prescribe burning, will be

creased roosting and forging habitat by removing encroaching hardwood midstory and into

Newly Identified Treatments not Included in the Proposed Action The RCWFAT analysis outputs were analyzed and discovered to contain additional tre not recognized during projec devel ment Thesetre ld further improve RCW foraginof the foraging partition levels of GQFH were unchanged by the Proposed Actions and its

These newly identified treatments, or RCW Habitat Improvement opportunities, are RCWFAT outputs indicated as in need of thinning and/or midstory removal treatments.

efit the RCW. The combination of thinning, midstoryprescribed bur n of her eous ve tion and er plantReference Appendix C: Herbicide Spetreatments using herbicide. Without anstill retain their structure, th

ns for iled

ty of habitat for the RCW. Thinning would also allow p

d cover bymaintaining native groun ing canopy closure. Thinning longleaf pineschabitats for the RCWThinning would result in overall benefits to the current habitats.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Prescribe Burning The Revised Recovery Plan describes prescribe burning as “basic to the management, conservation, and recovery of red-cockaded woodpeckers. In addition, prescribe burninprovides benefits for a long list of species associated with southern pine/bunecosystems, many of which arPlan, p.106). Direct effects of e, even when empl

ay result in the loss of individuals if nest treg nesting season. However, for the period of 1997-2003 the district hasrne

a and 39,285 acres of growing season prescribe burns during that time. No e been lost. The Revised Recovery Plan increases the protection tive cavity trees. Prescribed burn technicians rake around each roost prescribed burn ignition, and they monitor

trerds

d th es. Potential for mortality of red-cockaded woodpeckers during nen du escribed fire is deemed insignificant and discount

n in the Recovery Plan. Losses of individual cavity trees to fire can be installation of artificial cavities. Avoidance of prescribed burning durinon is not recommen

ens

her important ecological fire effects.

to red-cockadinrestoring the herbaceous ground-covers. This will allow expansion of new clusters the improved (meets Recovery Plan Guidelines) habitat. RCW reproduction is higher in areas with native grasses and pyrophytic herb ground covers than areas with dense, woody vegetation (James et al. 1997).

atment opportunities that were t op . atments cou g habitat. As disclosed in Figure 3.6-6, 65

alternatives. RCWFAT Analysis now provided a tool for habitat improvement dentification. i

156


157

ElliottsAffonee

Sandy

Fivemile

Figure 3.6-9: Effects of PA & RCW Habitat Improvements

Forest Service OwnershipOakmulgee RD BoundaryPA + HI Does Not Change GQFHPA + HI would improve but not meet>75 Acres GQFH with PA + HI>120 Acres GQFH with PA + HIProject Area WatershedsWFAT outputs, within the analysis area.

They are stands of loblolly or longleaf that failed to be judged GQFH due to Reason 4

.2 ed by

ects of Figures

imp(AlternImp vRCThe analysis shows that now twenty

Rec eimplem

abitat Improvements, twenty-five of the 91

Act projected to have betw e ween 75 e RCW Rec e

(pine understory too dense), Reason 5 (hardwood understory too dense), or Reason 6 (hardwood overstory). Please refer to the listing of RCWFAT reject reasons under 3.6– Affected Area, of this Section. RCWFAT reject reasons 4, 5, and 6 were recognizmanagers as “untapped potential” for further RCW Habitat Improvements. The effRCW Habitat Improvements, along with Proposed Action effects, are shown in 3.6-9 and 3.6-10. If these actions were implemented within the next 5 years in combination with the Proposed Action, 20 more clusters could be brought into compliance with the RCW Recovery Plan. This would bring the total to 25 cluster sites in compliance (Figure 3.6-9). RCW Habitat Improvement treatments when applied to the remaining 66 active clusters would improve the habitat of all but three foraging partitions; albeit most would still not meet the RCW Recovery Plan guidelines.

Figure 3.6-10 displays the results of the RCWFAT run for conditions following

lementation of the Proposed Action ative B), plus the RCW Habitat

ro ement opportunities identified from

additional foraging partitions meet the ov ry Standard for foraging. After

entation of Alternative B plus RCW Hknown active cluster foraging partitions would have sufficient GQFH. Post-Proposed

ion plus RCW Habitat Improvements, seven foraging partitions aree n 100 and 119 acres of GQFH. Fourteen partitions are projected to have bet

and 99 acres of GQFH. Forty-six foraging partition would now meet thov ry Plan foraging standard for stability (usu. private lands), by having > 75 acres

of

GQGQ non which are allocated no

Q Action (Alternative B) lus RCW Habitat Improvements, to 3. The cumulative amount of GQFH acres from all

ging partitions is increased to 8,594 following implementation of the ization of benefit to available RCW

FH. The Proposed Action plus RCW Habitat Improvements would not change thele acres of GQFH forFH of 7 of the foraging partitions. It would reduce the availab

e of the foraging partitions. The number of foraging partitions FH acres is reduced following implementation of the Proposed G

pof the 91 foraProposed Action. This increase shows an optimhabitat in the analysis area.


Figure 3.6-10 – Projected Effects of Proposed Action + Newly Identified Treatmentsive RCW Cluster Foraging Partitions

on act

Total Number of Partitions with GQFH acres increased: 84

Number of Partitions meeting GQFH guideline of > 120 acres 25

Nu GQFH >mber of Partitions with 100 – 119 acres 7




Total Number of Partitions with GQFH acres unchanged: 7

Total Number of Partitions with GQFH acres reduced: 0

Total Number of Partitions with no acres meeting GQFH guidelines 3

Total Number of Acres of GQFH in all Analysis Area Partitions: 8,594

158


##

#

#

#

AOC3

AOC3AOC1

AOC

R

(1929)R6

R4(1929)

AOC4

1

AOC4

1,R3,R4(1923)

AOC4AOC1

Potential Foraging HabitatLoblolly/HardwoodLongleafLoblollyShortleaf

GQFH w/ HI per RCWFATGQFH per RCWFAT1/2 Mile Foraging Partit

# Active RCW Treesion

FIGURE 3.6-11: EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS

fied RCW Habitat Improvement treatments outlined by the those in Cluster 86, shown in Figure 3.6-11. Three stands

QFH. The stands outlined in blue were indicated by RCWFAT analysis ns

nd. It has

H, is the large

An example of newly identiCWFAT analysis includes R

are potentially G

AND OTHER HABITAT IMPROVEMENTS FOR RCWFORAGING, CLUSTER 86

loblolly decline. Because the stand is already damaged by loblolly decline, it was proposed for restoration to longleaf in the Proposed Action. Graphically, it would appear that the Proposed Action

ould remove the potential of GQFH that

as potential GQFH; but for the lack of compliance with Reasons 4, 5, or 6. These reasocould easily be corrected by thinning, midstory removal and burning treatments. As shown in the figure, areas in the upper left of the foraging partition, outlined in blue, indicate potential for GQFH condition restoration, however, that stand is proposed as an AOC1 treatment in the Proposed Action. That blue-outlined stand, labeled AOC1, in the upper left of the foraging partition is a 75+ year-old, loblolly-hardwood stand in damaged’ condition, as a result of ‘

wcould be improved with only thinning and midstory control. The reality upon field inspection is that loblolly decline (reflected in the stand’s condition class rating of ‘Damaged’) has already eliminated the potential for low intensity habitat improvement. The dark green stand encircled in blue labeled R4(1929), in the center of the foraging partition and ontaining the cluster trees, is the second c

stand indicated by RCWFAT as potential GQFH standards. It is currently out of compliance with Reason 4 (Pine Understory too dense). This stand was born in 1929, meaning the dominant overstory trees are approximately 75 years

f age. It is a longleaf pine staotoo many young pine stems to meet the foraging standard. It needs to be improved by reducing the number of pine stems, midstory removal and prescribed burning. The third and final stand identified by RCWFAT as having

otential to become GQFp(57 ac) blue-outlined stand in the center-right, labeled R6(1929). This stand is out of compliance with Reason 6, Hardwood Overstory. It has too many hardwood trees making up the dominant overstory. Thinning, while favoring longleaf pine, would improve this stand to GQFH.

159


3.6.4: Mitigation Measures Common to all Alternatives: Do not conduct harvest operations, or operate heavy machinery for prolonged periods, within cluster sites during nesting and brood-rearing season. Rake around RCW trees before prescribed burns. 3.6.5: Cumulative Effects The Proposed Actions within the project area are derived from necessary corrections of

ne that

onditions (DFC) are intended to restore and maintain areas of important RCW

ents

been incorporated into the analysis for this EIS.

rea will provide for a sustainable RCW population in

in

are expected to exacerbate loblolly decline Ekhardt 2004). It is difficult to predict the decline of the remaining “lower risk” stands

ittle 6 RCWFAT Analysis

ows 367 acres of pine and pine/hardwood timber types within the foraging partition.

past inactions in overstocked loblolly plantations, overstocked longleaf pine stands, and over-mature and off-site loblolly plantations; and the resultant occurrences of SPB (southern pine beetle) infestations, subsequent salvage treatments, off-site hardwood encroachment under absent or suppressed fire regimes, and loblolly stands in declido not meet foraging requirements as required in the RCW Recovery Plan. Desired Future Chabitat. The practices of thinning, restoration of longleaf pine habitat, along with future management actions of prescribed burning and midstory control will facilitate development of quality RCW habitat in the future.

There is one other ongoing project with similar treatments within the project area: the South Sandy Timber Sales (Compartments 15, 25, 29, 35, 38, and 54). The treatmand site prep methods are the same as this EIS. The direct, indirect, and cumulative ffects from this project havee

The DFC described for this project athe long term, and a growing population in the short term. The Proposed Action addresses several key steps necessary for long-term habitat restoration. All stands proposed for restoration are at risk for decline. Drought, SPB activity cycles, fire damage, and many other factors play into the ability to predict when Loblolly Decline stands will degrade and be lost. As depicted in Figure 3.6-8, forty active clusters withthe analysis area have high-risk loblolly decline stands with their foraging partitions. Beginning the restoration process of these stands now, is the lesser of the potentially negative effects. Restoring them to longleaf would allow management efficiencies related to predicted response of declining loblolly to aggressive RCW habitat restoration through prescribed burning. Those treatments(of loblolly and shortleaf within fourteen active cluster foraging partitions. Some loss is to be expected, and the ability to manage the understory through fire will be affected. However an adequate stocking of these stands might be maintained, if additional stresses are not too severe.

Returning to the previous example of Cluster 86, Figure 3.6-11 provides additional insight into decision criteria influencing the proposal to employ harvest and restoration treatments, rather than less intensive measures to prolong off-site forest stands with llong-term potential to benefit RCW. An interpretation of Cluster 8shThe Proposed Action calls for restoration treatments (AOC1) of 42 acres in three stands.RCWFAT analysis identified 108 acres in the red-outlined stands as GQFH. Twenty-one of these acres would be lost to AOC1 treatments under the Proposed Action. The stands

160


AOC1 AOC3

(1923)R1,R3,R4

Potential Foraging HabitatLoblolly/HardwoodLongleafLoblollyShortleaf

At Higher Risk, LDRMGQFH per RCWFAT1/2 Mile Foraging Partitions

Figure 3.6-12 – LDR

treatments. The 24 acres of longleaf would then be considered GQFH. Post-propAction, Cluster 86 would have 111 acres of GQFH. Restoration of the red-outlined stand in the lower left corner of the foraging partition shown in Figure 3.6-12, appears to remove what is currently GQFH. Figure 3.6-13 depicts the lower left quadrant of the foraging partition for Cluster 86. M Sustainability Analysis,

Cluster 86 (AOC1 in GQFH per RCWFAT)

OC1

enty-four acres of ngleaf would be thinned, along with midstory removal and prescribed burning

osed

reas at higher risk of Loblolly

learly, managing stands already in poor condition under the RCW management guidelines of reduced

opulation growth. All of these

abitat using the LDRM (Eckhardt, 2004). The results of this analysis are kept in the

ments for Cluster 86 would include 79 acres of additional thinning in the cluster site stand and in the stand labeled R6(1929). Following implementation of the Proposed Action and RCW Habitat Improvements, a minimum of 190 acres of GQFH would be available. In the lower center of the foraging partition of Cluster 86 (See

outlined in blue were indicated by RCWFAT analysis as potential GQFH, as previouslydiscussed in Figure 3.6-11. Of the three stands included in the Proposed Action as Atreatments, one was identified as GQFH (one was indicated as potential GQFH following treatments for Reasons 4, 5, or 6, and one was not recognized as even potential habitat). AOC 3 and AOC4 treatments are also included for Cluster 86 in the Proposed Action. Thirty-nine acres of young loblolly plantation would be thinned. Twlo

ADecline are overlain on the loblolly stand that RCWFAT depicted as GQFH. More than 50% of the stand is at higher risk of further decline (LDRM). This stand is a loblolly pine plantation established in 1945. It has been recognized during field inventory as having a ‘damaged’ condition. C

basal areas, frequent growing season burns, with little or no hardwood midstory (as prescribed by Recovery Plan Foraging Standard) is not a sustainable scenario for RCW ptreatments exacerbate Loblolly Decline. Each active cluster within the project area has been analyzed for foraging quality and quantity with the RCWFAT tool. Each has also been analyzed as to the sustainability of this hproject file at the district. Both tools will be regularly consulted and the results of project implementation analyzed, over the next five years to optimize RCW habitat improvements.

RCW Habitat Improve

161

LongleafTalladega Nation

162

Figure 3.6-11) is a stand labeled R1, R2, R3RCWFAT a

Ecosystem Restoration Project Final al Forest - Oakmulgee District Environmental Impact Statement

(1923). This stand was not indicated by s potential RCW hab tree species, and sim

age, to two other stands that were chosen. (Too Young), R2 (Lacks large pine), and R4inventory data indicated a condition for this stand of 6; which is a code meaning, ‘Sparse Sawtimber.’ This condition class rating resultas inadequate stocking of large (>14” dbh) treesto be the case, however. The relative term ber Volumecharacterization of the stand. In other words,stocked’ from a timber production standpoi rom an RCW Foraging Standard however, following a thinning, mstand too, is likely to become GQFH. This stand’s example is cited to make the point that adaptive management criterion following W Recovery Plan and Revised Forest Plan objectives will likely reveal eve ntial as projects are implemented.

Comparison of Alternatives: Alternatives B, C, and D propose the sam receive harvests, but different site prep methods for each. Alterna ount of acres to be treated, while Alternative F prcumulative effects would be the sam d in Alternative B for the RCWAlternative E will impact fewer RCW s with treatments, but not appreciably so, as only approximalternatives. Alternatives F will im ber of RCW foalso not an appreciable number, as only Proposed Action.

itat, although it is of the same The reject reasons for this stand were: R1

(Pine understory too dense.) Forest

ed in RCWFAT interpretation of the stand . Upon field inspection this is not likely

of ‘sparse’ refers to a Tim that stand would not be considered ‘fully

nt. Fidstory removal, and prescribed burns, this 79-acre-

RCn more pote

e amount of acres to tive E proposes the least am

oposes the most acres treated. The direct, indirect, and e as describe

foraging partitionately 500 acres are treated differently between the two

pact a greater num500 acres are treated differently than the

ilar

.

s, but raging partition

Figure 3.6-13 - ternatives

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,00011,00012,00013,00014,000

A-N

o A

ctio

n

C-N

oH

erbi

cide

G-N

oR

esto

ratio

n

AC

RES

Comparison of Al

E-Le

ssR

esto

ratio

n

ALTERNATIVES

Thin, Forest HealthThin, RCW HabitatRestoration Cut

loped ote

er

Alternative A serves as the benchm or the other action alternatives in order to show change or effect on the envir lternative was fully deveand considered in detail in the analysis. Arestoration of the longleaf ecosystem bharvesting or other stand treatments to improve red-cockaded woodpecker habitat or to

ark or baseline fonment. This a

lternative A would take no steps to prom in the project area. There would be no tim


163

address forest health issues related to the declining off-site loblolly and shortleaf dominated uplands that are better suited for longleaf. Custodial forest management would occur but would be limited to resource protection measures such as erosion control, insect and disease control, wildfire suppression, and routine road maintenance. Alternative A would not implement Revised Forest Plan objectives or Revised RCW Recovery Plan.

Alternative B: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern

TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut, Site Prep. – Herbicide, Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn, Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings, Release – Herbicides

6,697 ac 696 ac

Thinning 2,813 ac 2,831 acMidstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420 acPrescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

Alternative B proposes action that would begin to address the forest health problems, restoration needs, and RCW population needs of the District. This alternative is designed to target the four specific areas of immediate concern identified (AOC1, AOC2, AOC3, AOC4) for this analysis. The Proposed Action would be one step in an overall long-termstrategy to phase out all off-site loblolly and shortleaf dominated upland stands and to restore the native longleaf ecosystem where appropriate. The Proposed Action plus RCW Habitat Improvements would greatly reduce forest health risks and promote a stable, healthy, and productive forest that provides optimal RCW habitat on a sustained basis.

Alternative C: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut 6,697 696 Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn 1,280 Site Prep. – Rolling Chopper 4,373 596 Site Prep. – Shear and Rake 1,044 100 Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 696 Release – Hand Tools and Burn 6,697 696 Thinning 2,813 2,831Midstory Control – Mulch and Burn 2,420Prescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

Alternative C was developed in response to the issues regarding understory vegetation and water quality. There is concern for restoring and maintaining the native understory species of the longleaf ecosystem. Also of concern to the public is the potential effect of herbicide use and prescribed burning. This alternative would include a five-year programof thinning and restoration cuts identical to the Proposed Action (Alternative B). However, related site prep treatments would be modified to reduce the amount of prescribed burning and eliminate the use of herbicides. This alternative would not be as successful in restoring RCW habitat, native ecosystems, or woodland conditions, in the short term.

LongleafTalladega Nation

164

TREATRestoratioSite Site HandRelease – ThinMidstoryPresc

Alternative D was developed to respond to the identical to the Proposed Action, except thataccomequipmperiod. In Agrapple skidder, and loader/sharvester/forwarder. If it is possible to imto treatm

TREATRestoratioSite Site HandRelease – ThinMidstoryPresc

While simconservative approach to restalternative responds to the RCWtermimprove forwould include a five-year programthan the Pfewer areas would be thinned than in the PrRCW habitat needs in the short termepidemimplemanagehigh-risk habitats with native ecosystemsustainable habitats ove

Ecosystem Restoration Project Final al Forest - Oakmulgee District Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative D: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern MENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4

n Cut 6,697 696 Prep. – Herbicide 6,697 696 Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,697 696 Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,697 696

Herbicides 6,697 696 ning 2,813 2,831

Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420 ribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

soil and water issue. This alternative is the timber harvest treatments would be

plished using cut-to-length logging equipment instead of conventional logging ent. The use of cut-to-length equipment was recommended during the scoping

labama, a conventional logging system normally utilizes a feller-buncher, lasher. In contrast, a cut-to-length logging system uses a

plement this exclusive sale type without delays ents, effects to RCW would be the same as Proposed Action.

Alternative E: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern MENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4

n Cut 6,076 Prep. – Herbicide 6,076 696 Prep. – Prescribe Burn 6,076 696 Plant Longleaf Seedlings 6,076 696

Herbicides 6,076 696 ning 2,319 2,831

Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420 ribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

ilar in design to the Proposed Action, Alternative E proposes a more oring the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. This

issue. There is concern about how to balance the short- habitat needs of the RCW with the rate of longleaf ecosystem restoration needed to

est health (and provide for long-term sustained RCW habitat). Alternative E of thinning and restoration cuts but at lower levels

roposed Action. Fewer off-site areas would be converted to longleaf pine and oposed Action. This alternative may satisfy

; however environmental factors (drought, SPB ics, etc.) could cause catastrophic habitat losses if this alternative were

mented. A catastrophic loss of habitat could take several hundred years of ment to overcome; whereas a management implemented, stepwise replacement of

s (as in the Proposed Action) would provide r the long-term.


Alternative F: Summary of Treatments by Area of Concern TREATMENT AOC 1 AOC 2 AOC 3 AOC 4 Restoration Cut, Site Prep. – Herbicide, Site Prep. – Prescribe Burn, Hand Plant Longleaf Seedlings, Release – Herbicides

7,191 696

Thinning 2,319 2,831Midstory Control - Hand Tools/Herbicide 2,420Prescribed Burning Regime 87,000-acre project area on a 2- to 5-year rotation

Alternative F responds to the RCW issue and concern about how to balance the rate olongleaf ecosystem restoration needed to improve forest health with short-term habineeds of the RCW. While similar to the Proposed Action, Alternative F proposes a more aggressive approach to restoring the longleaf ecosystem in the project area. Alternative F

ould include a five-year program of thinning and restoration cuts; however, more off-

f tat

wsite areas would be converted to longleaf pine than in the Proposed Action.

Red-cockaded woodpecker Alternative Summary of Effects

A There would be negative short-term and long-term impacts to the red-cockaded woodpecker because habitat conditions needed for population recovery would not bimproved and population growth recommendations would not be met.

e

B and potentially negative in some areas where foraging would be reduced through restoration cuts. Overall, available suitable habitat would be increased through all restoration efforts resulting in beneficial effects.

Short-term impacts would be beneficial in areas of thinning to improve foraging habitat

C Effects would be similar to B, although short-term benefits would be reduced. D Effects would be similar to B.

E Effects would be similar to B, but the more conservative approach to restorationwould reduce short-term negative impacts and provide long-term benefits at a slower pace, and lower level.

efforts

F Effects would be similar to B, but the more aggressive approach to restoration effocould increase short-term negative impacts but would provide more suitable habitat inthe long term.

rts

Table 3.6-14 displays the relative expected RCW population changes from current rizes condition of each alternative, over both short- and long-term periods. It also summa

the verbal descriptions provided in the analysis above. Table 3.6-14: Expected population trends1 of RCW by Forest Health EIS alternative, Oakmulgee District, Talladega National Forest. Population trends are based on expected trends in habitat quantity and quality.

A B C D E F

Red-cockaded Woodpecker Short-term -- + + + + = Long-term -- ++ ++ ++ + ++

1 Population trend expressed as change from current levels: “++” = relatively large increase, “+” = increase, “=” = little to no change, “-“= decrease, “—“relatively large decrease.

165


3.6.6: Monitoring Population Monitoring: Population monitoring will be accomplished following the guidelines outlined in the Recovery Plan Chapter 3A, 8C, and Appendix 2. Active clusters and number of potential breeding groups (PBG) will be monitored so that population size and trend can be determined. The Recovery Plan recommends populations of 100 – 349 monitor 100% of the active clusters each year.

Habitat Monitoring: The quality and quantity of foraging habitat will be monitored at a

be

ted

80-1993)

R.D. in Alabama. (1993-1996)

s:

minimum frequency of once every 10 years (Recovery Plan, 2003, 8D, pp 174-175). Midstory encroachment within the cluster sites will be monitored each year during the 100% population survey. Monitoring midstory encroachment in foraging areas will monitored at a minimum of once every 5 years.

Prescribed fire will be monitored to assess the success or failure to meet management objectives for open, park-like longleaf stands with a grass/forb ground cover. Results of all habitat monitoring, population monitoring, and use of prescribed fire will be reporto the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator using the Annual Report.

articipants Bio: PJim Mawk, retired – Thirty-two years federal work experience, including:

• District Biologist on the Oakmulgee Division. (1993-2004). • District Biologist on Mena R.D. of the Ouachita N.F. (19• B.S., University of Southern Mississippi, 1973 Major: Biology • M.S., Mississippi State University, 1975 Major: Wildlife Biology

Debbie Russell Foley, Conecuh N.F. – Seventeen years Forest Service experience. • NEPA/GIS Coordinator Analyst, Conecuh National Forest (1995 – present) • B.S., Alabama Christian College, 1985; Major: Psychology, Minor: Biology.

Dagmar Thurmond, Supervisor’s Office - Fourteen years Forest Service experience:

• Forest Biologist, National Forests in Alabama (2001-Present) • Ecosystem Manager on Delta National Forest in Mississippi. (1997-2001) • District Biologist on Shoal Creek • Coop Student/Biologist Trainee on Shoal Creek R.D. in Alabama. (1991-1993) • Research Intern with Southern Research Station in Athens, GA. (1988-1990) • BS, University of Georgia, 1989 Major: Forest Resources • MS, University of Georgia, 1993 Major: Wildlife Ecology

References: Eckhardt, Lori. 2004. Doctoral Dissertation.

James, F.C., C.A. Hess, and D. Kufrin. 1997. Species-centered environmental analysiindirect effects of fire history on red-cockaded woodpeckers. Ecological Applications 7:118-129.

166


NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Last accessed: May 15, 2003).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement For the Management of the Red-cockaded woodpecker and its Habitat on the National Forests in the Southern Region. Management BulletinR8-MB 73. 407 p.

USDI. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA. 296 pp.

167


3.7: Air Resources 3.7.1: Issues There are two sets of potential air quality issues for Rx burning. One set relates to theportion of smoke that’s emitted with sufficient heat to lift it into the atmosphere for dispersal above the zone of human exposure. On average, the lifted portion of the smoke plume accounts for about 60% of Rx burn total emissions. A second set of issues relates to the portion of smoke that’s emitted without sufficient heat for lifting. This portion must be dispersed near the ground, within the zone of human exposure.

Ground Level Smoke. While liftedhuman environment, ground level

smoke is already dispersed before it returns to the

rOamileslimit devel asures are described in a following section. Oakmgroyear, partia Smok

smoke must dissipate within that environment. It is dissipated by dispersion and deposition of smoke particles on vegetation, land surfaces and other objects. Smoke that must be dispersed within the human environment can present nuisance, safety and occasional health issues. G ound level smoke is neither a new nor a rare phenomenon in the vicinity of the

kmulgee District. Its impacts generally are limited to an area extending just a few downwind of the originating fire. Local Forest Service personnel most frequently the level of impact by applying a set of mitigating measures that have been oped over many years. These meulgee District personnel have not reported any recurring complaints regarding

und level smoke from Rx fires. However, there are instances, currently about 1 per where the weather does not behave according to forecast and smoke that’s only lly dispersed descends on Tuscaloosa or Birmingham.

e Aloft. Until recent decades, the impact of the lifted portion of smoke was ed -- it just seemed to go away. As community and industrial development asingly dotted the landscape with new perennial sources of air pollution, the smoke nt aloft could no longer be ignored. Forest Service has become concerned

ignorincrewe se that even this mvio Altho may aggravate situations where health and regional haze issues already exist. A lack of solid informregsmokfine p Woo (PM) sey IMPROVE visibility monitor was used to prepare a detailed summary of conditionsindo su This pattern actually holds for all of the IMPROVE visibility

e Southeast.

inimal contribution of air pollutants might be enough to cause already dirty air to

late air quality standards.

ugh it becomes dispersed during it’s journey through the atmosphere, smoke

ation has led to some question about the role of woodland fire smoke in the ional haze issue. As discussed in the Revised Forest Plan, particulates from such

e may contribute as little as 1.5% to the Southern Appalachian regional airborne articulate budget.

dland fire smoke is just one of many source categories for fine particulate matter. Data from the PM samples at the Sip

for the 1996 – 1998 period (IMPROVE). It icates, in rural NW Alabama at least, that the bulk of fine PM in the air is attributable

lfur emissions.tmonitors throughout th

168


Tf 6 – 1month. The cleanest season is winter (December – February). Averaged across all 12

onths, sulfate species are responsible for 56% of the fine PM mass. In descending major contributing groups are: organic carbons (27%), soil/mineral

Becaus hemicals, may travel hundreds of

zation (VISTAS) to address regional haze and to consider regulations that will reduce it. FS is a

Southe e near

es.

to the R

visibili

3.7.2: The Oa e District contains 157,549 acres of federal land, distributed within six Alabama counties: Bibb, Chilton, Dallas, Hale, Perry and Tuscaloosa. Over the last five years, the U.S. Forest Service (FS) has completed prescribed burning (for all purposes) on these lands at a rate that averages 18,166 acres per year. The amounts for each fiscal year (1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 & 2003) were 22912, 13446, 18051, 15490 and 20930 acres, respectively (USFS, 2000 – 2004). As discussed within the Revised Land and

he Sipsey IMPROVE monitor provides more specific information. The mean annual ine PM concentration is reported as 13 ug/m3 in the last detailed data summary (199998). The dirtiest season is summer (June – August) with August being the worst

morder, the otherparticles (7%), nitrate species (6%) and elemental carbon (soot, 4%).

e much of the fine particulate, or it’s precursor cmiles while suspended in air, the southeastern States have formed a regional organi

participant in VISTAS (Visibility Improvement State & Tribal Association of the ast, www.vistas-sesarm.org) and hopes to see this issue fairly resolved in th future.

We know that the health, safety or nuisance issues regarding ground level smoke can

urgenerally be resolved through proper application of the Rx burning mitigation measThe issue that remains for this review is whether this project can be done while adhering

evised Forest Plan goal stating that emissions from Rx fire will not disproportionately hinder State progress toward attaining air quality standards or

ty goals.

Affected Environment kmulge

Resource Management Plan – National Forests in Alabama (Revised Forest Plan) and its Environmental Impact Statement, the FS is planning to increase annual prescribed (Rx) burning, Forest-wide. Air quality information and discussions provided in that Revised Plan and EIS are included here by reference. The preferred alternative identified in the Revised Forest Plan proposes to burn 95,000 acres per year (Forest-wide, including site-prep burns). That’s up 27% from the recent average of 75,000 acres per year. However, it turns out that the Oakmulgee District will account for the lion’s share of that increase. The Oakmulgee Forest Health & RCW Restoration Project (OFHRRP) proposes to increase Rx burning (for all purposes) on the District to as much as 30240 ac/year (preferred alternative), a 11624 ac/year increase over the recent 5-year average of 18616. Accomplishing 20930 acres of Rx burning in 2003 required extension of the burning season into the early growing season, March and April. Pursuing the preferred alternative, 30240 acres, will likely result in extension of the burning season into the middle of the growing season, early June. The 11624 ac/year figure represents a 62% increase, but that’s the maximum that could occur under the preferred alternative. This restoration project is focusing on loblolly pine and pine-hardwood stands that are in decline. Amongst such stands, however, are other

169


stand types that do nstands can be identi

ot qualify for this project. To the extent that those non-qualifying fied and isolated during the Rx burn events, that 11624 ac/year

e reduced considerably. Stand maps that are 10 years old indicate that it , perhaps even to a modest 4631 ac/year increase. Most optimistically

increase could bcould be reducedthen, for the life of this project, total annual burning on the Oakmulgee District could be 23247 ac/year, just a 25% increase over the recent 5-year average. Current Air Quality v. NAAQS. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) cover six "criteria" airborne pollutants: lead, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxidenitrogen oxides, ozone and particulate matter. Woodland fires do not emit significant amounts of lead

,

or sulfur dioxide. They do emit small amounts of nitrogen oxides (NOx) nd moderate amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOC). Ozone is not a primary

h plenty of ultraviolet light, ozone formation is

onoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) are the primary air pollutants emitted om woodland fire. Because CO is a reactive pollutant that soon oxidizes to carbon

nt source ised

apollutant. Rather, on warm days witaccelerated in the presence of its precursors, VOC and NOx. Carbon mfrdioxide, it’s seldom a problem unless there’s an additional very large persistenearby and there is confinement due to atmospheric or topographic factors. The RevForest Plan discusses air quality standards and air quality throughout the Forest. That discussion is included here by reference. Since that writing, however, relevant air qualitydata has become available for ozone and fine particulates (PM2.5) for CY2003. Those new data are included in the following discussion.

Ozone (O3)

Forest fires emit some VOC and NOx, both precursors to formation of ground level

change, however, as recent revisions to the andard are proving to be more difficult to meet. At this writing, the Alabama

ozone (O3). Fire related emissions become important only when other persistent andlarger pollution sources already present a substantial base load of O3 precursors or when there is a threat of atmospheric and/or topographic confinement. In some circumstances,fire’s additional intermittent emissions might aggravate an already bad situation. Historically, Alabama has had trouble in attaining the NAAQS ozone standard only in Jefferson and Shelby counties. This may stDepartment of Environmental Management (ADEM) reports the results of 26 ozone monitors, spread among 16 counties, across the state. Summary data from monitors insix counties near the Oakmulgee District are shown in Figure 3.7-1. NAAQS-Ozone Standard. O3 monitors run continuously throughout the growing seaso(Apr. thru Oct.). They provide up to 5036 hourly values which result in 502running averages”, per year. Attainment of the standard occurs: when the mean of the

n 8 “ 8-hour

early fourth-highest “8-hour running average” values, over three consecutive years, does y

not exceed 0.08 ppm.

170


171

Figure 3.7-1. Summar zy of O one

5/19/onit

r run

mon200ors nin

itor3 &rung

ing 3/

con

rep6/2tin

orted004).uous

by the S a (199 data n A i ” ( “3-Year ulate wing f in e m ly, genera ring t ding o ar ou

tate of AlabamAverages” calclly from mid-sp

9 – 2d by hrou

003). The summary the author. The follogh mid-autumn, recor

(all but last 3 colum information is help a mean concentrati

s) are from EPul in understandn for each hour.

web g the As the

page “www.epa.data presented abdata presented ab

gov/aove.ove

r/dataOzone 8-h av

tandaear a

er ed fro ), the ach d hi dta rd. T prese hroug 30 da d th

nd -y verage value ritica t of d orre onitors, kno me co eral m

ages (calhis t of t

w th

culatable hoseat so

m the base datants only the 1

re arh 4

e still 24 values for e ay. Only one (the ily values generate

NAAQS. While the

ghest) value perper year. The 4ata presented f

ay is each

used for evaluatihighest value forcounty in this tab

Figure 3.7-2

ng at eachle a

inmeyear afrom

nt of this the 3

single m

s st ts (shaded) are cunties have sev

th

l foronit

highest of roughly 2 evaluating attainmenors.

. Summary of PM2.5 monitoring rep the St (199 h yea b siter/data” (5/19/2003 & 3/6/2004). 3-year av l mea auth nfor pf data above: a) While most PM onitors ru us 24- y 3rd o 122 yeerate on different schedules. A operate da 365 tes in of sam hems with the 24-hour

orte The2.5 mfew

d by ate of Alabama erages of annuan for continuoily, giving up to

9 – 2ns whr pevalu

003). Entries for eacere calculated by theriods, generally ever

es per year. * Indica

r are from EPA weor. The following iday, providing up tsufficient number

mation is hel values per ples. b) W

“www.epa.gov/aiunderstanding thesome monitors opthere are no probl

ul in ar; ile

part of the 2.5 standa by the the d probl a PM rd (represented 98th percentile statistic), ata do show some ems with the nnual mean part. Colucounties have sev

mns containing these critical shaded a pres his ta mon heral monitors.

at some values are . While the dat ented for each county in t ble are from single itors, know t

98th Annual NSa

31

o. ofmple54108296

98th

- til53423937

AnnuMea22.317.216.715.316.3

aln S

0HOU

No. of No f f% - tile Mean amples Sam es % es

53 23.4 352 345 18.9 111 140 20.1 112 148 17.0 107 141 19.6 41* 38 105 1

g M

2001999SUMMARY STATISTICS of R PM2. Rep icrogram

98th Annual% - tile Mean

43 19.129 14.430 14.727 12.122 11.5

20015 Concentrations

. ofples

521219176*

orted

98th Annual No. o% - tile Mean Sampl

38 17.5 35628 14.6 11633 13.6 11626 11.8 11319 10.4 12*

2002 for each Year (unit = m

98th Annual No. o - tile Mean Sampl35 15.6 35832 14.0 11931 14.9 10431 12.1 11934 12.7 97

s per cubic meter)

2003

s % eJEFFERSONMONTGOMERYSHELBYSUMTERTUSCALOOSA

COUNTY

21.6 19.616.8 15.417.2 15.014.8 13.1

3 - Year Runninof the Annual

1999 - 2001

2000 -2002

17.414.314.412.0

Average eans

2001 - 2003

24-

ELMOREJEFFERSONMONTGOMERYSHELBYSUMTERTUSCALOOSA

0.080.100.100.110.08

1High

6 77 1 0.092 0.0849 97 16 0.103 0.0925 92 6 0.103 0.0866 00 9 16 01 73 0 0 0

0

Daily Maxima

t

Daily MaximaDaily Maxima

es hest

Daily Maxima1st

Highest4th

Highest

COUNTY No. Days Exceeding

(0.

No. Days Exceeding

No. Days Exceeding

2000 2001 20021999No. Days Exceeding Standard

(0.08)

SUMMARY STATISTICS of Maximum Daily 8-Hour OZONE Concentrations Reported for each Year (unit = parts per million)2003

No. Days Exceeding

)

3-Year Running Average of 4th Highest Daily Maxima

1999 - 2000 - 2001 - Daily Maxima

0.0760.0830.0750.0870.0720.078

2003

0.079 0.0800.092 0.0880.085 0.0810.096 0.0930.075 0.0770.081 0.082

2001 2002

0.083 0.071 00.081 0.077 00.075 0.066 0.088 0.083 3.068 0.065 0.076 0.070 0

Stand(0.08

1st

Highest4th

Highest0.091 0.080 20.098 0.086 60.087 0.081 30.110 0.090 110.097 0.078 10.092 0.083 2

1st

Highest4th

HighestStanda

(0.08)rd

141811

tandard (0.08)

S

3 0.087 0.0777 0.093 0.0866 0.085 0.077

0.104 0.0890.091 0.0720.102 0.081

1st

Highest4th

Highesard

08) Stand

250

0.110.08

84

0.090.08

0.00.00.00.10.0

t4

Higth st

ard

Draft Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement Oakmulgee Ranger District, Talladega NF

Bringing the new year of data (CY2003) into the analysis improved the outlook forcounties near the Oakmulgee District regarding attainment of the NAAQS ozone standard. At all monitors, 2003 registered cleaner air than did 2000. Although EPA anthe States are switching to the new (8-hour) NAAQS ozone standard, Shelby and

d

fferson Counties will continue in non-attainment status.

. rs to particles less than or equal to10 microns in diameter. Recent court

ecisionsparticula e particle) rd that ai diam l t . NAAQS-PM2.5 Standard

Je Particulate Matter (PM) NAAQS for PM is a complex standard. For many years, it regulated fine and medium size particles under the same PM10 rule, as though both posed the same health riskPM10 refed have supported a renewed focus on the special health hazard of fine

Along with t ndard, we gher tes. standa

he old PM10 sta now have the toueter less than or equa

PM2.5 (fino 2.5 micronsms at particles with a

. PM2.5 monitors filter air for complete 24-hour periods. They’re m a 3-day cycle, providing approximately 122 sa ear for analysis. A g this standard requires that 98% of the 24-hour amples shall show a PM2.5 concentration not exceeding 65 micrograms per cubic meter

(ug/m3). The sample values shal /m3, over unn 3-yea eragi period At s results om 36 PM2.5 monitoring locations, spread am tewide. Summary data from m s i ve iesnea ict are shown in F .

year of data (CY-2003) into the analysis improved the outlook for

n

re

y

due to some health, safety or economic consideration. hat constitutes "enough" smoke, in terms of a specific concentration or duration, is ldom mentioned.

ost often set up to operate on mples per y ttainin

sstandard further requires that the annual mean of these 24-hour

l not exceed 15 ug a r ing r av ng .

this writing, ADEM reportong 18 counties, sta

fronitor n the fi count most

igure 3 7-2. r the Oakmulgee Distr Bringing the new counties near the Oakmulgee District regarding the potential for attainment of the NAAQS PM2.5 standard. At all the monitored locations, 2003 registered cleaner air thadid 2000. While Jefferson County will still fall into non-attainment for PM2.5, it appears that Shelby and Montgomery Counties may avoid that designation. The process for designating non-attainment areas under the new “PM2.5” particulate standard began in February 2004. 3.7.3: Environmental Effects Turbulent surface winds move ground smoke erratically and it stays in intermittent contact with the human environment. In comparison to smoke aloft, human exposure to ground level smoke is: limited to a smaller area, relatively brief (a few hours) and more ntense. i

The potential for ground level smoke to create a nuisance has long been obvious. Whethere’s enough smoke to cause a nuisance, remedies are straightforward. Anyone negligently creating or continuing a nuisance can be held accountable. What constitutes anuisance is not often defined but generally includes a property use that significantlmpairs the use of another propertyi

Wse

173


The impact o ring dissipated ns of lif o groun he sm eady dispersed over a broad ir, rominim e the dispersal area is bro e duration of exposure within that area may, however, last for the better part of a d ct of such d ersed emissions went unnoticed because they were merely an intermittent contribution of minor mount to relatively clean air.

s mentioned earlier, the creation of additional pollution sources in the rural landscape of air quality standards present a situation where the air masses we

e ulgee District Rx burns will be

ignificant in terms of the ability of nearby metro areas to continue attainment of NAAQS and the ability Again, Forest Service A m ribal Association of the Southeast. We hope to see some resolution soo regarding thimportance of woodland fire smoke in the regional haze issue.

here a can look at to estima ay have on the bility of nearby counties to continue attainment of NAAQS. It includes trends in air

ons. Does Jefferson County’s recent decline in PM2.5 concentrations t

d in the heart of the county since 1989. Also, for a ru .5 at Sipsey are in d. A eak 7-3 sing s Co. PM10 for the 15-year period of record. For years when the data sets are sufficientc e Sipsey PM10 and PM ummaries lend supp the notion of a e creasing trend. Althou t as steep, the Jeffe o. PM10 data aipsey data support the short-term decreasing trend seen in Jefferson Co. PM2.5.

at are the long-term trends in PM related emissions? The notion of a

f smoke aloft is usually not realized until dispersal mechanisms b portio ted smoke back t d level. Because t

the concentration at goke has alr

und level is and deep volume of aal. Becaus ad, th

ay. Decades ago, the impa isp

a Aand the tighteningburn into can seldom be described as “clean”. While smoke from Rx fire is still an intermittent contribution of small proportions, it nonetheless must be counted among the many “straws” that have fall on the “camel’s back”. We know that the health, safety or nuisance issues regarding ground level smoke can generally be resolved through proper application of the Rx burning mitigation measures. The big question is whether thsmall amount of emissions going aloft from Oakms

of States to meet visibility goals.

is a participant in VIST S (Visibility Improve ent State & Tn, e

T re data we te the impact that Rx burning maquality and emissirepresent a lasting condition or a short-term anomaly? While the period of record is shorfor ADEM’s PM2.5 monitors, beginning generally in 1999, some of the older PM10 monitors continue to operate and present a longer record. Along with the data from one Jefferson Co. PM2.5 monitor, Figure 3.7-3 shows the combined (averaged) annual

eans of two PM10 monitors ADEM has operatemral reference, recent summaries of mean annual PM10 and PM2

clude

mong the p s and troughs, Figure 3. shows a mildly decrea trend in Jeffer only

omplete, thrm mild de

2.5 sgh no

ort to rson C

long-nd the t

S Next question: whdeclining PM trend is supported by air pollution emissions data, made available by ADEM and EPA through AirData (www.epa.gov/air/data, 3/2004). Summarized, the data show, from 1989 to 1999, the statewide average of primary PM10 emissions had decreased from 14.04 tons/sq.mi./yr. to 10.62 tons/sq.mi./yr. During the same pestatewide emissions of SO2 (precursor for su

riod, lfate particles) had decreased from 14.40

ns/sq.mi./yr. to 12.77 tons/sq.mi./yr. Conversely, VOC and NOx emissions increased: OC up from 8.27 tons/sq.mi./yr. to 10.80 tons/sq.mi./yr. and NOx up from 9.77

toV

174


tons/sq.mi./yr ormation of organic and nitrate partic ne.

. to 11.74 tons/sq.mi./yr. VOC and NOx are precursors for the fles as well as ozo

Figure 3. : PM10 and PM2.5 Trends Select Jefferson County Monitors7-3 at and at a Rural Site ( sey Wilderness)Sip

619 8 9 19 9 0 19 9 1 19 9 2 19 9 3 19 9 4 19 9 5 19 9 6 19 9 7 19 9 8 19 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0

12

18

24

30

36

42

1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3

YEAR

6

18

36

42

12

24

30

Jeff.Co. PM10 Sipsey PM10 Jeff.Co. PM2.5 Sipsey PM2.5

Figure 3.7-3. Trends in annual means of PM10 and PM2.5 at select monitors located in Jefferson Co. and

ADE eral PM10 monitors in Jefferson Co., the “Jeff.Co. PM10” series comes from the m 010732003) in the central rt es m 2.5”

serie of the Sipsey IMPROVE monitor. Data from the ADEM and IMPROVE n

efferson Co. to ould

e Bprim7.1

tri

hd in

et ceived y

h M issions, we may have enough information to proceed. We have mitigation measures

at the IMPROVE visibility monitor located at Sipsey Wilderness in Lawrence Co., Alabama. While M operates sev

co bined annual means of two EPA reference monitors (sites 010732003 and ap of the county. Of ADEM’s several PM2.5 monitors in Jefferson C., the “Jeff.Co. PM2.5” series com

fro data out of one EPA reference monitor (site 010732003). The “Sispey PM10” and “Sipsey PMs both come from data out

mo itors can be found at “www.epa.gov/air/data” and “www.vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve”, respectively. Another way to examine the situation is to compare the emissions from Janother county that contains a large part of Oakmulgee District federal land. That wb ibb Co., a rural county adjacent to the southern tip of Jefferson Co. In 1999, total

ary PM10 emissions from Jefferson Co. and Bibb Co. were 45.1 tons/sq.mi/yr. and tons/sq.mi./yr., respectively. Countywide, the portion of PM10 emissions that were buted to agricultural & forestry burning was 0.2% in Jefferson Co. and 1.1% in Bibb at

Co. W en EPA was setting up the national emissions inventory, the methods available to estimate PM emissions from woodland burning lacked the precision that was founm hods to estimate emissions from other source types. Woodland burning had resuch little attention because it had long been considered a minor source. That’s whVISTAS has established a project to improve these estimates.

ile we do not have a definitive answer regarding the importance of woodland fire PWem

175


that have served well in dealing with nuisance, health and safety issues associated with minor

ommitments, the risk in proceeding without more definitive information on the regional e acceptable, for now.

anagement officer seeks to initiate burning projects in those locations

on by accepting burning restrictions on the “bad

ground level smoke. Because this project proposes only a moderate increase in asource of PM, and because there are no irreversible effects or irretrievable resource chaze impact of the lifted smoke may b We will use the information from ADEM’s ozone and PM2.5 monitors to observe how nearby cities fare regarding NAAQS. Already, on burning days with a SW wind, the

akmulgee fire mOleast likely to put smoke into Jefferson County. If the apparent trend of declining PMconcentrations reverses and there becomes a need to approach the adjacent rural counties for emission reductions, FS will participate in the process. If O3 non-attainment does occur, it should be realized that the Oakmulgee District, although a minor contributor to the problem, must participate in its resolution. Ozone non-attainment results from high readings during sets of bad days. Such days usually occur during the middle and later parts of the growing season. If the FS (or the Rx burning community as a whole) continues its relatively low rate of ozone precursor missions, it can deal with the situatie

days”. If PM2.5 non-attainment does occur, prescribed fire should again be considered as a small source of emissions. FS still must participate in the resolution. The PM2.5 statistics show a problem that is not limited just to “bad days”. While the 98th percentile

alues do not approachv the daily (24-hour) standard of 65 ug/m3, there are monitors near

n

mploys smoke management guidelines that conform to the guidance of the ADEM and ch fire,

by the ties, airports, NAAQS non-

attainment areas, high volume & high speed roads, homes of persons known to have

o

s include fuel conditions and ignition methods that maximize the amount of smoke lifted, plus weather that promotes

or contact the target owner/manager to see if the impact can be mitigated.

the Oakmulgee RD whose 3-year average of mean annual PM2.5 values exceed the annual standard of 15 ug/m3. Emissions of PM2.5 pollutants or their precursors, even o“clean” days, add to the problem. 3.7.4: Mitigation Measures In order to avoid the nuisance situations that may be created by ground level smoke, FS ethe Alabama Forestry Commission. These guidelines, initiated in advance of eainclude:

1. During project planning, identify smoke sensitive targets that may be affectedproject. Such targets include: health care facili

respiratory illness and schools. 2. Also when planning Rx burns, prescribe weather and burning conditions needed t

direct smoke away from sensitive targets. Obvious weather considerations include wind direction and speed. Other consideration

dispersal (e.g. mixing height, transport wind speed and improbability of air mass stagnation). For some projects, even the most diligent planning will provide nooption that can avoid all smoke sensitive targets. In those cases, modify the project

176


3. During the afternoon of the day before the project is to be done, get a weather

forecast to make sure the prescribed weather and burning conditions will be met. e Forestry Commission, local fire department and local

itigation measures, light the fire, then begin monitoring the fire in be

oke at dusk.

Also contact the Statnewsmonger.

4. On the morning of the project, check to see if the weather forecast is holding. If so,

begin any planned mand smoke for unanticipated situations. Be prepared to stop ignition and/or begsuppression if unanticipated situations cannot be controlled or mitigated. Also prepared to patrol smoke sensitive roadways through the night if the fire is still producing significant sm

5. Record any significant smoke management problems in the review section of the

project plan. 3.7.5: Monitoring Monitoring for “Compliance with (the CAA) State Implementation Plan and internal FSprovisions for smoke management” is described as Task # 34 in Appendix F of the Revised Forest Plan. That

information, including methods of data collection, is included

d Particulate Matter

here by reference. References

PA, 2002. Current and Revised Standards for Ozone anE , Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (2002). (www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ozpmbro/current.htm).

PA, 2004. AirDataE website (www.epa.gov/air/data). Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (2004).

IMPROVE. Spatial and Seasonal Patterns and Temporal Variability of Haze and Its Constituents In the United States, Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments Committee, IMPROVE website (www.cira.colostate.edu/improve), (2000).

NWCG. Prescribed Fire Smoke Management Guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Boise Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. (1985).

SAMAB. Southern Appalachian Assessment. USDA - Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. (1996). SAMI. Final Report. Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative, Asheville, NC. (2002). USFS, 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan – National Forests in Alabama and

Environmental Impact Statement. USDA – Forest Service, Montgomery, AL. (2004). USFS, 1976. Southern Forestry Smoke Management Guidebook. USDA Forest Service,

Southern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, NC. (1976). USFS, 2000 – 2004. The Facts – A Quick Reference To Accomplishments During The Fiscal

Year …, National Forests in Alabama, Montgomery, AL (2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 & 2004).

177


3.8: Scenery 3.8.1: Issues Scenery, being the general appearance of place, is the means by which recreation are described. Proposed activities in this EIS will have both beneficial and adverse

settings

ffects on scenery and thus recreational experiences. Some proposed treatments would diminiscausal eriences in the

ng run by creating open-park like stands of timber and increasing the opportunity to

he Oakmulgee District may be described by referring to descriptions of its

t.

od, both with open park-like understory, are ecessary forest types for red-cockaded woodpecker nesting. These older trees with their

o medium xtured rounded tree forms, creating a natural-appearing landscape character. However,

led

n an n

nd make it identifiable or unique. Landscape themes efer to the general focus or subject of variations on landscape character settings. They

ns of desired landscaper character. Themes range the

est is characterized as Natural Appearing. There is no esignated wilderness included in the Oakmulgee District. There is, however, the

Evolving landscapes. There are no other natural evolving landscapes on the Oakmulgee

eh visual quality for short times. This may disperse or disappoint forest visitors and viewers. These same treatments may improve visitor’s visual exp

loview wildlife. 3.8.2: Affected Environment The affected environment includes the entire 157,000 plus acres of the TalladegaNational Forest - Oakmulgee District and adjacent private land with views into the Forest. Tphysiographic section as described by Bailey and others. The Oakmulgee is part of Southeastern Mixed Forest Province, Coastal Plain Middle Section. Distinctive, common,and undistinguished examples of the Coastal Plain Middle Section occur on this districHabitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is the defining landscape feature for this area. Mature pine and mature pine-hardwonopen understory plus the rich diversity of flora and fauna give the dissected, dendretic Oakmulgee landscape it’s unique sense of place. The forest is generally covered with an almost continuous canopy of soft ttesince the late 1990s, as a result of the Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) infestation that killarge numbers of introduced and native pines, significant parts of the canopy have opened. Groups of tall, gray, defoliated stems, generally varying in size from less thaacre to major openings litter the Oakmulgee District. Private land inside the proclamatioboundary is mostly agriculture or forest. Landscape character is described as the particular attributes, qualities, and traits of a landscape that give it an image armay be thought of as detailed descriptiofrom a natural to an urban landscape. Of the seven Land Use Themes described inSouthern Appalachian Assessment, Oakmulgee landscapes can be grouped predominantly into three: Natural Evolving, Natural Appearing, and Rural-Forested. The vast majority of the Fordapproximately 600-acre Reed Brake Research Natural Area. Ecological processes generally predominate in research natural areas, and they are characteristically Natural

178


and Reed Brake makes up less than 1% of the district. Rural-Forested is a very small category that includes places like Payne Lake Recreation Area and Vick Shooting Range.

Many of these features have ecome special places requiring appropriate visual settings.

ith minimal improvements. Many hunters and other wildlife nthusiasts take advantage of the diversity of wild game and the favorable climate.

g

ed the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National

orests in Alabama. The scenic resource management direction in the Forest Plan is d

plan. The Scenery Management System (SMS) was used to determ Scenery Management System (SMS) is described in Landsc book for Scenery Management, Agricultural Handbook Numbe The SM ust as the old Visual Management System (VMS) assigned

es ), to Very

ain scenic

Figure 3.8-1: VQO – SIO Crosswalk

Cultural features are present, often obvious, and represent the varied peoples who havelived and used the land now know as the Oakmulgee District. Fire towers, cemeteries, old house sites, springs, and stills, are all found on the district. b The area includes a range of recreation opportunities. Payne Lake is a developed recreation area and campground. Eight hunt camps serving visiting hunters provide camping opportunities weFinally, hunters and other shooting enthusiasts can prefect their aim at the Vick ShootinRange. The scenic resources of the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District are managin accordance withFgoverned by the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) and other visual goals, objectives anstandards described in the

ine the SIOs. Theape Aesthetics, A Handr 701.

S assigns values jVisual Quality Objectives (VQOs). SMS values are termed Scenic Integrity Objectiv(SIOs), and they range from Very High (VH), High (H), Moderate (M), Low (LLow (VL). SIOs define the level of integrity or the alteration allowed to maintintegrity.

Visual Quality Objective (VQO) Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO)P Preservation VH Very High R Retention H High PR Partial Retention M Moderate M Modification L Low MM Maximum Modification VL Very Low

3.8.3: Environmental Effects Alternative A (No Action)

his alternative will not immediately affect visual resources. As time passes, natural rocesses or other management will change the visual character of the forest. The natural

ds

Tpprocess changes are expected to be generally pleasing to most, provided no catastrophic insect, disease, or storm events occur. Even these potential occurrences would be acceptable to a portion of forest visitors. However, allowing overstocked stands of off-site species to continue is an invitation for insect or disease disasters. The loblolly stan

179


in decline will continue to fail, and also, the chance to speed up the healing of beetle scared forests will be missed. This alternative does not provide direction for increasing longleaf and its associated fire dependent understory. The result of Alternative A is the

st opportunity to restore a scarce and visually appealing ecosystem.

aditional gging and site preparation are expected to be negative; however, the long-term effects

of th ith longleaf pines in their proper ted to result in healthier, more diverse, and therefore, more vi tidote for monotony. Restoring both SPB created openings and loblolly stands in decline to their appropriate ecological character will increase biological diversity quicker than waiting on n The proposed thinning activities are expected to provide little change in the scenic

ape. Effects will be evident during logging and for a short time ereafter. The expected effects are the shrubs and herbaceous plants killed or damaged

ve B, Alternative C, and Alternative D include the most acres of proposed inning and the most acres of combined thinning and restoration. However, Alternative

F inc C, and D in thinning. Therefo ) share the most short-term negat to the 3 acthinning, 2 of RCW thi torati ,

ration work includ eparation ill result in standing s which will appear incongruent. se activities will be ive to close viewers.

re will also be used as a site preparation tool. Wildfire is a natural process ned to mimic wildfires. Fire lines could result in negative ited and built. ribed burns are expected use, a

m evidence of these per negative effects will n long and

by winter burns is min Green-up will occur the ing ajor tool in obtaining the desirable open park-like fo

he visual effects near Payne Lake Recreation Area are of consequence even with itigation measures. Visitors are expected to find restoration and thinning operations

ear Payne Lake visually negative during and immediately after the work. Ultimately, the rea will be better off visually after logging evidence disappears.

areas that are assigned a SIO of moderate and are scheduled to be thinned, this lternative, as all the alternatives, is expected to meet the objective provided the listed itigation practices are accomplished. Full compliance with the existing line, color, and

texture in these areas is expected within one year for all the thinning activities.

lo Alternative B (Proposed Action) Manipulating the environment in order to achieve the desired future conditions will certainly affect landscape character. The visual short-term effects from trlo

is alternative are predicted to be positive. Replacing off-site loblolly pines wecological place, is expecsually pleasing forests. Diversity is the an

atural processes.

integrity of the landscthby the thinning operations. Alternatith

ludes the most acres of proposed restoration and has only 508 acres less than B,re, these alternatives (B, C, D, and F sceni 1ive effects

845 acres c resource. This includes 2,8nning, and 7,393 acres of res

es her site pr

res of forest health on for Alternatives Band pre ed fire. C, and D. The resto

Herbicide application wch of the

bicide dead stem

scrib

The result of ea negat Prescribed fiand prescribed fires are desigvisual effects if not properly sblack

Presc to caened forest floor, scorched bark on so

burning. However, thee trees, and smoke and ash during actual

ceived ot lastcolor contrast caused imal. followspring, and fire is a m rest. Tmna Inam

180


In areas that are assigned a SIO of moderaternative, as all the alternatives, is expected to m

te and are scheduled to be restored, this eet the objective provided the listed

duous mitigation practices are accomplished. Full compliance with the existing line, tur thes pected within one year for all the thinning activities.

In areas that ar ed hig ch b s all the alter tives, is xpe ed to meet the objective provided the listed extremely

g n practices are acco ed. Fu pliance with the existing line, xt e in the s is ex almos diate the thin

Figure 3.8-2: Acres Affected-SIO-Alternative B – Proposed Action

alarcolor, and tex e in e ar

a SI of

eas is ex

e assign Oct

h and are s eduled to e restored, this alternative, a na earduous miticolor, and te

atiour

mplishpected

ll comt immese area ly after ning

activities.

SIO Thin to Mimic Lo ucture

Longleaf Restorationngleaf Structure

Thin to Restore Longleaf Str

Very high 0 0 0 High 0 0 2 Moderate ,130 1,213 3,896 1

Fi e 3. A re y A gur 8-3: Acres ffected-Fo st Land b lternativeTreatment Goal D A B C E F

Restore Longleaf Ecosystem 0 7,393 7,393 7,393 6,076 7,887Thin to Mimic & Restore Longleaf Structure 0 5,658 5,658 5,658 5,150 5,150Total Affected Acres 0 13,051 13,051 13,051 11,226 13,037

Alternative C Alternative C will hav th the following difference. Mechanical site p loor in the restoration areas. But, ther cide application. Since

sed nu res as A ive B the onn u des. are expected

s are expected to sua de l eow cept ts v us ba e

ica s r co kmulgee because t cludes soils particularly subject to erosion.

ive also utilizes less prescribed burning. This may be of some short-term

e l quality. Better ecosystems are

e the visual effects described in Alternative B wireparation will result in a disturbed forest f

e will be no dead stems created by herbithe propovariation

mber of treatment acalternative is this no

is the same se of herbici

lternat Some

ly visual to find this in this

beneficial. Those who oppose the use of herbicides in National Forestdetest any vialternative. Halternative lesfrom mechanmuch of the dis This alternat

l evidence of herbiciever, those who acisually pleasing beca

l site preparation. Thirict in

use, and they wi the use of herbicides are expectede of the disturis of particula

l not see that evid

nce created on thncern on the Oa

nce under this o find this forest floor

visual advantage since less firelines and their negative connotations are required. However, in the long run, the ecological advantages gained by burning will obviously bless, and this is expected to directly relate to visuaexpected to make better pictures.

181


Figure 3.8-4 – Acres of Affected Selected SIO-Alternative C SIO imi

tructn tea

oRestoration

Thin to MLongleaf S

c ure

ThiLongl

o Restore f Structure

L ngleaf

Very high 0 0 0High 0 0 2 Moderate 1,130 1,213 3,896

ive D al effec ed in A th

is t- ng goin tre is eli rails e lar d lt h less visuality . Thi turally appearing land

much g op

AlternatAlternative D wdifference. Thoccur at the psale area and

ill have the visualternative utilizes cut of take (where the ge limb piles at the lanon the forest floorsooner after loggin

ts describto-length loggie is cut). Things. The resu

s results in na

lternative B with methods. Limbinminates skid tis muc

e following and bucking

throughout th evidence of scapes logging activ

occurring erations.

Figure 3.8-5: Acres of Affected Selected SIO-Alternative D SIO im Thin to R nThin to M

Longleaf Stric tureuc Longleaf S to

estore tructure

LoRes

gleaf ration

Very hig 0 0 0 h High 0 0 2 Moderate 1,130 3,896 1,213

Alternative EAlternative E w ibed in Alternative B with the following difference.

ewer acres are proposed to be restored or thinned. Less activity directly relates to less mediate visual effects. Any visual advantages resulting from the proposed actions will

e.

ill have effects descr

Fimalso be less under this alternativ

Figure 3.8-6: Acres of Affected Selected SIO-Alternative E SIO Thin to Mimic

Longleaf Structure Thin to Restore

Longleaf Structure Longleaf

Restoration Very high 0 0 0 High 0 0 2 Moderate 927 1,213 3,555

Alternative F Alternative F will have effects described in Alternative B with the following differenThis alternative proposes a more aggressive lo

ce. ngleaf restoration approach. The result will

be a greater negative effect on visual resources in the short run. But in the long run, the visual advantages of open park-like stands of longleaf pine trees will exceed the advantages of the other action alternatives.

182


Figure 3.8-7: Acres of Affected Selected SIO-Alternative F SIO Thin to Mimic

Longleaf Structure Thin to Restore

Longleaf Structure Longleaf

RestorationVery high 0 0 0 High 0 0 2 Moderate 927 1213 4098

3.8.4: Mitigation Measures itigation for AcM tivity in the High SIO Zones (Developed Recreation Sites):

round (this includes dead stems

ities to be screened

landings perpendicular to the road. able.

n. ccess road intersections to the landings perpendicular or nearly perpendicular

st understory whenever reasonable.

ns, out

itigation for Areas Affected by Prescribed Fire:

ils need to be reclaimed for a distance of 25 feet from the edge of the trail.

s, or

· Leave a 100 feet buffer of understory plants along the roads, trails, or around built facilities.

Remove or cut the slash to lie within two feet of the g·from herbicide application).

· Skid trees out of mowed areas and repair damage to turf. · Keep logging activity to a minimum to best accomplish the DFC. Locate landings far enough away from roads, trails, or built facil·

by existing vegetation. · Locate access road intersections to · Leave dogwoods and showy mast understory in restoration-cuts whenever reason Mitigation for Activity in the Moderate SIO Zones: · Leave a 75 feet buffer of understory plants along roads. · Remove or cut the slash in the 75 feet buffer zone along roads to lie within two feet of

the ground. · Skid trees away from roads towards the interior of the stand. · Keep logging activity in the 75 feet buffer zone to a minimum necessary to best

accomplish the DFC. · Locate landings far enough away from the road to be screened by existing vegetatio· Locate a

to the road. · Leave dogwoods and showy ma· Restoration activity in Moderate SIO areas will require cuts of size and density,

which will retain a natural appearing landscape within a year after logging operatiohave ceased. Utilize the Forest Landscape Architect to determine appropriate layof sales in this SIO zone.

M· After the burning is completed all plowed fire lines bisecting roads need to be

reclaimed for a distance of 25 feet from the edge of the road. · After the burning is completed all plowed fire lines bisecting tra

· All plowed fire lines should intersect with roads at approximately 90 degrees. · Located bladed or plowed fire lines along private land boundaries, existing road

streams when feasible. Keep interior fire lines to a minimum.

183


Mitigation for Activity in Low SIO Zones:

.8.5: Cumulative Effects

District as described in the Affected Environment part of this

fected by many small subsistence farms e

nted in various pine species as an able ealer of cutover timber and tired farmland. The planted pines were effective protectors

roved not to be so ccessful at defending SPB attacks or resisting general malaise when growing in less

. tall,

han an acre to major openings tter the Oakmulgee.

wing natural processes to create the healing is expected to take much longer.

etter e

owever, when lumped with other visual effects such as litter, clear cutting on private

l decide them be major, some will conclude they are minor, and others will state there is nothing

oposed activities. However, it is appropriate to say that this project

· Remove or cut slash in a 30 feet buffer zone along permanently open roads. · Leave dogwoods and showy mast understory in restoration-cuts whenever reasonable. 3The area analyzed for cumulative visual and recreational effects is the Talladega NationalForest – Oakmulgee section. . After statehood the southeastern mixed forest province of what is now the Talladega National Forest - Oakmulgee District was first afwhile large tracts remained in forest. After the abandonment of many of the farms and thheavy harvest of much of the forest, much the area was included in the Oakmulgee District. At this point many old fields were plahof watersheds and an able supplier of boards and fiber but some psuthan favorable conditions. Southern pine beetles and loblolly decline have devastated considerable acres of the Oakmulgee District since the early 1990s, particularly in the off site loblolly pine areasSignificant parts of the canopy have opened as a result of these attacks. Groups of gray, defoliated stems, generally varying in size from less tli The landscape character of the areas proposed for each action alternative is natural appearing and a few acres of rural forested in the developed recreation area. Thinning will result in natural appearing land staying natural appearing, and rural forested land staying rural forested each of course with a less trees. Restoration work will create additional acres of longleaf landscapes and will speed the change to a more healthy forest. Allo All the action alternatives are designed to improve the ecological health of the Oakmulgee District; therefore, all the action alternatives should ultimately result in bvisual settings. However, negative visual effects should be expected during and after thproposed activities. Also, visual healing in the restoration areas could take severalseasons for almost all to be satisfied with the result. All the action alternatives have negative short-term effects on recreation settings. These effects, on their own, should have only minimal impact on the recreational experience. Hland, or deferred maintenance at recreational facilities, the visual setting could move fromacceptable to unacceptable for particular visitors. Some will determine this project’s visual effects to be significant, some wiltonegative about these pr

184


will not change the landscape character of the Talladega National Forest – OakmulgeDistrict. 3.8.6: Monitoring Forest Landscape Architect will approve, review, and report on all vegetative management activities before, during, and after their occurrence in or near developrecreation sit

e

ed es.

ape Architect will approve, review, and report on a typical restoration

ery re Handbook Number 701.

Forest Landscactivity before, during, and after their occurrence in a roadside retention and partial retention area. Forest Landscape Architect will approve, review, and report on a typical thinning activity before, during, and after their occurrence in a roadside retention and partial retention area. Participant’s Biography George McEldowney, ASLA, Landscape Architect, B.S. Landscape Architecture, West Virginia University, 1977. References USDA Forest Service. December 1995. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for ScenManagement. Agricultu

185


3.9: Recreation Resources

gnificant and not relevant to the decision, as it relates to the recreation resource is:

3.9.2: Affected Environment Payfacilitie iles northeaCompa ride the Payne Lake Nature trail, located at the

orth end of the lake. A loop trail has been identified around Payne Lake, but would be creation Area.

t 20,

nt

d 5.

he 44,000 Oakmulgee Wildlife Management Area (OWMA) is located within the

labama Bureau of Tourism and Travel) as a featured location for viewing the red-

l

ypically, the ridge tops are sandy and capped predominately with pine, and a few

3.9.1: Issues The issue identified in the scooping process, but considered and determined non-si

Logging and timber restoration and management may have impacts to recreationthrough visual quality and impediments to recreation activities.

ne Lake Recreation Area with its 110-acre lake, campsites, boat ramp and other s is encompassed by the project. Payne Lake is located approximately 15.5 mst of Greensboro, off Alabama Highway 25. The treatment area AOC 1, rtment 52, Stand 19 is located ast

nconstructed within the Payne Lake Re There are two hunter camps within the project area, West Elliot’s Creek and Shiloh. West Elliot’s Creek is about five acres in size. It is located in AOC 1, Compartmenand Stand 14. Shiloh Hunter Camp is about two acres in size and has few trees. It is located at the north end of Forest Road 729 and does not lie within a proposed treatmestand, but is within the project area. A shooting range is planned for construction in FY 2004. The decision to construct this range was made on April 5, 2000. It is located in AOC#1, Compartment 17, and StanThere has been interest in establishing a hiking trail extending from Payne Lake North, but no location has been identified. It would be within the project area. Tproject area. The OWMA is managed cooperatively by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries The Oakmulgee District in listed in the Alabama Birding Trails Map (published by the Acockaded woodpecker (RCW). It specifically mentions Alabama Highway 25, Forest Road 745, and Forest Road 731 as good locations for spotting the RCW. These are allocated within the project area. Current Recreation Use and trends Overall recreation use is relatively light within the project area. The Payne Lake Recreation receives the most use. It currently operates at less than 10% of total year-round capacity. However, a major reconstruction of the Payne Lake facilities is planned for FY 2004, and fisheries improvements at the lake to follow shortly after, are expected to increase use at the lake. Tscattered hardwood trees. Almost every ridge top has an existing road or some kind on it

186


(usually a two-track, gated, minimally developed road.) These roads are often used for walking, viewing nature or hunting. There are few ponds and only short stretches of perennial streams. Very little fisoccurs within these areas according to the Distri

hing ct Wildlife Biologist, Jim Mawk (Mawk,

998.) The notable exception is the 110-acre Payne Lake.

of use

g r game. Backpacking, bicycling, off-trail hiking, and dispersed camping generally

Viewing Nature

atural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Fresh Water Fisheries akemson, 2003). A hunter use day is measured from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

its for hunting deer and quail. Hunting is by far the

1 During the deer gun season, October-January, camping on the Oakmulgee district is restricted to developed sites, hunter camps (Shiloh and West Elliot’s Creek) and “areas concentrated use” (Payne Lake Recreation Area). Both hunters’ camps receive heavy during hunting season. Driving for pleasure and wildlife viewing occur year round. Walking cross-country is rare except for people who are hunting, berry picking, or bird watching (especially the Red-cockaded Woodpecker). In general, viewing nature is the primary use after huntinfooccur very rarely. The top five dispersed recreation activities, which are most useful as indicators for the discussion of effects, are:

Hunting, Deer Driving for pleasure Bird watching Hiking

Hunting records provide the best available data to indicate use trends. Figure 3.9-1 illustrates use estimates from the Oakmulgee Wildlife Management area. This information was provided by Jeff Makemson, of the Alabama Department of Conservation and N(M

The change in use days from 1990 to 2003 is not related to the availability of game but to a shift in user preferences (Makemson, 2003). In the 2002-2003 season the total for small game was 5,985 use days (includes 4,000 use days for feral swine). Hunters are attracted to vegetation harvest un

Figure 3.9-1: Hunter Use Days (Deer)On the OWMA

0

5,000

10,000

1990 1996 1998 2003

187


largest public consumptive use within the project area. Timber management activities ne

for

g

Recreation by Percent Change

have no lasting effect on swine (Makemson, 2003); although, swine cause damage to piregeneration seedlings. H. Ken Cordell and Christine Overdevest prepared a Recreation Realignment Report the Market area including the Bankhead, Talladega and Tuskegee National Forests (Cordell & Overdevest, 2001). Their report provided an Analysis of the Fastest GrowinOutdoor Recreation Activities by percent of change from 1995 to 2001.

Figure 3.9-2: Fastest Growing Outdoor 1995 – 2001 Trends

ACTIVITY % INCREASE IN PARTICIPANTS View Wildlife 69.9 Day Hiking 50.3 Small Game Hunting 28.8 Big Game Hunting 27.7 Bird Watching 19.5

They also listed data on Recreation Demand in the National Fmarket area is a 75-mile radius around the Bankhead, Talladega and Tuskegee NationForests.

Figure 3.9-3: Demand for Activities especially suited

orest Market Area. The al

for National Forests Recreation Demand – 2001

Activity % Participation - Market area (see above)

% Participation – Southern Region

View /Photograph ildflowers, trees, etc.

45.3 42.4 wView Wildlife 44.0 42.5 View Birds 30.0 30.8 Day Hiking 29.3 26.2 Gather Mushrooms, berries, etc.

27.5 26.9

Driving for Pleasure 21.0 17.5 Primitive Camping 13.2 13.3 Big Game Hunting 10.6 9.5 Small Game Hunting 8.5 8.7

188


3.9.3: Environmental Effects Alternatives A

No Action

B Proposed Action:

C Modified Proposed

action

D Cut to Length

E RCW

Management

F Most

Restoration,

Restoration Cut Ac.

0 7,393 7,393 7,393 6,092 7,887

Thin Ac. 0 5,658 5,658 5,658 5,164 5,164

Effects, by Recreation Indicators Hunting -- + + + + + Driving for Pleasure

0 (--) ST (+) LT

+ + (--) ST(+) LT --

Bird Watching

-- + + +

+ +

Hiking 0 -- ST/ +LT -- ST/+LT --ST/+LT --ST/+LT --ST/+LT Viewing Nature

0 + + --ST/+LT + +

Figure 3.9-4 - Environmental Effects by Alternative Recreation Effects, + = Positive Effect, -- Negative Effect, 0 = Neutral Effect. Short Term =early seral stage/ Long Term late seral stage...mature trees

=

Figure 3.9-5 – Project Effects on Recreation Recreation Activity Assumed Effects

Roads Restoration Cut Thinning Fire Herbicide Driving for Pleasure: (1) Exploration and (2) viewing the Forest 86.4 Miles of

mporary road These will be visually objectionable when

Thinning will not be vis

Fire will smoke up Dead vegetatiotewill be developed as a result of this project. They are

ore likely to

roadside management activity is apparent and during the 0-5 year seral stage

objectionable after the initial tree removal

hours, but is short lived. Some trunk blackening will

the first se

mbenefit hikers than drivers

ually the area for a few

occur.

n will be visible for

ason

Note: In the later seral stages when large trees and a park-like appearance are present the experience of driving for pleasure will be much enhanced.

Hunting: Hunting for Deer, Turkeys, and quail Increased access Improved hiding cover

and food would be enhanced in the early seral stages

turkey hunters for a few hours, but is short lived

short time it is usewill not effect hunting

Same Smoke will hinder Herbicide for the d

189


Bird Watching: RCW and Migratory Birds Improved access will assist bird watching and sightings of rare

Restoration cuts will create openings and brushy cover for migratory birds. Later

Thinnings will improve habitat for RCW. And improve access

Fire and herbicides have positive effects on cavity nesters

Same as fire

Species the open park-like stands by Birdwatchers will improve flyways for the RCW and provide future opportunities for bird watching

Hiking; Because of thick brush hiking is generally done on open roads. Improved road access will increase

Early seral stage development and timber removal restrict hiking cross-country. When the trees reach the open park-like stage cross country hiking is possible

Thinning generally opens up the forest floor and makes cross country Hiking easier

Burning in all seral stages makes cross country hiking easier

Herbicides open upearly sevegetation amakes hiking easier for short periods of time

ral stage

nd

Viewing Nature: View wildlife, photograph, wildflowers, trees, rare species Most viewing is done from roads

Early seral stages will be good for viewing

same Fire opens up thunderstory and

there will be soopportopeneresult projec

wildlife, and

e

permits

Same as fire

me unities d up as a of this t.

wildflowers When the open park-like stage is reached viewing nature will be good for viewing wildlife, trees, rare species etc.

recreational viewing of wildlife, trees, rare species, wildflowers etc.

Alte Decliand hQual I t rate othinn a varnumbTheyquali The lack of thinning would promote crown closure and reduce the amount of sunlight reach c

rnative A (no Action)

ning Stands and loss of a balance in seral stages would result in a reduction in food abitat would result in fewer animals, and consequently a decline in recreation ity.

n the No Action Alternative, prescribed burning would likely continue at its currenn the Oakmulgee District. A continued decline in loblolly stand quality without

ing and restoration to the longer lived longleaf would have a direct adverse effect oniety of wildlife species including the RCW, white-tailed Deer, turkey, quail and a er of songbirds. Fuel build-up could increase, and more severe wildfires may occur. could adversely affect large areas of good wildlife habitat by destroying both ty overstory and understory vegetation.

ing the forest floor. This would decrease understory food production and carryingapacity for a variety of wildlife species.

190


Reduction of cavity trees and foraging are limiting factors for the RCW. The open, park-like srepla conditions provided by longleaf pine for recovery from its endangered status.

Natsomothavadistloca Old primitive roads will grow up and recreation accessibility would be reduced because of t If Rbe dthe Alternative B (Proposed Action) The effects of recreation on Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F vary little between these alte RCW midstory control is necessary to remove vegetation that might interfere with

woodpecker sites, interfere with the creation of new

) since each of these sites are included in stands that are in Alternatives B rough F. The potential for effects without these mitigations are the same for each

rail. It is an AOC 1, oderate risk, restoration cut, T.22N, R6E, Section 11. This stand could be retained a

esources mitigation measures.)

tands needed by the RCW and valued by recreationists will become increasingly ced by loblolly pine and other species. The RCW needs the stand

ural disturbances such as wildfire, wind damage, or insect-killed wood will provide e openings useful for bugging and nesting habitat for wild turkey, bobwhite quail and

er species. Because no action would result in fewer openings, the amount of edge ilable for some plant and animal species would be less. The occurrence and ribution of naturally created openings is less predictable and may not suit some lized needs.

hicker vegetation and reduced access to travel-ways.

CW Midstory control were not done as part of the proposed project, it would have to one as a separate project in order to meet the requirements contained in the FEIS for Management of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker and its habitat.

rnatives. See tables 3.8.3 A & B for a description of these effects.

nesting in established Red-cockadedcavities, or interfere with the flight of the birds in and around the cluster sites. This will be done within existing stands that are proposed for thinning within this project. There will be vegetation on the ground for the first few years, which might interfere with walking through the woods. After this the stand will be more open which will facilitate recreation travel within the midstory control sites. This would occur in Alternatives B through F. 3.9.4: Mitigation Measures The following mitigations shall apply to all alternatives (except Alternative A which is not affectedthalternative. Therefore, all discussions of recreation effects assume the following measures are in place. Compartment 52, Stand 19, sits astride of the Payne Lake Nature Tmfew more years (see 3.7.4 Visual R AOC 1, minimal to moderate risk, restoration cut, Compartment 20, Stand 14, provides a 100-foot buffer around West Elliot’s hunter camp. This site will be managed as a retention zone. It could be retained a few more years (see 3.7.4 Visual Resources Mitigation measures.) West Elliots is located in Stand 14, Section 5, T23N, R6E.

191


AOC 1, minimal to moderate risk, restoration cut in Compartment 17, stand 5, sits astridthe proposed site of the West Side shooting range. It is located in Section 4, T23N, R6EAny cutting shall confo

e .

rm to plans for the shooting range.

umulative Effects (Recreation) he recreation area considered for this effects discussion includes that area enclosed by

oundary surrounding the project area and lies within the

No special treatment is required for Shiloh hunter camp since it is not within or adjacent to a treatment stand Also, use interpretative signs and brochures as opportunities to mitigate effects. 3.9.5: CTthe Forest Proclamation BNorthwestern portion of Oakmulgee District. Less than 5% of the land within this area is in private ownership Hunting. Hunting is mostly influenced by time available and access to hunting areas for

e game animals. Many of the demand species of this area are positively influenced by

ent activities.

days

thearly stage habitats. To some effect this also affects hunter success rates. The proposed activities should have a positive effect on hunting, especially in the next 10 years, and then we should see some stabilization or decline depending on the success of our prescribed fire program and future managem According to Oakmulgee District Wildlife Biologist, Jim Mawk (1999), hunter useare just as high if not more so in the compartments surrounding the OWMA because environmental conditions are the same and the regulations less restrictive. Hunters are attracted to the clear-cut-with-reserves areas for hunting and believe logging tends to increase game populations (Jeff Makemson, 2003). Therefore, the management actions proposed in this project should have little negative effect on the most popular hunting activities. Viewing Nature. A recreation marketing survey by Clonts and Hanson (Clonts, 1996),

eation. Aesthetic, rket values are generally ascribed to older forests and forests with

ve ithin

owever, the quality of the recreation experience could be reduced for viewing

southwest Alabama. Trends since a previous survey suggest that forests are decreasing and forests suited g (Rudis, 1991).

conducted for the Oakmulgee District, found that the visiting public viewed timber management as a limiting barrier to non-consumptive forms of recrlargely non marelatively space understory (Rudis 1991.) Therefore, any of the alternatives would halittle and certainly no significant negative effect on recreation use levels over time whis area. Ht

nature type activities, such as driving for pleasure, for some people in the short term.

cape level, remote timberland areas are fragmented, with major distributions At the landslustered in c

suited to road less or primitive recreational opportunities o roaded or urban recreational opportunities are increasint

.9.6: Monitoring 3

192


The District Biologist will monitor trends in hunter success though harvest data, and opulation trends will be monitored through wildlife survey data (bird counts, deer

he Forest Landscape Architect will approve, view, and report all vegetative management activities before during and after their

psurveys, etc.) The recreation staff will monitor trends at Payne Lake Recreation through visitor use data gained through collections. Treoccurrence in developed recreation sites (See 3.7.4., Visual Recreation Resources Mitigation). References: Clonts, H.A., Hanson T.R. 1996. Marketing strategies for Recreation Resources on the Oakmulgee Division of the Talladega National Forest. Special Technical Report for the USDA Forest Service, Montgomery, Alabama Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Auburn University, AL. Alabama, Agricultural Experiment Station, October. Cordell, Ken H. and Overdevest, Christine 2001. Recreation Realignment report for the Bankhead, Talladega, & Tuskegee National Forests, Report prepared for an Alabama National Forests Realignment workshop based on the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). USDA Forest Service, Athens Georgia, August. Makemson, Jeff 2003, Personal communication. Alabama State conservation officer provided data and observations regarding wildlife issues, wildlife consumption, and hunter use since 1990. Mawk, Jim. 1998. Personal communication. The districts wildlife biologist’s observation and opinions of fishing potential within the South Sandy EA compartments, National Forests in Alabama, Oakmulgee Ranger District. Mawk, Jim 1999. Personal communication. The districts wildlife biologist’s observation and opinions regarding hunting wildlife issues and wildlife consumption and hunter use in National Forests in Alabama, Oakmulgee Ranger District. Rudis, Victor A. 1991, A Recreation and Landscape Perspective of Alabama’s of Alabama’s changing Forest Environment: The Human Character of Forests. In: Robert H., ed. Proceedings: Alabama’s forest resources: present and future: 1991 May 29-30; Auburn University, AL, Auburn University School of Forestry; Alabama Cooperative Extension Service: 93-114. Sponsored by Alabama Forest Resources Center.

193


3.10: Heritage Resources 3.10.1: Issues The issues identified in the scoping process as they relate to heritage resources are:

A) Effects on subsurface prehistoric heritage properties due to ground disturbing activities. Issue #4 of this document pertains to possible damage due to erosioor soil compaction. If left unchecked, erosion may wash away subsurface prehistoric sites, and compaction could dam

n

age some prehistoric sites.

t is the nk

sto n is extr ong oal, thy that ts wi e lon gone and part of oric record be lon

ur hills. onversely, today’s restoration parti er t bognifican tracts the l f for re h d. W n behistory n the x of l g fro past i ttemp gineer the

We know how we arrived at the present ur na iroent. We have not the luxury of a judgmental

ur

leaf plantings but met with little success (Chapter 1, of

e 950’s.

r

anges

B) Effects on above ground historic era heritage resources. Issue #1 of the EIS

describes mechanical disturbance during removal of overstory pines. If not managed properly, this activity could damage existing historic sites such as structures or cemetery markers.

.10.2: Affected Environment 3

I charge of heritage resources managers to clearly and accurately show the li the past and res nd a on how to protect our cultural heritage in the between the p ent, a dvise

future. Longleaf re ratio an emely l -term g so leng in fact today’s participan ll b g the hist fore the gleaf forests grace o C cipants w e not ye rn when the last si t of onglea ests we arveste e are i tween two episodes in , i flu earnin m the n an a t to enfuture. state of o forested tural env nment, and we know how to alter our environmattitude toward past management practices, nor the luxury of rushing forward with new practices. Our approach can only be incremental like the growth of a longleaf pine, and plodding like the pace of history. Alabama ecologist-educator, Doug Phillips, Ph.D., has advised us that, “History tells us that our native surroundings provide identity and a sense of place for who we are as a people. In other words, our natural heritage has helped to shape our cultural heritage.” We in turn have shaped our natural heritage, our natural environment. Changes to onatural environment have been both intentional and unintentional. In the 1980’s and 1970’s the Oakmulgee District attempted to intentionally engineer the natural nvironment with experimental longe

Purpose & Need, pg. 2). Those were well-intentioned attempts to change the regimen monoculture loblolly rotations. Equally well intentioned were the easily cultivated andfast growing loblolly pine stands that provided both soil stabilization and jobs for local communities. Tree species that competed with loblollies were eliminated. The practicof injecting deciduous hardwood trees with herbicides has been utilized since the 1The post WWII housing boom spurred on logging in the 1950’s, as did wartime needs fotimber products in the 1940’s. An early attempt to change the environment and mend the soil erosion problem was the introduction of the kudzu plant in the early 1900’s. Unintentional human-caused ch

194


to the environment came from nonnative invasive plants in Southern forests. Alabama

wing y, active both

efore and after the establishment of the Oakmulgee District, was from Pennsylvania.

n

ds were r had they been able agree

n a fixed price for their wood. A quote from an 1883 Southern Lumberman article ause he

ing for a mere song.” (Ibid 1960:179).

The panic of 1907 pushed timber industry leaders to move boldly for price controls but orneys gener oped

e $300,000,000 corpora d States Steel Corporation. ).

It can be argued th ague the South even after the turn A brief economic recove ’s was followed by a double blow with the Great Depression trous drought of 1931. The banks that did not close outright were disincline ns to farmers, and cotton was down to five cents a pound. Alabamians em tatewide effort to prevent starvati mobilization of county Ho ation agents.

gents had begun ommercial benefits of trad in the 1920’s as y

ry County, 1989:302-

forests are host to many of these destructive plants that were brought in for various reasons, most commonly as ornamentals. The introduction of invasive plants actually qualifies as minor historic events with major consequences. Many exotic plant introductions date to the 1700’s (Miller 2003). Between 1880-1914 the timber industry in the South boomed. Northern capital follothe Reconstruction period was welcomed. Historic Kaul Lumber CompanbThe industry became increasingly inventive with technology. Advances were at first small, such as improvements to the crosscut saw, and improvements to mill saws. Soothere were leaps forward in production, transportation, and management (Massey 1960:211). Laborers all received the same low wages and worked together cooperatively and with little reported friction, regardless of race. Woodsmen skills, particularly thedeftness of a highly experienced axe wielder, were roundly respected (Ibid 1960:61). Alabamians profited not only from money paid in wages, but also from tax revenue. The largest source of local and state revenue was from property taxes paid by lumber companies. The property tax rates were low but the privately owned timberlanvoluminous. Timber companies would have done even betteoopines: “Every man’s hand is against his neighbor, and every man sells low becis afraid his neighbor will under sell him. The result is that prices are ridiculously low, and good first class yellow pine is go

they were thwarted by att al in several states. The timber industry had hto create a hug tion similar to the Unite(Ibid 1960:185

at hardships following the Civil War continued to pl of the century. ry in the 1920to Alabamians, and the disas

d to make loabarked on a s

on through the extolling the c

me Demonstritional crafts A

a viable means of improving local economies. Crafts, historically utilized as income bpoor families, quickly became very important economic necessities during the Depression. This resulted in the Home Demonstration handicraft program of 1935 that ncluded the participation of 4,806 Alabama families. A craftswoman in Peri

near the present Oakmulgee District, made 22 mattresses to sell in 1939 (Flynt304). The Oakmulgee District commemorates the proud history of Southern craftsmanship during their annual Payne Lake Reunion, located in the heart of the Oakmulgee. The Oakmulgee District itself has been a part of the historic landscape since 1935 with the establishment of the Oakmulgee Purchase Unit of the Talladega National Forest. The Oakmulgee Ranger District was established under proclamation of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in 1936.

195


Another extremely important Home Demonstration project that is credited with savinglives in 1930’s Alabama was the food canning drive. From early morning to late at night,

blacks and whites worked hard together to produce and distribute canned foods (in glass quart jars). Originally the effort was organized through churches. A statewide

n

he s

to “restore and

n se cultural

occupation. Native American sites: Native American prehistoric sites are typically associated with water sources such as springs and streams. Sites are also found on areas suitable for camping, such as dry and flat portions of ground. Such areas include transportation routes across ridge tops, saddles, and areas that stay relatively dry. Past findings show that the typical Native American prehistoric site in the Oakmulgee consists of small, stone tool chipping sites. There are also Native American burial sites that have been documented and mapped, and also graves that as yet are undiscovered and undocumented. Sites containing human remains are the most sensitive of all heritage

both

effort in 1933 resulted in 1,091 canning centers (Ibid 1989:302-303). Material remains exist in the historic record from that project. More importantly, knowledgeable elders live in and around the Oakmulgee District. These elders provide valuable testimonies regarding stories, the study of ethnobotany (historic uses of plants), and historic site information and localities. (see Figure 3.10-1).

Figure 3.10-1: Knowledgeable elder being interviewed at his father's sharecropper site. NEPA mandated protectioand mitigation of heritage resources requires that we consider the natural environment, the culturalenvironment, and the human environment. TNEPA provides measurefor usenhance the quality of the

human environment and avoid or minimize any possible adverse effects of their actions upon the quality of the human environment” (NEPA, 1500.2 Policy). Research (Forest Service records, county records, land status plats, state archives, published and unpublished academic papers, and historic interviews) has shown that there are definite patterns associated with historic and prehistoric cultural usage of the Oakmulgee District. Cultural occupation falls into general categories, each with its owpatterns of culture that have left physical remains on the countryside. Theremains will, for the most part, fall into 1) Prehistoric sites pertaining to Native American occupation, and 2) Historic sites pertaining to African American and European American

196


resources, therefore descriptions of graves and predictive model descriptions of where graves are located are understandably absent from this public document. African American sites: Patterns also emerge regarding the descriptions and localities of African American historic sites. These patterns exist on the ground today principally as a result of historically institutionalized segregation, and from the fact that African Americans were an integral part of the historic workforce. Kaul Lumber Company maintained at least one African American cemetery. Such separation provides the historic record with distinct artifactual remains in the way of separate cemeteries, churches, schools, dwelling places and other buildings. Sharecropper tenancy, though notoriously transient, has also been documented within the Oakmulgee. European American sites: Patterns of historic European American and African American occupation and use of lands is easier to identify because they constitute the most recent cultural occupation. Many historic churches and cemeteries still exist within the Oakmulgee District as privately owned land parcels and holdings. In addition to formerly documented historic dwellings and farms that were acquired by the Forest Service, there are historic subsistence level farms dotted across the District. These can be found in small hollows and flats, and are remains of the sharecropper tenancy system. There are many individual graves and unmarked, forgotten cemeteries in the Oakmulgee District. Citizens report these findings regularly to the Oakmulgee District Archeologist, and at least one cemetery is attributable to the Civil War. During WWI, longleaf pines were harvested for military barracks, railroad cars, ship building, and for other naval stores. Naval stores workers developed special skills and had their own lumber camps that were separate from other historic logging camps. Much of the Oakmulgee District had been acquired from the Kaul Lumber Company, the principal land owner and major employer from the 1880’s up until the Great Depression. Fortunately, Kaul Lumber kept very good records. Those records have been supplemented by land status plats, academic research, interviews of elderly informants, and by various historic maps. Modern topographic quadrangle maps still clearly mark Kaul Lumber Company railroad lines. It was typical for historic logging companies to own a company farm and at least one mill. Other historic era lumber companies that operated in the Oakmulgee District were Graham Lumber Co. from Maplesville, J.T. O’Neal Lumber Co. from Plantersville, and W.E. Belcher Lumber Co. from Centreville. Dual component sites: Another type of heritage resources site that exists in the Oakmulgee District, and are predicted to be found, are dual component sites. These sites are historic era sites with a prehistoric component, usually located in the subsurface. It is expected that these combination historic/prehistoric sites will constitute a modest percentage of cultural resources sites. In the EIS Areas of Concern 1-3, timber stands that have been previously harvested and re-planted have received historic ground disturbance. It is expected that damaged prehistoric sites will be found, sites that have lost archeological integrity, as well as

197


undamaged sites. It is unlikely that there will be standing structures from historic sites, or that the integrity of the historic sites will be intact, owing to past relic hunting and salvaging of building materials. Some of the Areas of Concern 2 & 3 have had spotty heritage resources surveys in the recent past, but not always up to today’s standards. Newly located and documented sites may still be found in those areas. 3.10.3: Environmental Effects Archeological site data would be gathered through implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 process. Compliance inventories are conducted in consultation with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) prior to decisions on projects that may affect heritage resources. This process is currently in use for all Forest ground disturbing projects. The degree of effects to heritage resources properties under any action alternative should be slight because inventory, assessment, protection, and mitigation measures are implemented prior to management actions. The heritage resources inventories will be conducted in the longleaf restoration areas prior to entering those areas as tree stand harvest dates are scheduled (and cleared through the SHPO) in the same manner as other NHPA Section 106 projects such as designated temporary road use and fire line construction. The environmental effects are separated into four parts for this analysis:

1) Road building represents the highest potential risk to heritage resources. New roads

will be constructed as access to timber stands across the flattest and driest areas, and across ridgelines, both of which constitute high probability archeological site zones. Newly constructed roads over previously undisturbed soil constitute the highest risk. Road construction improvements over former access roads will constitute less risk to cultural sites owing to diminished site integrity from former disturbances. There will be 86.7 miles of logging roads with approximately 25% newly constructed roads. The remaining 75% of the roads are pre-existing and will be improved or reconstructed. All of these areas will receive archeological surveys with subsurface test pits. Sites will be marked on the ground and roads diverted around them. Most streamside and first terrace cultural site zones will be avoided along with stream riparian zones that are already protected for natural environment concerns through Stream Management Zone (SMZ) protection of first, second, and third order streams.

2) The heavy equipment used in timber harvesting represents the second highest

potential risk to heritage resources. Heavy equipment used in harvest units may represent the greatest ground disturbing impact to the natural environment through erosion caused by rutting, and compaction of soils, however, the actual timber harvest units are not necessarily within the zones of highest cultural site probability. These effects on the cultural environment are borne out from past cultural site findings that have been documented and mapped on the District, as well as predictive site models.

3) Burning and fire line construction represents the third highest potential impact to

heritage resources. Above ground historic structures may burn, and subsurface prehistoric sites may be altered to a depth of about 20 centimeters.

198


4) Indirect effects may include vandalism and/or looting due to increased access, or

erosion or silting from a nearby upstream or upper slope project.

Consideration of alternatives: Under the Action Alternatives, B-F, more sites will be identified and evaluated than were previously inventoried, and add to the understanding of cultural resources in the District as well as the site database. There will also be more site disturbance than with the No Action Alternative, A. However, since significant historic properties will be avoided there is little likelihood of adverse effects. Midstory control, cutting hardwoods and applying herbicide to stumps in AOC 4 stands, is not an expected significant risk to heritage resources within the Red-cockaded woodpecker sites. Alternative C, designed principally to reestablish and maintain longleaf pine understory species of plants, will entail mechanical site preparation. Bulldozers will pull a rolling drum with chopper cleats, blades that score the ground to a depth of 8 to 10 inches. That would be done on slopes between five and 30%. The drum has less impact on the subsurface than the wildland disk, which plows the ground as opposed to merely scoring the ground. Fire preparation would be used on sites with greater than 30% slope. Cultural resources sites rarely occur on slopes, therefore the risk to heritage sites is low if scoring the ground burning on slopes is the only site preparation performed.

3.10.4: Mitigating Measures The common mitigation measure is avoidance of heritage resources. Archeological sites, particularly within the Oakmulgee District, are quite small. Ground disturbing projects and new road construction can usually proceed with minor detours. It is expected that sites will be located along the routes of logging roads, as they are on flat spots and ridges, usually ideal places for prehistoric transportation routes and temporary camps. These areas will receive the closest inspection by cultural resources managers who will protect sites in these areas well ahead of ground disturbing machinery. Occasionally, a small site can be mitigated by excavation and repository in a museum, but that has become a rare practice. Most, if not all mitigation performed during this project will be through simple avoidance. The sites of the many small graves and cemeteries in the District are the highest priority for preservation. Roads and harvest projects will be routed around the presently known grave sites. As yet unknown graves will likely be located during the heritage surveys. Newly located graves will receive the same avoidance mitigation. 3.10.5: Cumulative Effects We are embarking on the most thorough heritage resources survey to ever have been performed on the Oakmulgee District. We are also embarking on the best technology yet, with some of the most helpful professional partnerships. The partnership with the University of Alabama Anthropology Department and the Moundville Museum will bring graduate level student workers to the Oakmulgee for cultural resources surveys and

199


inventories. The field workers will bring the latest Global Positioning System and Geographic Information System technology, to include ground-penetrating radar. The Forest Service will benefit from the field inventory, and the students will learn federal resource management. Indirect effects to heritage resources will be minimal compared to past undertakings and timber harvest activities. Prior to 1975, very little heritage resource base existed and records pertinent to the potential resources database were maintained. Therefore, we are actually looking upon a heritage resources project that will build a new data base and bring the patterns of culture into clearer focus than ever before on the Oakmulgee District. 3.10.6: Monitoring The Revised Forest Plan, in Appendix F, Monitoring question 14, addresses the protection of heritage sites. Heritage sites are being identified for protection pursuant to the Federal Code of Regulations, 36 CFR 219.24(a)(4). Heritage inventories will be conducted under National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 mandates, with standards and guidelines of the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office. Heritage resources sites that have been located and recorded will be monitored by spot checks. In areas of high site probability such as where logging roads will be constructed, monitoring will be intensive. In some cases, archeologists will observe the actual ground disturbing work such as bulldozers at work.

Historic properties identified by the survey as potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NHRP) are vulnerable to damage by looting and vandalism, and by nature-caused environmental events such as floods, or human-caused environmental events such as ground disturbance, which could result in possible soil erosion. USFS cultural resources managers, in conjunction with law enforcement, will systematically monitor eligible, potentially eligible, and listed NHRP historic properties according to an established monitoring plan that takes into account factors such as degree of vulnerability and relative site significance.

Graves and cemetery sites will receive regular monitoring visits by the District Archeologist during the course of the longleaf restoration project.

References Flynt, Wayne J. 1989 Poor But Proud, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Massey, Richard W., Jr. A History of the Lumber Industry in Alabama and West Florida, 1880-1914. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. Unknown, Southern Lumberman, 1 May 1883, page 13. Unknown, Southern Lumberman, 1 May 1908, page 13.

200


Unknown, Lumber Review, 1 May 1908, page 53. Miller, James H. 2002. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests, USDA Southern Research Station, Asheville, North Carolina. Phillips, Doug 2002. Discovering Alabama Wetlands, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

201


3.11: Economic Comparison of Alternatives The monetary cost of restoring longleaf pine on upland landforms, presently occupied by off-site loblolly pine, is significant for all alternatives considered in this proposal. Revenue from the sale of this off-site timber can be applied to the restoration costs and will greatly reduce the amount of money needed from government appropriations to finance the restoration objectives. However, the timber value is low and in many cases very little volume is available for removal so the timber value will not cover all restoration costs. The intangible benefits of restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem are described in preceding sections of this document. This project objective is to restore a significant portion of the longleaf pine ecosystem and improve red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and forest health on the Oakmulgee Ranger District. This project was not proposed to make money for the Forest Service or to supply timber for local mills. However, processing timber removed during the project implementation will benefit the local economy and, as illustrated in Figure 3.11-1, below, the value of timber removed will defray a significant amount of the restoration cost.

Figure 3.11-1: Summary of Economic Considerations By Alternative Category Units Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D Alt. E Alt. F

Estimated Timber Volume CCF 0 145,058 145,058 145,058 124,111 148,330

Estimated Timber Value $ 0 7,766,459 7,766,459 6,937,699 6,910,245 8,225,390

Reforestation Costs $ 0 8,191,444 7,999,226 8,191,444 6,732,208 8,738,796

10% Roads and Trails $ 0 776,646 776,646 693,770 691,024 822,539

$0.25 per CCF to NFF $ 0 36,265 36,265 36,265 31,028 37,058

Balance $ 0 (1,237,896) (1,045,678) (1,983,780) (544,015) (1,373,003)

Alternative A_________________________________________ Of the alternatives considered, this alternative would have the least short-term cost to the government because no restoration costs would be incurred. The local community would benefit the least because no additional timber would be supplied to manufacture into finished products and no additional jobs would be created to harvest the timber. The long term costs of this alternative would be greater than the others because the cost of restoration work will increase yearly, the timber value will decrease each year due to mortality of the higher value trees and the delay of establishing a healthy forest ecosystem will delay the increase in value, both monetarily and ecologically, that a healthy forest produces. In addition, this alternative will not meet the purpose and need for the proposed project objective. Alternatives B, C, D, E and F__________________________ The initial economic benefit from timber removal is the amount of money or profit that the sale of timber would bring. For all these alternatives the post sale costs are greater than the income received from the timber sale, so there is no short-term economic incentive for the Forest Service to proceed with this project (Figure 3.11-1). Infusion of timber raw material into local processing facilities will have short-term economic benefits for the local economy as jobs are generated to produce the timber to local mills, which in turn process it into products used for construction, furniture manufacture, paper products and many other products that are sold to wholesale and retail distributors.

202


While the short-term effects of this project will be a cost to the government, there will be substantial long-term benefits both economically and ecologically. Economic benefits include a greater timber value as healthy, higher value longleaf pine trees replace declining loblolly pine trees on sites better suited for longleaf pine. This in turn will create ecosystems well stocked with healthy longleaf pine trees native to those landforms and that are naturally longer lived, preferred by red-cockaded woodpeckers and less susceptible to diseases and infestations from southern pine beetle attacks. The economic analysis of these alternatives estimates the value of timber removed for each alternative and the estimated restoration cost for a single treatment each for site preparation, site prep burn, hand planting longleaf pines and releasing pine seedlings from natural vegetative competition. It does not estimate or evaluate the successfulness of each treatment and therefore may not reveal the actual cost of achieving the desired objective. For example, the cost of pine release using hand tools may be less than the cost of pine release using herbicides for a single treatment. However, a single release treatment using herbicides may actually accomplish the desired results that could require two or three treatments using hand tools. In that case, the herbicide treatment would be less costly than the hand tool treatment to accomplish the desired objective of establishing an adequately stocked longleaf pine landform. This project would contribute 100% of the planned annual sale program on the Oakmulgee Ranger District for the next five years. Based on local volume estimates, the annual harvest would be as follows:

ALTERNATIVES VOLUME Alternatives B, C and D 28,000 – 30,000 CCF (Hundred Cubic Feet) Alternative E 24,000 – 26,000 CCF Alternative F 29,000 – 30,000 CCF

Estimated Annual Deficits For Each Alternative Alternative B ($ 247,600) Alternative C ($ 209,100) Alternative D ($ 396,800) Alternative E ($ 108,800) Alternative F ($ 274,600)

Government appropriated funds will be required in addition to Knutson-Vandenberg deposits from the timber sales to cover deficits incurred from project implementation. In addition, some contributions from partnerships may also become available. While the short-term costs are greater than the revenue received from project implementation, the long-term benefits will justify these initial costs. For example, much of the Oakmulgee District’s land that is considered prime forest land by many people today was once cut over timber land and abandoned farms with serious erosion problems when the Forest Service acquired it. Even today, much of the land that the Forest Service acquires is cut over and in need of reforestation and some erosion control work to achieve

203


our desired future conditions. Historically these initial investments have proven to be worth their costs by greatly increasing the land value over time as well as improving ecological and environmental qualities that make the Alabama National Forests unique.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ______________ Short-term uses are those expected to occur over the next ten years. These uses include, but are not limited to, timber harvest and silvicultural activities. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land to provide resource outputs for a period of time beyond the next ten years. Soil and water are the primary resource factors supporting long-term productivity. Federal regulations (36 CFR 219.27) provide for the maintenance of long-term productivity of the land. By law, the Forest Service must ensure that land allocations and permitted activities do not significantly impair the long-term productivity of the land. All of the alternatives considered in detail incorporate the concept of sustained resource output yield while maintaining the productivity of natural resources.

Specific direction and mitigation measures included in Chapter 2 would ensure that long-term productivity would not be impaired by the application of the proposed short-term management practices. Although all of the alternatives were designed to maintain long-term productivity, there are differences among alternatives in the long-term availability or condition of resources. There may also be differences among alternatives in long-term expenditures necessary to maintain desired conditions. Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F have the highest inherent level of short-term uses as reflected by the acres of vegetation treatments and potential ground disturbance. These alternatives would therefore be expected to result in higher levels of short-term consequences such as visual impacts, alteration of fish and wildlife habitat, and increased sedimentation.

Alternative A has the lowest level of short-term uses, however, there is not necessarily an inverse relationship between the extent and intensity of short-term uses to long-term productivity. Some short-term uses may have substantial short-term adverse impacts but long-term benefits. For example, measures and means of increasing forest health would be expected to have temporary adverse impacts on some resources but long-term benefits to overall forest and watershed health. These types of differences among the alternatives are further described in the preceding Environmental Effects discussions (Chapter 3) covering the various resource areas (air, water, wildlife, recreation, etc.).

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ____________________________ The application of standards and guidelines, best management practices, monitoring, and adaptive management would limit the extent, severity, and duration of any adverse environmental effects. The Revised Forest Plan Management Standards are outlined in Chapter 2 of this document. Nevertheless, some adverse effects are unavoidable under any of the alternatives.

Most unavoidable adverse effects are transitory. For example, air quality would diminish on a recurring but temporary basis due to the use of prescribed fire. Although standards and guides require burning during times of greatest smoke dispersion, the presence of smoke and haze could detract from visitor’s expectations of clean air. Some impacts to the visual qualities of the Forest landscape may be inevitable. Other short-term

204


205

unavoidable adverse effects could include sediment production and run-off from fire lines, silvicultural practices, or temporary roads. Standards and guides, best management practices, and monitoring plans would minimize and mitigate adverse effects; however, it is currently not technically feasible to avoid all sediment mobilization. Unavoidable adverse affects could translate into a small, but never the less detectable, reduction in downstream water quality and aquatic habitat loss.

Likewise, disturbance, displacement, or loss of fish and wildlife habitat may occur as a consequence of habitat reduction or increased human activity. Human access and resulting adverse impacts on natural communities is generally increasing and yet unavoidable, regardless of the selected alternative. Silvicultural treatments could have an adverse effect on the potential for future management of un-roaded areas as wilderness, research, or natural areas. Disease, pests, and storm damage will occur at one time or another, creating changes in the appearance and function of the landscape. Such adverse affects may be localized and could be of either temporary or long-term duration. For detailed disclosure of all effects, including unavoidable adverse effects, see the preceding Environmental Effects discussions (Chapter 3) covering the various resource areas (air, water, wildlife, recreation, etc.).

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ____ Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.

There will be no new specified roads constructed and temporary roads will be re-vegetated following completion of the proposed activity. Soil movement from some of the proposed activities may be considered irreversible commitments; however mitigation measures and proper project design will minimize this impact. A full discussion of effects to soils can be found in Section 3.2-3.

Other Required Disclosures _____________________________ This proposed project has been coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer and a plan of action agreed on to insure that section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act will be followed and completed prior to ground disturbing activities.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was involved with this project since its earliest conception and has had continuous involvement through scoping and through out the development of the alternatives and their analysis. A Biological Assessment and the letter of concurrence regarding the proposed action are enclosed in this document as Appendix B.

This project does not require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service.


206

Chapter 4: Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors _________________________________ The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

Anthony Jay Edwards, Forest Hydrologist, National Forests in Alabama

Art Goddard, Soil Scientist, National Forests in Alabama

George McEldowney, ASLA, Landscape Architect, National Forests in Alabama

Dave Wergowske, Air Specialist, National Forests in Alabama

Robert Pasquill, Forest Archeologist, National Forests in Alabama

Rhonda Stewart, Forest Botanist/Ecologist, National Forests in Alabama

Stephen Christy, District Archeologist, Oakmulgee District

Clifton Parker, Fire Management Officer, Oakmulgee District

Joe Fowler, Timber Management Assistant, Oakmulgee District

Felicia Humphrey, Forest Planner, National Forests in Alabama

Nolan Hess, Pathologist, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection

Lori Eckhardt, Plant Pathologist, Louisiana State University

Roger Menard, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection

Don Lipscomb, Wildlife Biologist, Clemson University

Bobby Lee, Timber Sales Administrator, Oakmulgee District

Dagmar Thurmond, Wildlife Biologist, National Forests in Alabama

Jim Mawk, District Biologist, Oakmulgee District

Larry Mullins, District NEPA Coordinator, Oakmulgee District

Lovoyd Fountain, District Engineering Technician, Oakmulgee District

Cynthia Ragland, District Ranger, Oakmulgee District

Debbie Foley Russell, District NEPA/GIS Coordinator, Conecuh National Forest

Lesley Spaulding, District Botanist, Shoal Creek Ranger District

Suzanne Oberholster, Contractor for Understory Vegetation

Jim Shores, District Silviculturist and Planning Team Leader, Oakmulgee District

Ryan Shurette, Acting District Wildlife Biologist, Oakmulgee District

ID Team Members: Stephen Christy, District Archeologist, Oakmulgee District


207

Clifton Parker, Fire Management Officer, Oakmulgee District

Joe Fowler, Timber Management Assistant, Oakmulgee District

Jim Mawk, District Biologist, Oakmulgee District

Larry Mullins, District NEPA Coordinator, Oakmulgee District

Lovoyd Fountain, District Engineering Technician, Oakmulgee Ranger District

Jim Shores, District Silviculturist and Planning Team Leader, Oakmulgee Ranger District

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: State Historic Preservation Officer for Alabama

Alabama Department of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service

Distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement __ Director, Planning and Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, DC Deputy Director, USDA APHIS, PPD/EAD, Riverdale, MD Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC USDA, National Agricultural Library, Acquisitions & Serials Branch, Beltsville, MD BLM Eastern States Office, Springfield, VA U.S. Army Engr. South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA U.S. Navy, Office of Chief of Navy Operations, Washington, DC Director, Office of Environmental Compliance, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section, Washington, DC Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Atlanta, GA Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC Southeast Region, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA Manager, NEPA Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch, Washington, DC Southern Region, Office of the Regional Director, FAA, East Point, GA Midwestern Region, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia Fields, IL US Fish and Wildlife Service, Larry Goldman, Daphne, AL Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Rick Claybrook, Montgomery, AL WildLaw, Ray Vaughan, Montgomery, AL Alabama Environmental Council, Ken Wills, Birmingham, AL Roy White, Brent, AL Otis L. Clements, Moundville, AL Maxie T. Bryant, Tuscaloosa, AL K.W. Boothe, Centreville, AL


208

Rachael Thomas, Huchuca City, AZ Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division, Jeff L. Makemson, Montgomery, AL Buddy Hall, Greensboro, AL David Leibold, Tuscaloosa, AL Bettie Price, Centreville, Al Helen Barnes, Warner Robins, GA Michael McCorvey, International Paper Co., Greensboro, AL

Distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Statement ___ Director, Planning and Review, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, DC Deputy Director, USDA APHIS, PPD/EAD, Riverdale, MD Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC USDA, National Agricultural Library, Acquisitions & Serials Branch, Beltsville, MD National Marine Fisheries Service, Habitat Conservation Division, Southeast Region, St. Petersburg, FL U.S. Army Engr. Great Lakes and Ohio Division, Cincinnati, OH U.S. Army Engr. South Atlantic Division, Atlanta, GA US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, EIS Filing Section, Washington, DC Region 4, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, EIS Review Coordinator, Atlanta, GA Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Washington, DC Manager, NEPA Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Impact Branch, Washington, DC Southern Region, Office of the Regional Director, FAA, East Point, GA Midwestern Region, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia Fields, IL U.S. Department of Energy, Director, Office of Environmental Compliance, Washington, DC U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Larry Goldman, Daphne, AL James Moffett, Social Circle, GA Gregory Hogue, Regional Environmental Officer, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of the Interior, Atlanta, GA Heinz J. Mueller, Chief NEPA Program Officer, Office of Policy & Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, GA Keith Tassin, Director of Stewardship, The Nature Conservancy, Alabama Chapter, Birmingham, AL Eric Spadgenske, Birmingham, AL Alvin Diamond, Troy State University, Troy, AL


209

GLOSSARY__________________________________ Active cavity - a completed cavity or start exhibiting fresh pine resin associated with cavity maintenance, cavity construction, or resin well excavation by red-cockaded woodpeckers.

Active cavity tree – a tree containing one or more active cavities.

Active cluster - a cluster containing one or more active cavity trees.

Basal area (BA) - the area, in square feet, of the cross section of a single tree, or all of the trees in a stand, measured at 4.5 feet above ground, usually expressed as square feet per acre.

Biodiversity - the variety of life in an area, including the variety of genes, species, plant and animal communities, and ecosystems, as well as the interactions of these elements.

Canopy – the uppermost layer of foliage in a forest or forest stand.

Cluster – the aggregation of cavity trees previously and currently used and defended by a group of red-cockaded woodpeckers, or this same aggregation of cavity trees and a 200 foot wide buffer of continuous forest.

Desired Future Condition – the land or resource conditions that are expected to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved.

Diameter of breast height (d.b.h.) – abbreviation for tree stem diameter at breast height. It is the standard method for measuring tree diameter at approximately 4 1/2 feet above the ground.

Continuous inventory of stand conditions (CISC) - the USDA Forest Service, Southern Region’s forest stand database containing descriptive and prescriptive data about mapped stands of forest land.

Early seral (successional) stage - the stage of a young forest prior to the development of overstory and midstory canopies. The age of trees is usually less than 20 years depending on the composition of tree species. This stage provides grass, forb, and shrub components.

Even-aged - a stand of trees which originated at a single point in time, so that the individual trees are approximately the same age or a regeneration system designed to produce such a stand.

Forb – a herbaceous plant that has broad leaves, not a grass.

Forests - an area of trees with overlapping crowns (generally forming a 60 to 100 percent cover).

Forest type - a group of stands with sufficient similarity in biological and physical features to be consistently identified by different observers. Forest types are classed according to the tree species that are dominant or co-dominant based on Forest Service Handbook 2409.26d, which generally conform to "Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada".

Group – the social unit in red-cockaded woodpeckers, consisting of a breeding pair with one or more helpers, a breeding pair without helpers, or a solitary male.


210

Habitat - the physical and biological environment for a plant or animal in which all the essentials for its development, existence, and reproduction are present.

Herbs – grasses and forbs.

Herbaceous – non-woody.

Late seral (successional) stage - the stage of forest development during which the age of trees is usually greater than 80 years depending on the composition of tree species. Small gaps become more common as some trees die allowing full sunlight to reach the mid- and understories. This stage contains the largest trees within a forest and provides the highest capability for large snags, large live cavities, and den tree production. The presence of large, downed, woody material is highest during this period. Old-growth forests occur during the later periods of the seral stage.

Mid seral (successional) stage - the stage of forest development during which distinct overstory, midstory, and understory canopies are present. The age of trees range from about 20 years to about 90 years depending on the composition of tree species. The trees are usually greater than 10 inches in D.B.H. This stage provides capability for hard mast production, large standing snags, and live cavities. During this period, tree species reach economic maturity.

Midstory – a layer of foliage intermediate in height between canopy and groundcover, litter layer, or soil surface.

Mitigation – reduction of negative impacts.

Natural plant community - an association of plant species which are endemic to an area and whose characteristics have not been adversely affected by human disturbance.

Old-growth forests - an ecosystem distinguished by old trees and related structural attributes. Old growth encompasses the later stages of stand development that typically differ from earlier stages in a variety of characteristics including tree size, accumulation of large dead woody material, number of canopy layers, species composition, and ecosystem function. Old growth is not necessarily virgin or primeval. It can develop over time following human disturbances, just as it does following natural disturbances. Old growth encompasses both older forests dominated by early seral species and forests in later successional stages dominated by shade tolerant species.

Pine beetle – beetle species associated with pine beetle infestations which kill individual trees, stands, or major portions of forests. Of particular concern is the southern pine beetle (SPB) (Dendroctonus frontalis). Ips bettle (Ips spp.), and, to a much lesser extent, black turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus terebrans) may be potential problems.

Prescribed burning – fire applied to the landscape to meet specific management objectives.

Rare community - an association of plant and animal species that occurs only on a very small portion of the overall ecosystem.

Seral stage - a developmental, transitory stage in the ecological succession of a biotic community.

Stand - an area of trees delimited by measurable or observable features, such as age class of dominant trees, roads, streams, kinds of dominant trees, and physical characteristics.


211

Terrestrial - of, or pertaining to, land as distinct from water.

Thinning – a type of cut used to remove some of the trees in a stand. These intermediate cuts are made in immature stands to reduce the number of residual stem per acre and improve the growth and quality of the remaining trees.

Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement Oakmulgee Ranger District, Talladega NF

173

INDEX Active cavity, 210 AOC, iii, iv, 2, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 30,

31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 101, 103, 107, 108, 109, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 123, 139, 140, 150, 152, 154, 155, 156, 162, 163, 165, 172, 174, 175, 176, 186, 192, 200

Areas of Concern, i, 2, 13, 16, 28, 30, 31, 103, 107, 112, 198

Basal area, 159, 210 Cluster, v, 1, 160, 162, 164, 165, 169,

170, 171, 172, 210 Desired Future Condition, 28, 29, 30,

138, 142, 165, 210 Early seral (successional) stage, 210 Fire Condition Classes, 16, 29, 30 Late seral (successional) stage, 211 loblolly, i, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15,

16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 37, 40, 43, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 120, 122, 124, 126, 127, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 146, 150, 152, 153, 154, 158, 159, 162, 163, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 172, 174, 181, 179, 180, 184, 190, 191, 195, 203, 204

longleaf ecosystem, i, 2, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29, 30, 40, 43, 54, 119, 120, 123, 153, 154, 155, 156, 174, 175, 176

longleaf pine ecosystem, 3, 4, 14, 17, 18, 21, 28, 129, 138, 203

Mid seral (successional) stage, 211 Mitigation, 69, 91, 120, 142, 171, 176,

183, 184, 191, 192, 193, 211 native longleaf pine, 18, 108, 150 Old-growth forests, 211 pine-hardwood, 1, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17,

28, 148, 162, 166, 181, 178 prescribed fire regime, i, 3, 17 Rare community, 211 RCW, ii, v, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13,

14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 27, 29,

30, 31, 40, 43, 52, 102, 110, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 123, 136, 139, 141, 142, 143, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 186, 189, 190, 191

restoration, i, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 16, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 34, 40, 43, 50, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 74, 76, 77, 78, 90, 91, 97, 101, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 126, 137, 138, 141, 142, 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 165, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 190, 192, 195, 199, 201, 203, 204

shortleaf, i, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 30, 31, 135, 136

southern pine beetle, i, 12, 106, 107, 171, 204, 211

Thinning, i, ii, iii, 4, 19, 32, 35, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 52, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 76, 101, 102, 103, 110, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 137, 139, 142, 152, 154, 155, 156, 166, 167, 170, 174, 175, 176, 184, 189, 190, 212

woodland ecosystems, 14

agriculture longleaf ecosystem restoration...

Documents