United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Greater Collier Watershed Forest Health and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest, Lawrence and Winston Counties, Alabama April 8, 2014

About the Cover Photo:

The cover photo shows shortleaf pine that was planted off the Holmes Chapel Road in Compartment 21 in 2005. Photo credit: US Forest Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.1

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Contents Contents ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Proposed Project Location ...... 2 Need for the Proposal ...... 4 Summary of Proposed Actions ...... 9 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 10 Issues ...... 10 Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 10 No Action-Alternative 1 ...... 10 Proposed Action-Alternative 2 ...... 11 Monitoring ...... 21 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...... 22 Vegetation Effects ...... 23 Soil Resources ...... 44 Water Resources ...... 54 Climate Change Analysis ...... 72 Biological Environment ...... 76 Heritage Resources ...... 117 Preparers and Contributors ...... 119 References ...... 121

1

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Introduction We are proposing silvicultural and wildlife enhancement treatments consisting of pre-commercial thinning, commercial thinning, shortleaf pine restoration, midstory removal, and wildlife opening expansion on approximately 5,000 acres. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Bankhead Ranger District of the Bankhead National Forest. We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to 36 CFR 218.7(a)(2), this proposed project implements the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan RLRMP, is not authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), and is subject to §218 subparts A and B. For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. Proposed Project Location The project area is located within Compartments 19, 20, 21, 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 122, 123, 124, and 126 of the Bankhead National Forest in Lawrence and Winston Counties, Alabama. The project area is located northeast of the town of Double Springs, and south of Brushy Lake. The Greater Collier analysis area is comprised of approximately 32,500 acres. Proposed actions are located primarily in Area 2 the shortleaf pine emphasis area, as identified in the Forest Health and Restoration Project FHRP.

The analysis area includes portions of the Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area, the Brushy Lake Recreation Area, Payne Creek Outdoor Classroom Area, Walston Ridge Nature Watch and North Alabama Birding Trail Site, and the communities of Moreland and Grayson, Alabama. A vicinity map is included below.

2

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Figure 1. Vicinity map

3

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Need for the Proposal

This project will carry out the goals and objectives as defined in The National Forests in Alabama Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) The RLRMP provides general management direction in stated goals and the allocation of prescriptions to specific areas. Forest Plan goals relevant to this Proposed Action are:

Goal 1: Manage forest and woodland ecosystems in order to restore and/or maintain native communities to provide the desired composition, structure and function.

Goal 3: Manage existing forest communities to reduce risks from insects and disease.

Goal 4: Watersheds are managed and/or restored to provide resilient and stable conditions to support the quality and quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions and support intended beneficial water uses.

Goal 13: Protect or restore the composition, structure, and function of rare communities found on National Forest land.

Goal 16: Provide habitats to support desirable levels of selected species (e.g., species with special habitat needs such as large, contiguous forested landscapes; species commonly trapped/hunted; or species of special interest).

Beginning in the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corp provided the labor needed to reestablish forests on what is now the Bankhead National Forest. The primary species used to reestablish forests on the abandoned cutovers and farmland was loblolly pine. Beginning in the 1960s, the Forest Service initiated new efforts to improve forest economic yields by replacing some upland hardwood forests with faster growing loblolly pine. The abundance of overstocked loblolly pine created unhealthy stand conditions that led to the Southern Pine Beetle (SPB) epidemic in the early 2000’s. In 2003, after experiencing the SPB epidemic, the Bankhead initiated the Forest Health and Restoration Project FHRP. At that time, it was determined that approximately 79,000 acres were typed as loblolly pine on the Bankhead National Forest. Although loblolly pine is a native tree species to the Bankhead National Forest, the dominance of pure stands of loblolly pine is not typical of native landscapes occurring in the uplands of the Cumberland Plateau.

The purpose of the FHRP was to improve forest health, restore native upland forests and woodlands, and to provide forest communities that are uncommon on other lands in the Cumberland Plateau. The FHRP also defined six native upland forest community types that would set the stage for attaining the long term Desired Future Conditions (DFC) for the Bankhead National Forest. The six native upland forest community types are (see appendix for a complete description of the forest community types):

4

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

1) Mixed Mesophytic Forest 2) Dry-Mesic (somewhat moist sites) Oak Forest 3) Dry to Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine Forest 4) Dry and Xeric (very dry sites) Oak Forest and Woodland 5) Xeric Pine (Shortleaf) and Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 6) Upland Longleaf Pine/Bluestem Woodland

This project will emphasize returning proposed areas to native upland forest community types as defined in the FHRP, specifically the restoration of shortleaf pine and oak-pine woodland. The USDA Forest Service Inventory and Analysis program (FIA) shows that shortleaf pine is on the decline throughout most of its range. Inventory data shows that shortleaf pine is largely concentrated in large-diameter stands throughout its range with a much smaller proportion of seedlings/saplings. This trend points to a decline in the species presence in future forests. From 1982 to 2012, the state of Alabama has shown a loss greater than 70% of its shortleaf pine dominated forests. With the longevity of shortleaf pine, much of the current shortleaf pine overstory is likely a reflection of disturbance conditions far in the past. The two most prominent disturbances are harvesting and fire for shortleaf regeneration. Since implementation of the FHRP, there have been approximately 280 acres of shortleaf pine established in the Greater Collier analysis area and 485 acres planted across the Bankhead. There are currently 315 acres typed as mature shortleaf-oak stands on the Bankhead. At this time, there are not any areas that currently meet the criteria of oak woodland as described in the FHRP.

Forest inventory data shows that the majority of the areas within the Greater Collier analysis area currently do not meet the DFC in composition, structure, or function. Currently there are approximately 8,000 acres typed as loblolly pine stands within the analysis area. Of the stands prescribed for treatment, 81% are classified as loblolly, while 9% are classified as loblolly-hardwood. Restoration of shortleaf pine woodland and shortleaf pine-oak forest is proposed by implementing a clearcut harvest with reserves and removing undesirable species such as loblolly, yellow poplar, and red maple. Reserves (trees retained) may consist of shortleaf pine, longleaf pine, white/red oak species, hickory species, and soft mast producing species (i.e. black cherry, persimmon,etc.). Implementing a clearcut harvest with reserves is the optimum shortleaf restoration method, as stands can then be planted with shortleaf pine with abundant sunlight to grow. Some natural regeneration of desirable hardwood species will be encouraged in these treatments. Stands not immediately restored are proposed for a commercial thin to reduce stocking, and increase the health and vigor of the stand. For stands with a DFC of woodland, an open canopy with an herbaceous understory can be created by thinning to a lower residual basal area and controlling the understory/midstory with the use of herbicide and prescribed fire. Midstory/understory treatments will reduce the density and continuity of smaller diameter woody sprouts that displaces the diverse

5

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

herbaceous plant species found in functional woodland ecosystems. A dense layer of woody undergrowth shades out fine fuels (grasses and forbs) and does not typically carry fire well. The reduction of this dense layer of woody undergrowth will promote the establishment of plants associated with woodland and grassland/shrub conditions, thus improving wildlife habitat and diversity. In stands with a DFC of oak woodland, this treatment can be used to promote oak regeneration and reduce undesirable competitors such as red maple. Stands with a DFC of shortleaf pine-oak, or hardwood-pine forest will be thinned, leaving a slightly higher residual basal area, as these areas will not be managed for an herbaceous understory due to lack of prescribed fire, and will be managed as a closed canopy forest. Trees retained in thinning units should primarily consist of healthy dominant and co-dominant trees. Species preference, tree form, and crown characteristics will also be used to determine leave trees in these stands. Species favored for retention in these areas would include, but not limited to: shortleaf pine, longleaf pine, white/red oak species, hickory species, loblolly pine and some soft mast species (i.e. black cherry, persimmon,etc.). Although loblolly pine will be lower on the species preference list, it will still be the dominant tree species in many of the proposed areas.

There is a mixed hardwood- pine stand identified in the analysis area that is showing signs of oak decline. This stand has adequate advanced regeneration and if given enough sunlight, can be allowed to grow. A seed tree cut is proposed for this stand to promote hardwood regeneration, maintain structural diversity, and improve aesthetics. The seed trees will serve as reserves and the stand will be managed as a two-aged stand. Healthy dominant and co-dominant oak, hickories, and shortleaf will be retained. The seed tree cut will allow advanced hardwood regeneration to flourish in abundant sunlight, with minimal impacts from the reserve trees.

The proposed actions are located primarily within Area 2, the shortleaf pine emphasis area as identified in the FHRP. Past projects within Area 2 (FHRP and Grindstone, Mill, Inman EA) focused on shortleaf restoration in old SPB spots and small patch cuts. Patch cuts were defined as a modified version of a group selection cut where 3-5 acre patches were created and the overstocked loblolly was removed, leaving a sparse overstory (approx. 10-20 ft2 BA). After implementation, the area would then be site prepped and planted. The patch cut restoration method for shortleaf pine has proven to be difficult in managing so far due to the inability to achieve adequate site prep and shading issues from residual trees. Also these areas have to be excluded from fire until the shortleaf is established which often leads to additional dozer lines and more resource damage. This project will emphasize establishing shortleaf at a more accelerated rate and in strategic manner to still achieve prescribed burning objectives within the project area.

The majority of the analysis area also falls within the Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area (WMA) where the Bankhead has a cooperative agreement with the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resource to provide hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. The Black Warrior WMA falls within management

6

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

area 7.E.2- Dispersed Recreation Areas with Vegetation Management. Early successional forest habitat is an important condition in this management area. The RLRMP calls for 4% to 10% of the forested landbase within the 7.E.2 management area to be in early successional forest (0-10 age class). Currently there is only about 280 acres within the analysis area that falls into this age class (roughly 1% of the analysis area). Clearcutting with reserves will increase the amount of early successional habitat within the analysis area, while retaining mast producing reserve trees for wildlife purposes. Woodland areas will improve wildlife habitat by improving native herbaceous ground cover. Woodland areas will also improve wildlife viewing, hunting, and aesthetic values.

Proposed treatment stands of Greater Collier Analysis area fall in the following Management Areas described in the Forest Plan FHRP:

Table 1. Management Areas

Management Area Management Goals

2.A.2 – Scenic Rivers To protect and enhance the values of the river.

7.E.2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas With To provide dispersed recreation in a manner Vegetation Management that restores health and diversity of the land

9.C.3 – Southern Cumberland Plateau Native To restore ecosystems native to the Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance Southern Cumberland Plateau

There are overstocked loblolly pine plantations that fall in or near the scenic river corridor. These stands are unnatural in appearance and a commercial thinning is proposed to improve the health and aesthetics of the stands. Clearcutting will not take place within the scenic river corridor.

7

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Figure 2. Management Area map

8

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Summary of Proposed Actions Summary of Proposed Actions (See Tables 2 and 4) First Commercial Thin approximately 2,450 acres. Intermediate Thin approximately 1,260 acres Restore approximately 920 acres of shortleaf pine woodland by clearcut with reserves. Restore 70 acres of shortleaf pine-hardwood forest by clearcut with reserves. Site prep approximately 990 acres for planting with the use of herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), manual handtools, and/or prescribed burning. This area will then be planted with containerized shortleaf pine seedlings. Seedlings will be released if needed. This release will be accomplished with the use of handtools and/or herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application/ basal bark with backpack sprayers). Mechanical site preparation (roller drum chopping) is proposed in select stands. (See Silvicultural Treatment Table.) Midstory/understory treatment on approximately 1,200 acres. This will be accomplished with the use of handtools and/or herbicide. Release/Pre-commercial thin approximately 170 acres of existing shortleaf pine with the use of handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws) and/or herbicide. Pre-commercial thin approximately 80 acres of mixed hardwood-pine stands using manual tools (chainsaws, brushsaws) and/or herbicide. Regenerate approximately 30 acres of upland hardwood using the seed tree method. Seed trees will serve as reserves and will not be removed. Stand will be managed as a two-aged stand. Site prep will be accomplished with herbicide and/or prescribed fire. Desirable hardwood species will be released with handtools and/or herbicide. Expand two wildlife openings and create one new wildlife opening in a southern pine beetle spot. Daylight and maintain existing wildlife openings. Daylight roads in timber sale areas. Restore native communities, glades and wetlands where needed. Install approximately 9 gates on roads that are currently closed but have been subject to illegal traffic. Close a portion of Forest Service Road 234 EA “Low Pressure Road” to vehicle traffic subject to illegal traffic and resource damage.

9

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this EA: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, The Nature Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and Wild South. The proposal was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2013. The proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping. The scoping notice was mailed on July 19, 2013 to the Bankhead Ranger District Public Involvement mailing list and was later published in the Northwest Alabamian on December 21, 2013. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the agency first discussed the options in the Greater Collier Watershed at the Bankhead Liaison Panel meeting on February 7, 2013. Two comments were received from scoping and were used to refine the proposed action. An herbicide workshop and field trip was held on August 10, 2013 to discuss proposed herbicide uses.

Issues The interdisciplinary team did not identify any issues from this project. Although, through scoping some concerns were identified by stakeholders. Concerns were addressed at the next liaison panel meeting (August 20, 2013) and herbicide workshop (August 10, 2013).

Proposed Action and Alternatives The proposed action and following alternatives were considered: No Action-Alternative 1

Under this alternative, only actions previously authorized in decision documents would be utilized to address health and restoration needs in the project area. Prescribed burning, wildlife opening management, and treatment of non-native and invasive plants would continue through these prior decisions: 1. Wildlife Opening Management and Maintenance Program for 2002-2007 – Project was re-evaluated in 2009. 2. Bankhead National Forest Implementation of Prescribed Burning and Mechanical Fuels Treatments – 2013 3. Enhanced Invasive Plant Control – 2012

10

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Proposed Action-Alternative 2 This alternative proposes a first commercial thinning on approximately 2,450 acres of overstocked, primarily loblolly pine stands. Of the 2,450 acres proposed for a first commercial thin, approximately 1,100 acres will be managed for shortleaf/longleaf pine woodland and will be thinned from below to a residual basal area of 60-70 ft2; approximately 450 acres will be thinned to a residual basal area of 60-80 ft2 per acre for upland hardwood-pine management. Intermediate thinning is proposed on approximately 1,260 acres. Stands with a DFC of hardwood-pine forest will be thinned to a residual basal area of 70-80 ft2. Stands with a DFC of oak woodland will be thinned to a residual basal area of 50-80 ft2. Stands with a DFC of shortleaf pine woodland will be thinned to a residual basal area of 50-60 ft2. A conventional ground-based (e.g. rubber tire skidders) logging system will be used for all harvesting units.

Furthermore, approximately 920 acres are proposed for shortleaf pine woodland restoration, and approximately 70 acres are proposed for upland shortleaf pine-oak forest restoration. This will be accomplished using a clearcut with reserves leaving 5-10 trees per acre. Stands proposed for clear-cutting range from 10-75 acres in size. After harvest, these areas will then be site prepped for planting. Areas proposed for shortleaf woodland will be planted with containerized shortleaf pine seedlings at a rate of 500-700 trees/acre. Areas proposed for hardwood-pine restoration will be planted with containerized shortleaf pine at a rate of 400-500 trees/acre. Natural regeneration of oak, hickory, and soft mast producing species will be encouraged. Site prep will be accomplished using herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), and prescribed burning. Mechanical site prep (roller drum chopping) is proposed in stands that were heavily damaged by the southern pine beetle in the early 2000’s and are currently regenerating to loblolly pine. Regeneration (artificial or natural) will be released from competing vegetation if necessary using herbicide (hack and squirt, basal bark, and/or individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), prescribed fire, handtools, and/or chainsaws. It is anticipated that with successful site prep, herbicide release will not be needed.

One stand of approximately 30 acres is proposed for hardwood regeneration using the seed tree method. Healthy dominant and co-dominant oaks, hickories, and shortleaf pine will be retained at a rate of 20 ft2 per acre. Site prep will be accomplished with prescribed fire. The stand will be released to favor desirable hardwood species and reduce undesirable hardwood species such as red maple. This will be accomplished with the use of herbicide (hack and squirt, basal bark, and/or individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers).

Existing roads (permanent and temporary) will be used to access proposed timber sales. All non-permanent roads, log landings, major skid trails would be slashed or seeded to native or desirable non-native grass/forb species and blocked from motor vehicle access after harvest and associated activities have been completed. There are an estimated 9 gates that will be installed on roads that are currently closed but have been subject to

11

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

illegal traffic. A portion of Forest Service Road 234 EA “Low Pressure Road” is proposed to be closed to vehicle traffic.

There are approximately 170 acres of shortleaf pine in the Greater Collier Watershed that have been planted since 2001 that are proposed for release/pre-commercial thinning. This will be accomplished with the use of herbicide (hack and squirt, basal bark, and/or individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), handtools, or chainsaws. In addition there are approximately 80 acres of mixed hardwood-pine stands that are proposed for pre-commercial thinning. This will also be accomplished with the use of herbicide (hack and squirt, basal bark, and/or individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), handtools, or chainsaws.

Table 2. Silvicultural Treatment Stands

First Plantation Thin (FPT) Stands will be commercially thinned to a residual basal area of 60-80ft2

Comp Stand ACRES Age year Silv Treatment DFC Current Veg Ten Year Veg 19 7 24 1981 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 19 12 35 1981 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 19 13 80 1993 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 20 12 61 1993 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 20 21 28 1980 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 20 19 19 1993 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 20 16 33 1981 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 21 12 68 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 21 21 44 1983 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 21 15 43 1983 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 21 9 45 1995 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 21 16 56 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 22 32 2 1993 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 31 20 16 1995 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 31 28 80 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 31 8 19 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 31 16 62 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 31 10 65 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 31 6 25 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 32 27 45 1993 FPT LL Wdlnd lob forest LL forest 32 46 6 1981 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 32 6 71 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 32 39 17 1993 FPT HWD Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 32 8 12 1981 FPT SL-Oak Forest lob forest lob forest 33 24 26 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest

12

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

33 30 64 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 33 17 40 1990 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 33 31 12 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 33 8 20 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 33 15 23 1990 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 34 16 29 1979 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 34 3 27 1981 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 34 20 21 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 34 5 26 1981 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 34 6 48 1997 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 34 17 39 1993 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 46 17 98 1995 FPT HWD Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 48 13 38 1989 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 48 6 49 1992 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 49 47 98 1990 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 49 48 25 1988 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 49 23 44 1989 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 49 15 46 1989 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 50 2 24 1983 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 50 15 37 1994 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 50 9 36 1995 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 50 24 29 1994 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 50 26 22 1983 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 51 26 4 1983 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 51 17 19 1988 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 51 11 61 1984 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 122 9 62 1996 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 122 1 33 1996 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 122 5 61 1996 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 123 2 33 1988 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 123 11 33 1989 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 123 6 46 1986 FPT SL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 124 39 105 1992 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 124 13 53 1990 FPT LL Wdlnd lob forest LL forest 124 25 35 1990 FPT LL Wdlnd lob forest lob forest 126 50 29 1992 FPT HWD Forest lob forest lob forest Total 2452 Hardwood Restoration- A seed tree cut retaining a residual basal area of 20ft2. Follow up treatments will include a release treatment with handtools, and/or herbicide (hack & squirt, basal bark, and/or directed foliar spray with backpack sprayers) Comp Stand ACRES Age year Silv Treatment DFC Current Veg Ten Year Veg HWD hwd-pine 2-aged HWD 32 22 32 1895 Restoration HWD Wdlnd forest forest Total 32

13

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Intermediate Thin (Int Thin)- Stands will be commercially thinned to a residual basal area of 50-80ft2. Some stands are also proposed for a midstory removal (MSR). See the complete list below for MSR stands. Comp Stand ACRES Age year Silv Treatment DFC Current Veg Ten Year Veg 21 20 19 1923 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 21 3 41 1972 Int Thin HWD Forest lob forest lob forest lob-hwd 21 22 52 1923 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest wdlnd hwd-pine 21 8 40 1923 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd forest hwd wdlnd 31 18 34 1951 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 31 3 116 1972 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 31 11 41 1931 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 31 4 33 1976 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd lob-hwd 32 10 25 1930 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest wdlnd hwd-pine 33 37 22 1907 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd forest hwd wdlnd hwd-pine 33 9 40 1921 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd forest hwd wdlnd lob-hwd 33 35 136 1907 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest wdlnd lob-hwd 33 38 53 1918 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd lob-hwd forest wdlnd lob-hwd 34 34 32 1907 Int Thin HWD Forest lob-hwd forest forest 34 1 11 1887 Int Thin HWD Forest lob forest lob forest hwd-pine 34 18 34 1916 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd forest hwd wdlnd 48 10 52 1953 Int Thin HWD Forest lob forest lob forest lob-hwd 123 8 42 1923 Int Thin HWD Forest lob-hwd forest forest 124 10 23 1953 Int Thin HWD Forest lob forest lob forest 124 16 206 1969 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd hwd-pine 124 38 37 1969 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd forest hwd wdlnd hwd-pine 124 21 18 1957 Int Thin HWD Wdlnd forest hwd wdlnd 124 3 23 1934 Int Thin HWD Forest lob forest lob forest hwd-pine 124 9 7 1934 Int Thin HWD Forest forest hwd forest 124 4 15 1934 Int Thin HWD Forest lob forest lob forest

14

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

124 20 107 1969 Int Thin SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd Total 1260 Shortleaf/SL-Oak Restoration-All Stands will be clearcut with reserves retaining a minimum of 5 reserves/acre. Stands with a treatment of Regen/Mech, are proposed for mechanical (drum chopper), handtools, herbicide, and/or prescribed burning for site prep. All other stands are proposed for herbicide, handtools, and/or burning for site prep. Herbicide treatment will be direct cut stump/foliar spray with backpack sprayers. Stands will then be planted with containerized shortleaf pine-681 trees per acre if DFC is Shortleaf Woodland (SL Wdlnd) or 400-500 trees per acre if the DFC is Shortleaf-Oak Forest. Stands will be released as needed with handtools and/or herbicide (basal bark, directed foliar spray with backpack sprayers) Comp Stand ACRES Age year Silv Treatment DFC Current Veg Ten Year Veg 21 19 18 1923 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 21 6 71 1923 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 21 11 24 1971 Regen/Mech SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 31 2 34 1924 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 32 11 34 1923 Regen/Mech SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 32 3 11 1958 Regen SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest SL forest 32 20 34 1920 Regen/Mech SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest SL forest 32 2 72 1924 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 32 17 57 1925 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 32 26 22 1923 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 33 36 26 1907 Regen SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest SL forest 33 40 25 1907 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 33 23 37 1960 Regen SL Wdlnd lob wdlnd SL forest 33 22 44 1918 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 33 18 38 1907 Regen SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest SL forest 33 39 15 1960 Regen SL Wdlnd lob wdlnd SL forest 33 25 31 1927 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 34 33 48 1929 Regen/Mech SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 34 10 73 1929 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 34 21 35 1929 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest SL-Oak 48 7 29 1924 Regen Forest lob forest SL-Oak forest SL-Oak 48 19 1 1988 Regen Forest lob forest SL-Oak forest SL-Oak 48 3 18 1926 Regen/Mech Forest lob forest SL-Oak forest 123 7 33 1923 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 123 21 12 1923 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest SL-Oak 123 19 23 1923 Regen/Mech Forest lob forest SL-Oak forest 124 30 32 1955 Regen/Mech SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 124 15 10 1934 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest 124 12 29 1955 Regen/Mech SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest SL forest

15

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

124 27 60 1933 Regen SL Wdlnd lob forest SL forest Total 995 Shortleaf Release/Pre-commercial thinning - Existing shortleaf plantations will be released from competition with the use of handtools and/or herbicide (hack & squirt, basal bark, and/or directed foliar spray with backpack sprayers) Comp Stand ACRES Age year Silv Treatment DFC Current Veg Ten Year Veg 31 30 53 2008 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest 32 5 26 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest 32 41 6 2011 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest SL-Oak 32 37 4 2007 SL Release/PCT Forest SL Forest SL Forest 32 38 8 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest SL-Oak 32 40 2 2007 SL Release/PCT Forest SL Forest SL Forest 124 48 18 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest 124 49 3 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest 124 50 4 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest 124 47 11 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest 124 51 35 2007 SL Release/PCT SL Wdlnd SL Forest SL Forest Total 171 HWD Release/PCT- Stands will be released using a combination of handtools, and/or herbicide (hack & squirt, basal bark, and/or directed foliar spray with backpack sprayers) Comp Stand ACRES Age year Silv Treatment DFC Current Veg Ten Year Veg HWD hwd-pine 32 25 10 1993 Release/PCT HWD Forest forest HWD forest HWD hwd-pine 48 1 21 1926 Release/PCT HWD Forest forest HWD forest HWD hwd-pine 124 44 49 1969 Release/PCT HWD Forest forest HWD forest Total 80

16

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Table 3. Herbicides List of herbicides (with product name examples) expected to be used for this project, either individually or in combinations thereof.

Herbicide Product Name Example Triclopyr (ester form) Garlon Glyphosate Accord, Rodeo, Aquaneat Imazapyr Arsenal

Herbicides that are proposed for this project include: glyphosate, triclopyr, and imazapyr. Application methods will be individual stem treatment with backpack sprayers. Herbicide application will be stand specific and will follow recommended label rates. Herbicides are applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human and wildlife health. Areas with a DFC of shortleaf pine woodland will use a mixture of glyphosate and imazypyr for site prep. There will be no application of imazapyr within the dripline of desirable hardwood species. Areas with a DFC of shortleaf pine-oak will use glyphosate for site prep. It is anticipated that with adequate site prep, a release treatment will not be needed. Stands proposed for release will use glyphosate for a foliar treatment or triclopyr for a basal bark treatment. Midstory/understory treatments will use glyphosate. An aquatic labeled surfactant such as Cide-kick will be used for foliar treatments along with red or blue dye at a visible rate. Historically, diesel oil or kerosene was used as the oil carrier in basal bark treatments. However, for this project: seed oil, vegetable oil, or mineral oil will be mixed with triclopyr to maximize penetration through the bark.

There are currently 30 wildlife openings totaling 50.5 acres within the analysis area. These openings will continue to be managed (mowed, disked, and planted). Two wildlife opening are proposed for expansion into adjacent SPB spots and one new wildlife opening is proposed to be created in an old SPB spot. After project implementation, there will be 31 wildlife openings totaling 63.5 acres. Daylighting is proposed for all wildlife openings and along roads. Daylighting will be achieved through: commercial timber sale, cutting with hand tools and/or heavy equipment such as pushing with dozers. All trees may be removed adjacent to roads and wildlife openings with generally a 30 foot buffer along roads and 100 foot buffer along wildlife openings. The area daylighted will receive a heavy thinning (approximately 20-40ft2) and will not meet basal area targets identified in the proposed treatment of the stand. The practice known as daylighting cuts and releases vegetation along areas in forested habitats for the purpose of increasing sunlight on the forest floor. Increased sunlight on the forest edge encourages growth of shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. These areas are important wildlife feeding, nesting, 17

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

and cover areas. Daylighting roads has the additional benefit of improving road conditions through increased drying of unpaved roads.

Proposed Treatment in Rare Communities: Glades & Rock Outcrops - Herbicide use on glades and rock outcrops is addressed in the NFs in AL Enhanced Invasives EA. Commercial timber harvest may occur on glades where restoration is needed. Additionally, encroaching vegetation may be removed using handtools, such as chainsaws and machetes. Glades that are present within the analysis area will be prioritized for restoration. It is expected that all glades will not be treated, but all can be considered. Prioritization for treatment will include current condition and restoration need, size, ability to maintain over the long term, rare species presence, and funding. Wetlands (Gum ponds) and Ponds – Ponds and wetlands may be improved or restored as needed and based on prioritization as described for glades. Examples of restoration that may be needed include plugging ditches or removing other artificial drainage structures from wetlands; removing berms, ruts, roads, etc. that are altering flow to wetlands; removing brush and trees from wetlands or pond edges or dams to reduce drying; treating NNIS plants; and repairing manmade ponds if needed by excavating, repairing dams, or removing encroaching vegetation. Herbicide use on non-native invasive plants is addressed in the NFs in AL Enhanced Invasives EA.

Midstory/understory treatments are proposed on approximately 1,000 acres of the stands proposed for an intermediate thin in this project. In addition, there are approximately 160 acres of midstory/understory treatments proposed in stands previously thinned in other projects. Stands proposed for a midstory/understory treatment have a DFC of woodland. These are on a short burn rotation to move the stands toward woodland structure and promote native herbaceous understory. This treatment will be accomplished using herbicide application (hack and squirt, cut-stump, and/or individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers) and/or handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws).

18

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Table 4. Midstory Removal Stands

Midstory Removal (MSR)- Will be completed using a combination of handtools, and/or herbicide (hack & squirt, basal bark, and/or directed foliar spray with backpack sprayers) Compartment Stand ACRES Age year DFC Current_Veg Ten_Year_Veg 21 20 19 1923 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 21 22 52 1923 SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest lob-hwd wdlnd 21 8 40 1923 HWD Wdlnd hwd-pine forest hwd wdlnd 31 18 34 1951 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 31 3 116 1972 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 31 11 41 1931 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 31 4 33 1976 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 32 10 25 1930 SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest lob-hwd wdlnd 33 37 22 1907 HWD Wdlnd hwd-pine forest hwd wdlnd 33 9 40 1921 HWD Wdlnd hwd-pine forest hwd wdlnd 33 35 136 1907 SL Wdlnd lob-hwd forest lob-hwd wdlnd 33 38 53 1918 HWD Wdlnd lob-hwd forest lob-hwd wdlnd 34 18 34 1916 HWD Wdlnd hwd forest hwd wdlnd 124 16 206 1969 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 124 38 37 1969 HWD Wdlnd hwd-pine forest hwd wdlnd 124 21 18 1957 HWD Wdlnd hwd-pine forest hwd wdlnd 124 20 107 1969 SL Wdlnd lob forest lob wdlnd 33 13 40 1907 HWD Wdlnd lob-hwd wdlnd lob-hwd wdlnd 33 19 21 1960 SL Wdlnd lob wdlnd lob wdlnd 123 1 45 1923 SL Wdlnd lob wdlnd lob wdlnd 123 4 21 1923 SL Wdlnd lob wdlnd lob wdlnd 123 3 36 1923 SL Wdlnd lob wdlnd lob wdlnd Total 1176

19

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Figure 3. Treatment Map

20

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Monitoring

Monitoring of the activities in the project would occur in a variety of ways. A certified timber sale administrator would monitor timber sale operations. A certified forestry technician and/or certified silviculturist would monitor herbicide application, site preparation, planting and release treatments. The district biologist and timber sale administrator would monitor midstory removal. Members of the ID Team and technicians will monitor RLRMP standards and project design criteria such as: stream protection zones, snag and tree retention, and erosion control measures.

Actions implemented in the project area would be monitored for compliance with Forest Stands and Guidelines (BMP’s) in accordance with the RLRMP. This project would also be included in the Soil and Water Standard and Guidelines Monitoring Plan, developed by the Forest Hydrologist, to monitor the compliance and effectiveness of Standards and Guidelines. The BNF Liaison Panel will be making monitoring field trips to assess the implementation of the project.

21

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section discloses the effects of the proposed action compared to the no action alternative. Effects can be positive or negative depending on the resource perspective and desired future condition. Effects can be direct, indirect or cumulative. Direct effects occur at the time and place as the actions that cause them. Their causes are usually obvious. Indirect effects occur at a later time or a different place than the actions that cause them. Their causes are not obvious and may stem from effects on other environmental elements. Cumulative effects are the combined effects of these actions with those of other past, present and future actions. Cumulative effects can be on-site (confined to the project area) or off-site (outside the project area). Effects on vegetation, cultural resources or soils are chiefly on-site. Effects on water and air quality or wildlife and fish are commonly off-site.

22

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Vegetation Effects

Current Forest Types in Greater Collier Analysis Area Bottomland Hardwood- Chesnut Oak-Scarlet Yellow Pine Oak-Yellow Pine Cove Hardwood- 2% 1% Hemlock Yellow Pine 4% Hardwood-Pine 2% Yellow Poplar- 1% White Oak- Northern Red Oak 7%

White Oak-Northern Red Oak-Hickory 14%

White Oak-Black Oak- Yellow Pine Loblolly Pine 11% 42%

Virginia Pine-Oak 1% Virginia Pine 3% Loblolly-Hardwood Shortleaf Pine 10% 2%

Figure 1- Forest Types in Analysis Area

23

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Existing Condition______The Greater Collier analysis area is within the southern Cumberland Plateau region in northwest Alabama. There are approximately 32,500 acres within the Greater Collier analysis area of which approximately 22,000 are Forest Service lands. There are approximately 18,800 acres that have been inventoried in the past and the forest types are shown in Figure 1. The majority of the un-inventoried Forest Service acres fall within riparian areas. Inventory data shows the forest types in the analysis area consist of approximately 60% pine dominated forests and 40% hardwood dominated forests. For purposes of this vegetation analysis we will focus on the stands that have recently been inventoried and prescribed for treatment in the Greater Collier project.

At present, the dominant forest type within the proposed treatment stands of the Greater Collier project is loblolly pine (81%) in various age class distributions. For a stand to be typed as a loblolly pine stand, at least 70% of the dominant/co-dominant trees are loblolly pine. Loblolly-hardwood stands makes up the second largest category with 10% of the proposed stands falling within this category. The percent acreage of each forest cover type is shown in Figure 3.1. Stand examination for the Greater Collier project was conducted from 2009 to 2013. The basal area (BA) in the analysis area is highly variable due to past events (storms, fire, disease, timber operations, Southern Pine Beetle (SPB)). The most notable event was the SPB epidemic of the early 2000’s. The diversity of the herbaceous layer depends directly on the fire history and amount of canopy closure. Stands proposed for commercial thinning is variable, with BA ranging from 70 to over 200ft2, with the desired basal area between 50 and 80 ft2. Shortleaf restoration is proposed in stands that are currently dominated by offsite loblolly pine and are over 50 years old. This will be accomplished by removing the loblolly and planting shortleaf pine seedlings, since sufficient shortleaf seed sources do not exist on these sites. For the most part, a high diversity of native warm season grasses/forbs is not supported due to the closed canopy in the majority of the analysis area. Additionally, canyons within the analysis have been identified and will be managed under the 4.L Canyon prescription. Small canyon-like features (rockhouses and box canyons) identified in the canyon survey process will continue to be protected and managed under the rare communities prescription wherever it exists on the ground. “This prescription is compatible with old growth prescriptions in that…the long-term forest community will be old growth” (RLRMP).

24

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Existing Forest Types/Conditions of Proposed Treatment Stands

loblolly-hardwood shortleaf forest hardwood-pine woodland 3% forest 1% 6%

loblolly woodland loblolly- 4% hardwood forest 9%

loblolly forest 77%

Figure 2- Existing Forest Types/Condtions of Proposed Treatment Stands

Current Age Class Distribution of Proposed Treatment Stands 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100 Over 100 Age Class

Figure 3- Current Age Class Distribution of Proposed Treatment Stands 25

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Figure 4- Existing Forest Types 26

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Potentially Affecting Vegetation Timber thinning/restoration projects have been implemented under the (FHRP EIS 2003) within the Greater Collier analysis area. Prescribed burning activities have been implemented under separate burning decisions with the most recent being the Bankhead National Forest Implementation of Prescribed Burning and Mechanical Fuels Reduction Treatments EA (2013). Mechanical midstory removal has been implemented under the FY 2009 Mechanical Fuels Reduction and Wildlife Habitat Improvement decision. Non- native and invasive plant species have been treated as identified, with the most recent decision being the Enhanced Invasive Plant Control EA (2012). Prescribed burning and treatment of NNIS will continue throughout the analysis area. The combination of the above restoration activities along with the proposed activities will further aid in meeting the desired future conditions. Table 1- Past, Present and Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions Activity Description Burning-Bankhead National Forest Straw Riddle- 1580acres Implementation of Prescribed Burning and Shooting Range- 1310 acres Mechanical Fuels Reduction Treatments EA Davis Creek- 2652 acres (2013). West Fork (Partial)- 525 acres Beech Creek-786 acres Walston Ridge- 1946 acres Combination of growing season & dormant Collier Creek- 1188 acres season burns. Brushy Lake- 1064 acres Combination of short (2-4 years) and long (5+ Well Woman- 683 acres years) rotation burn frequency. Holmes Chapel- 794 acres All areas have been in semi-regular rotation for Brushy West-973 acres the last decade. Brushy East- 1063 acres Riddle (Partial)- 257 acres Payne Creek- 906 acres Payne Demo- 392 acres

Midstory Removal-FY 2009 Mechanical Fuels Approximately 350 acres of midstory removal Reduction and Wildlife Habitat Improvement was conducted in 2012. NNIS treatment-Enhanced Invasive Plant NNIS is treated as identified and as budget Control EA (2012) allows. Wildlife Openings There are currently 30 wildlife openings in the analysis area totaling 50.5 acres Commericial Thin - (FHRP 2003) There has been approximately 50 acres thinned within the analysis area within the last 2 years. Rural and Residential Private Lands Existing Rural residential homes and pastures with the analysis area. No new planned residential developments known. Scattered tracts of private non-industrial timber lands and industrial timber lands.

27

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The following is a brief description of the community types considered native to the Bankhead National Forest from the FHRP. See Appendix C for a more detailed description of forest community types. This project will also manage for loblolly pine woodland (until restoration can occur). 1) Mixed Mesophytic Forest 2) Dry-Mesic (somewhat moist sites) Oak Forest 3) Dry to Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine Forest 4) Dry and Xeric (very dry sites) Oak Forest and Woodland 5) Xeric Pine (Shortleaf) and Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland 6) Upland Longleaf Pine/Bluestem Woodland

28

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Greater Collier Desired Future Conditions of Proposed Stands

shortleaf-oak forest 2%

hardwood forest 30%

shortleaf woodland 57%

hardwood woodland 8%

longleaf woodland 3%

Figure 5- Desired Future Condition of Proposed Treatment Stands

29

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Figure 6- Desired Future Conditions

30

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Direct and Indirect Effects of Proposed Management Activities on Vegetation There are currently many acres of forested stands that do not represent the historic conditions on the Bankhead National Forest. Many of these stands will need intervention to aid in achieving the DFC and promoting healthy forests and wildlife habitat. Examples of direct effects of a proposed action on vegetation include, but are not limited to: -disturbance of the understory plant community -disturbance to some of the midstory plants -potential changes in species composition and density of the overstory species -establishment of shortleaf pine forest communities

Indirect effects could include: -changes in the understory plant community due to more light reaching the forest floor -improved stand health due to reduced competition for light, water and nutrients -vigorous sprouting from root systems of damaged hardwood species -improved burning regimes/fire condition class due to changes in composition and structure

The RLRMP has a number of measures that minimize or mitigate damage to residual trees. Effects may also include changes in the quantity or quality (health) of the residual forest following restoration activities. It is important to note that effects to vegetation can be positive or negative, depending on the nature of the proposed actions.

Alternative 1-No Action The no action alternative would have no direct effect on vegetation or existing stand vegetation characteristics. However, species composition and age class distribution would continue to change as a result of natural succession and from disturbances caused by insects, diseases, wind, and fire. Prescribed burning will still take place throughout the analysis area. The desired associated plant communities would most likely not be developed. With this alternative, we expect the overstocked loblolly stands to continue to be susceptible to SPB infestations. The heavy understory in these stands would continue to shade the forest floor and prevent the establishment of favorable native forb and grass species. Productivity would be reduced because of slower, stagnated growth resulting from competition. Overstocked and mature pine sites would become more susceptible to insect

31

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

and disease damage, especially southern pine beetle. As insects and disease infestation occur, the sites would be examined and treatments proposed to stop the infestation. There would be a cumulative effect of the late successional, shade tolerant hardwood species replacing the early successional, shade intolerant pine species at all canopy levels. Early to mid-successional species would be restricted to openings created by natural disturbances. The overstory age class distribution would remain the same with an overall shift from younger to older stand age classes with age replacement occurring as a result of disturbances. Over the long-term, diversity would decrease and the canopies would close thereby shading out the native ground cover. Disturbance dependent species such as oaks and shortleaf pine would continue to decline.

Alternative 2-Proposed Action Below is a summary of the proposed actions. For a detailed description of the proposed actions, see pages 10-20. Summary of Proposed Actions First Commercial Thin approximately 2,450 acres. Intermediate Thin approximately 1,260 acres Restore approximately 920 acres of shortleaf pine woodland by clearcut with reserves. Restore 70 acres of shortleaf pine-hardwood forest by clearcut with reserves. Site prep approximately 990 acres for planting with the use of herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), manual handtools, and/or prescribed burning. This area will then be planted with containerized shortleaf pine seedlings. Seedlings will be released if needed. This release will be accomplished with the use of handtools and/or herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application/ basal bark with backpack sprayers). Mechanical site preparation (roller drum chopping) is proposed in select stands. (See Silvicultural Treatment Table.) Midstory/understory treatment on approximately 1,200 acres. This will be accomplished with the use of handtools and/or herbicide. Release/Pre-commercial thin approximately 170 acres of existing shortleaf pine with the use of handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws) and/or herbicide. Pre-commercial thin approximately 80 acres of mixed hardwood-pine stands using manual tools (chainsaws, brushsaws) and/or herbicide. Regenerate approximately 30 acres of upland hardwood using the seed tree method. Seed trees will serve as reserves and will not be removed. Stand will be

32

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

managed as a two-aged stand. Site prep will be accomplished with herbicide and/or prescribed fire. Desirable hardwood species will be released with handtools and/or herbicide. Expand two wildlife openings and create one new wildlife opening in a southern pine beetle spot. Daylight and maintain existing wildlife openings. Daylight roads in timber sale areas. Restore native communities, glades and wetlands where needed. Install approximately 9 gates on roads that are currently closed but have been subject to illegal traffic. Close a portion of Forest Service Road 234 EA “Low Pressure Road” to vehicle traffic subject to illegal traffic and resource damage. This project seeks to restore and maintain native forest communities to the Bankhead National Forest with a focus on fire-adapted shortleaf pine and oak-pine woodlands. There are approximately 2,450 acres proposed for a first commercial thinning in this project. The DFC of individual stands (see Appendix C) varies depending upon factors such as soil, aspect, existing forest type and structure, management area, etc. The stands proposed for a first commercial thin are currently overstocked loblolly stands that primarily have Basal Areas greater than 120ft2. This action will reduce stocking levels, which in return will increase the health and vigor of the stand and reduce the risk of disease and insect infestation. After thinning, residual trees should increase in radial and vertical growth. This action will be a “thinning from below”. Trees retained will primarily consist of healthy dominant and co-dominant trees. Species preference, tree form, and crown characteristics will also be used to determine leave trees in these stands. Species favored for retention in these areas would include, but not limited to: shortleaf pine, longleaf pine, white/red oak species, hickory species, loblolly pine and some soft mast species (i.e. black cherry, persimmon,etc.). In most cases loblolly pine will still be the dominant tree in these stands, but the percentage of other tree species can be increased after thinning. This is especially true in Compartment 32 Stand 27 and Compartment 124 Stand 13 where you have 46ft2 and 42ft2, respectively, of longleaf BA. After treatment, it is anticipated that these stands will be shifted to a primarily longleaf pine stand.

Intermediate thinning is proposed on approximately 1,260 acres. The majority of these stands have a woodland DFC and are currently in a short prescribed burn rotation of every 2-3 years. The current species composition of these stands range from loblolly to oak-pine. Stands that are predominately loblolly and have a DFC of shortleaf pine woodland will be thinned to a residual basal area of 50-60ft2 and managed as loblolly woodland until conversion can occur. Residual trees may or may not respond to the thinning depending upon factors such as age and site conditions. The mixed stands with a DFC of oak-pine woodland will be thinned to a residual basal area of 50-80ft2. After thinning, the species composition will shift more towards oak, hickory, and shortleaf pine; although loblolly will still remain. Stands with a DFC of hardwood-pine forest are currently not in a prescribed burn rotation. These stands will be thinned to a residual

33

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

basal area of 70-80ft2. This thinning will allow the opportunity to favor desirable hardwood species and shortleaf pine by removing the loblolly around them with the hope that eventually these stands can be converted to a hardwood or hardwood-pine forest.

Thinning often results in an abundance of hardwood root sprouting. This encroachment is undesirable in woodland DFC stands because it displaces the diverse herbaceous plant species found in functional pyrophitic ecosystems. A midstory/understory treatment is proposed to reduce this hardwood undergrowth with the use of handtools and/or herbicide. Prescribed fire will then be used to maintain these areas and promote the establishment of native understory of primarily grasses and forbs associated with woodland conditions. In stands with a DFC of oak-pine woodland, this treatment can be used to reduce species such as red maple and promote oak-hickory regeneration along with herbaceous plants in the understory.

Shortleaf restoration is proposed on approximately 990 acres of mature loblolly pine stands by clearcut with reserves and planting containerized shortleaf pine seedlings. Approximately 70 acres of this will be managed as mixed shortleaf-hardwood forest, and the remaining 920 acres will be managed as woodland. Clearcutting will remove offsite loblolly and undesirable hardwood species such as red maple and yellow poplar. The midstory in the clearcut units will be removed and limited to designated inclusions. The reserve trees in these units will stand a better chance of survival if they are clumped into inclusions and not randomly scattered throughout the stand. After harvest, the site will then be prepared for planting the shortleaf pine seedlings. Site preparation methods include: individual stem herbicide application, manual tools, prescribed fire, and mechanical (drum chopping). Site preparation may consist of a combination approach (herbicide treatment and prescribed fire). Herbicide application is preferred over mechanical or manual site preparation. Mechanical and manual site preparation often leads to abundant hardwood sprouting. Hardwood sprouting creates competition to the shortleaf seedlings and the shortleaf will most likely need to be released. An adequate site preparation with herbicide will reduce this competition by killing the hardwood sprouts, thus improving the growth and survival of the shortleaf pine seedlings, and reduce to need of a release treatment. Fire will be introduced at an early age (approximately 5 years of age) for those stands with a DFC of woodland. Prescribed fire will maintain these areas and promote the establishment of plants associated with woodland and grassland/shrub conditions.

Existing shortleaf stands that are proposed for release/pre-commercial thinning are currently less than 10 years old. These stands have heavy competition from undesirable hardwood species and loblolly pine. A release/pre-commercial thinning will improve the health and vigor of the young shortleaf and the shortleaf should respond with an increase in height and girth. Hardwood stands proposed for a pre-commercial thin will release desirable hardwood (oaks, hickories) from competing vegetation allowing the oaks and hickories to grow into a competitive position.

34

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Projected Age Class Distribution of Treatment Stands at end of 10yr Analysis Period

40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Age Class

Figure 7 Projected Age Class Distribution

35

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Greater Collier 10 year Vegetation Effects of 2-aged hardwood Proposed Stands forest 1% hardwood forest hardwood woodland shortleaf-oak forest 2% 4% 1% longleaf forest 2%

shortleaf forest 21%

loblolly-hardwood woodland 6%

loblolly forest loblolly-hardwood 49% forest loblolly woodland 1% 13%

Figure 8- Predicted Forest Types/Conditions of Proposed Treatment Stands Over the ten year analysis period, there should be an increase in woodland by 18%, although the stands planted in shortleaf will be on their way towards being classified as woodland. There will be an increase of shortleaf pine stands by 19%. Overall there will be a 19% decrease in stands classified as loblolly pine.

36

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Figure 9- Forest Types for Proposed Action 37

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Herbicides The direct effect of herbicide use is to injure or kill the target plant species and some adjacent plants. Direct and indirect effects of herbicide use would be confined only to those areas treated, and would be short-term, lasting only until the herbicides break down through natural processes. Because of the low toxicity of the herbicides being proposed, as well as the method and requirements of application, there will be no measurable direct or indirect effects to human health and safety, wildlife, PETS species, water and aquatic life, or soils. The herbicides that are proposed for use (triclopyr, glyphosate and imazapyr) are relatively safe herbicides which when used according to label direction pose little risk to the forest environment. The human health and ecological risks of using the proposed herbicides were analyzed for the USDA Forest Service most recently in 2004 by the Syracuse Research Corporation (SERA 2004a). The risk analysis revealed that typical exposures at the proposed application rate to applicators or members of the general public do not lead to estimated doses that exceed the level of concern. The risk assessments can be found on file at the Bankhead District Office. The risk assessments are also available on the internet at www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/index.shtml.

Imazapyr Imazapyr would be applied in site prep for the control of woody stems. Imazapyr is a non-selective herbicide that controls hardwood, pine, brush and grasses, resulting in one to two growing seasons of reduced competition. This treatment would be effective in decreasing woody competition to the shortleaf seedlings, giving the planted trees an advantage for early root development. Because imazapyr is non-selective, the exclusion of clumps of hardwood will be implemented to retain hardwood mast production. Application of imazapyr will not be within the drip line of desirable hardwoods.

Glyphosate Glyphosate is proposed for site prep, release, and midstory/understory treatments. Glyphosate is readily absorbed by foliage and primarily affects plants by disrupting the photosynthetic processes. The use of glyphosate in site prep will be effective in decreasing competition from hardwood species to the shortleaf seedlings, giving the planted trees an advantage for early root development. Midstory/understory treatments will reduce the density and continuity of smaller diameter woody sprouts that displaces the diverse herbaceous plant species found in functional woodland ecosystems. The reduction of this dense layer of woody undergrowth will promote the establishment of plants associated with woodland and grassland/shrub conditions. Glyphosate has no soil activity and therefore minimizes washing and leaching effects to damage any vegetation occurring outside of the project area (off-site). This herbicide would not affect the non- targeted vegetation via residual herbicide activity.

38

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Triclopyr Triclopyr is a selective herbicide used to control woody plants and broadleaf weeds. It is proposed in the use of release treatments. These treatments will reduce woody competition to shortleaf pine and desirable hardwood species allowing them to grow into a competitive position. Triclopyr is predominantly foliar active and is affected very little by soil features. Triclopyr is potentially mobile since it is not bound to soil particles. However, it is readily broken down by soil microbes and is not considered persistent, therefore precluding residual control of additional hardwood stems or herbaceous weeds. Treatment will affect only those stems treated directly.

Herbicide Use: See Appendix A- Project Design Criteria for herbicide application information.

Cumulative Effects: There are currently many acres of overstocked and offsite loblolly pine stands that do not represent the historic range of variability on the Bankhead Forest. Although loblolly pine is naturally occurring in this area, it did not occur in homogenous and contiguous stands as it does in many instances now. Many of these stands will need intervention to aid in achieving the selected DFC. Native shortleaf pine forest communities would not become established in the current condition without loblolly removal, site preparation, and planting. Woodland forest structure could not be maintained without overstory reduction, midstory removal, and prescribed burning.

Alternative 1-No Action

If no action is taken, the restoration of native forest communities to the Bankhead would not occur in the majority of the analysis area. Forest management to improve forest health and wildlife habitat would cease.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The Proposed Action would move the Bankhead further along in restoring and establishing native ecosystems on sites currently inhabited by off-site species and thinning overstocked stands preferring on site species for retention. The species composition of the overstory will be changed rapidly through harvesting. The structure of the forest would be increasingly open and allow light to the understory. The understory would develop more fire adapted plant species, providing fuel for the function of prescribed burning and water filtration. Restoration of the shortleaf and oak-pine woodland ecosystems on the Bankhead would be accelerated. Existing closed canopies and an understory absent of grasses, sedges, and forbs would be reduced through this action in conjunction with the current prescribed burning program. The Proposed Action (along with the current prescribed burn program) would directly improve the overall

39

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

species composition, structure, and function of the shortleaf and oak-pine woodland ecosystems. Non-native and invasive plant species will continue to be treated as identified on the ground. Although more human activity would occur in the immediate future to implement these projects, there are no known negative cumulative effects of this activity. Activities on private land are not anticipated to affect the national forest lands. The health and vigor of forested stands would be improved and the risk of disease and insect outbreaks would be reduced. Improved aesthetics from healthier and native vegetation, and improved ecosystem health would have positive impacts on the human environment.

Understory Resources:

DFC of the Bankhead District’s upland pine and hardwood woodlands (as discussed in the RLRMP, 2004) is gauged largely by the condition (including composition, abundance, structure, and diversity) of the understory. The understory layer of a forest stand is important in regards to wildlife (game and non-game species) habitats, rare plant habitats, and the functionality (ability to burn) of healthy ecosystems that have been influenced by periodic fire throughout their natural history. Current understory condition, along with the effects from the proposed and no action alternatives, will be discussed in this section.

Existing conditions: The stands proposed for treatment in the Greater Collier Project occur within the Sipsey Plateau and Moreland Plateau Land Type Associations (LTAs, USDA Forest Service, 1997). Typical soils of the area are generally deep to moderately deep, well-drained, permeable to moderately permeable, and formed from a residuum of sandstone with interbedded shale and siltstones (USDA Forest Service, 1997). Natural fertility is typically low, however a diverse array of vegetation is represented within these LTAs under natural native conditions.

Stands proposed for First Plantation Thinning (FPT) treatments are typically shaded stands of loblolly pine. The abundance and diversity of the existing herbaceous understory in these stands (approximately 2452 acres) varies across the district but it is generally low within most of the proposed stands due to relatively high basal areas, as compared to stands representing DFC. The high basal areas and resulting over-story canopy closure shades and suppresses sun-loving upland herbaceous understory plant communities. Understory-level vegetation in the upland stands proposed for FPT harvest includes shade-tolerant woody saplings of red maple, sweetgum, and sourwood, lianas such as Virginia creeper, wild muscadine, greenbriar, yellow jessamine, poison ivy, and only sparse herbaceous cover consisting of more shade tolerant species such as Panicum boscii, Chasmanthium sessiliflorum, and Carex picta. Understory characteristics are similar on average for the intermediate thinning (Int. Thin) stands (approximately 1260 acres) and Shortleaf/SL-Oak Restoration (approximately 995 acres) although there is a significantly higher overstory hardwood component in the Int. Thin and Shortleaf/SL-

40

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Oak Restoration stands than in the FPT stands. There is a low to moderate level of undesirable (blackgum, red maple, tulip poplar) hardwood midstory in the proposed FPT Int. stands, and a moderately high level of undesirable hardwood midstory in the Int. Thin and Shortleaf/SL-Oak Restoration stands.

Shortleaf plantations (Shortleaf Release/Pre-commercial thinning; approximately 163 acres) currently have moderate herbaceous and shrub understories, due mainly to the young stand age and the amount of sunlight that still reaches the ground. Woody competition (such as loblolly, tulip poplar, and red maple) however, is abundant in the stands. HWD Release/PCT stands (approximately 80 acres) vary in composition and have some mature overstory pine and hardwood components but also have younger aged components (from regeneration following previous insect damage). These stands express low to moderate herbaceous understory abundance.

The existing wildlife openings are typically mowed, disked and planted throughout the year with annual plants (such as winter wheat, oats, etc.) or non-invasive perennials (such as partridge pea or clover) primarily to concentrate game species (including deer, turkey and quail) for harvest and viewing. These areas may also be managed as native plant communities to provide wildlife cover and foraging habitat.

Pond and wetland manipulation does not significantly affect terrestrial plant understories and will therefore not be further discussed in this section. Aquatic and terrestrial TES Plant and Rare Community resources are discussed in section Biological Environment section of the EA.

Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS)

Low levels of Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) infestations are currently known from within the project area. These are typically small infestations of kudzu, mimosa, and bicolor lespedeza and are found sporadically along the roads (including sections of Alabama Highway 33, FSR 245, 246, 239, 242, 142, and 234) and Chinese privet is found within some of the shaded bottoms adjacent to roads. The Bankhead has had an active NNIS treatment program and many of these infestations have been (or are in the process of being) controlled/eliminated. The treatment of these NNIPS is covered by two separate previous decisions (not specifically under this EA) and is analyzed here as a connected action only, since vegetative treatments may have an effect on NNIPS response.

Environmental Effects on Understory Vegetation Resources:

Alternative 1: No immediate direct effects to the general understory condition would occur under this alternative. In the longer term, under the No Action Alternative, there would be limited potential for the restoration of the proposed upland woodland areas, regarding desired future conditions (DFC) of the understory vegetation as described in the RLRMP, 2004. Effects from prescribed burning, implementation of the previous

41

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

timber sales associated with the Grindstone-Mill-Inman EA, and other small scale land practices would continue to occur in the vicinity. However, plant communities associated with open shortleaf pine and hardwood woodland ecosystems would not be released within the proposed stands under Alternative 1. Fine fuels (especially native grasses) would continue to be suppressed in the FPT, Int. Thin, and Shortleaf/SL-Oak Restoration stands and the functionality of the stads (as an open woodland system) would be minimal. Prescribed burns would reduce fuels but would not typically remove or control the larger overstory stems in the stands. Effective control burns would be more difficult to achieve in many of the proposed stands (all groups) due to the sparseness of fine fuels. No midstory treatments would occur and understories in the proposed mid-story stands would continue to remain suppressed.

Under the No Action Alternative, the maintenance of the shortleaf stands proposed for release (Shortleaf Release/Pre-commercial thinning) would be left to be prescribed fire alone. Some percentage of the stands would retain an herbaceous understory from frequent burning, however based on previous experience with restoration efforts on the district, and due to the decline of fine fuels in many of these stands (from encroaching woody competition), it is doubtful if this alternative would lead to the development of a diverse functional understory representing DFC in the majority of the stands.

Alternative 2: This alternative proposes thinning, restoration harvest, and herbicide and hand tool site prep and release in upland stands, midstory control, and WLO maintenance. Harvest for the timber harvest treatments is analyzed in this section based on using traditional skidder type logging equipment.

Harvest in the Shortleaf/SL-Oak Restoration stands will remove a large percent of overstory timber, opening the stand. The re-planting areas would be site prepared using herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers) and prescribed burning. Since prescribed burning intervals for establishing shortleaf seedlings are typically longer than for longleaf pine (Stambaugh et. al., 2006), herbicide will be an important tool in controlling competition during site prep and release. Mechanical site prep (roller drum chopping) is proposed in stands that were heavily damaged by the southern pine beetle in the early 2000’s and are currently regenerating to loblolly pine.

Immediate direct effects to existing understory vegetation in areas where either the proposed restoration timber sales and associated herbicide applications/chopping would occur, would likely be negative for some plant species in the short term. This is because above-ground vegetation and/or floral investments may be crushed or otherwise lost during the harvest and site prep process (depending on time of treatments). The selective herbicide applications listed for potential release in the first year can also harm some desirable graminoid and broadleaf herbaceous species. However, overall, the proposed treatments would most likely not cause a permanent loss of these plant species in the stands. Banked seeds in the soil would remain unharmed for the most part and would

42

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

serve to re-colonize the disturbed area. In fact, opening the canopy with the proposed harvests, site prep, and release treatments would allow the release of a diverse floral community, and equally as important, an abundance of plant species that would serve as continuous fine fuels for fire. These species would likely include members of the bluestems (Andropogon, Schizachyrium spp.), Indiangrass (Sorghsatrum), plumegrass (Saccharum), and other grasses, legumes (Fabaceae), composites (Asteraceae), and sedges (Cyperaceae). The proposed restoration harvest treatments, herbicide and mechanical site prep and release methods will help to successfully establish shortleaf seedling regeneration, control undesirable competition, and promote native understories. Significantly less soil erosion and longer lasting competition control benefits can be expected when using chemical site prep over mechanical treatments with upland pine ecosystem restoration (Longleaf Alliance, 2009).

WLO maintenance is proposed for a small percentage of the project area and these areas’ focus is primarily the concentration of game species, using native and/or desirable and benign non-native plant species. No adverse effects to adjacent ecosystems are expected.

Non-Native Invasive Plant Species

Under Alternative 1, current NNIPS control (from recent decisions) would continue. No additional activities (outside of those covered by previous decisions that may affect the spread or level of NNIPS infestations) would occur.

Although timber management actions (such as harvests and mechanical site preparation methods proposed in Alternative 2 are often necessary to enhance or restore natural ecosystems, they can also increase the potential for the spread and/or introduction of NNIPS, by increasing available sunlight and disturbing the soil. Once established, NNIPS can degrade wildlife habitat, impede timber regeneration, and alter the natural fire regime. It will be necessary to treat project area infestations at risk of spreading from the proposed actions in Alternative 2. Herbicide site prep applications should help to control NNIPS in Restoration stands. Thinning and midstory removal may slightly increase the likelihood of spreading NNIPS infestation due to increasing levels of sunlight, but this action can also release and expose seedlings that can be controlled with an active NNIPS control program.

WLO maintenance can sometimes spread NNIPS infestations also, especially if they currently contain invasive species. Previous NNIPS herbicide work has been done in the WLOs proposed for maintenance and the proposed actions should not significantly affect the spread of NNIPS into un-infested areas. Active monitoring and NNIPS control will continue in these areas, and when coupled with the successful implementation of the proposed actions in Alternative 2, healthy native understories are expected to be restored.

43

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Cumulative Effects:

Alternative. 1: When combined with other federal activities (prescribed burning, timber activities outside this decision, ongoing recreational use, etc.) and other non-federal (county road maintenance, various private land uses, etc.) actions expected for the reasonably foreseeable future, the No Action Alternative is expected to result in a less disturbed, but less functional upland ecosystem with regards to native plant communities, quality wildlife habitats, and natural forest structure.

Alternative 2: When combined with other federal activities (prescribed burning, timber activities outside this decision, ongoing recreational use, etc.) and other non-federal (county road maintenance, various private land uses, etc.) actions expected for the reasonably foreseeable future, Alternative 2 is expected to result in a more actively managed forest with more short-term disturbance. However the cumulative effects of all related actions are expected to provide for more functional upland ecosystems with regards to native plant communities, quality wildlife habitats, and natural forest structure.

Soil Resources

Affected Environment

Soils within the boundaries of the proposed project are located primarily in the Shale Hills and Mountain Subsection. A small portion of the soils within the boundary of the proposed project on the northern end falls in the Sandstone Mountain Subsection. The Shale Hills and Mountain Subsection is made up of one Land type Association or LTA known as the Black Warrior Hills. The Sandstone Mountain Subsection consists of 5 LTAs. The small portion of the proposed project can be found in one of these LTAs; the Sandstone Hills LTA. The geology is primarily sandstone and shale. Soils weathered into loamy soils containing sand, silt and clay. Land surface form ranges from upland hills of moderately low relief. Overstory vegetation is pine-oak.

An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory of the Bankhead National Forest at a 1:24,000 scale identified 8 soil map units within the proposed project boundary and is listed below. Seven 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. Maps and soil descriptions are available for viewing at the Ranger Station Office.

44

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Soil Resource Inventory Map Units

Apison-Sipsey complex, 6-20% slopes Bankhead-Rock Bluff complex, 40-60% slopes Sipsey Sandy loam, 4-20% slopes Smithdale sandy loam, 4-10% slopes Tidings-Bankhead complex, 20-45% slopes Tidings-Bankhead complex, 35-60% slopes Tidings-Bankhead-Rock Outcrop complex, 25-60% slopes Townley silt loam, 2-8% slopes Townley-Apison complex, 4-15% slopes Wynnville fine sandy loam, 0-6% slopes

Apison soils have sandy loam surface horizons 8 to 12 inches thick over clay loam and silty clay loam subsoils. The shallow Bankhead soils have a sandy loam surface thickness ranging from 2 to 4 inches over subsoils consisting of cobbly loamy sand. Sipsey soils have sandy loam surface horizons 14 to 17 inches thick over loamy and sandy clay loam subsoils. Smithdale soils have an 8 to 10 inch sandy loam surface horizon with sandy clay loam subsoils. Tidings soils have silt loam surface horizons 5 to 7 inches thick over silty clay loam and channery silty clay loam subsoils. Townley soils have silt loam surface horizons 3 to 5 inches thick over silty clay loam and clay subsoils. Wynnville soils have sandy loam surface horizons 12 inches thick over sandy clay loam subsoils.

Environmental Effects

Disturbance of soils from timber 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.

Direct, Indirect Effects of the No Action Alternative

There would be no direct or indirect effects upon the soil resource as a result of implementing this alternative. No ground disturbing activities are proposed under this alternative. Current rates of soil building, soil erosion and sedimentation would continue. Effects from existing roads and implementation of other small scale land practices would continue to occur.

45

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Direct, Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action Alternative

Table 1. Project Area Soils Data. Soil Name (Map Unit Symbol #) Slope (%) Compaction Hazard Erosion Hazard Townley silt loam (42) 2-8 Moderate Slight Wynnville fine sandy loam (44) 0-6 Slight Slight Smithdale sandy loam (49) 4-10 Slight Slight Sipsey sandy loam (50) 4-20 Slight Moderate Townley-Apison complex (52) 4-15 Moderate/Slight Moderate Apison-Sipsey complex (54) 6-20 Slight Moderate Tidings-Bankhead complex (60) 20-45 Moderate Severe Townley-Tidings silt loams (62) 20-45 Moderate Moderate/Severe Tidings-Bankhead complex (80) 35-60 Moderate Severe Tidings-Bankhead-RockOutcrop 25-60 Moderate Severe Complex (82) Bankhead-rock Bluff complex (84) 40-60 Moderate Severe

This alternative proposes approximately 3,712 acres of thinning, approximately 995 acres of clear cutting, a 32 acre seed tree harvest, approximately 1,176 acres of mid-story treatment, approximately 251 acres of pre-commercial thinning, and refurbishing 30 wildlife openings and constructing one wildlife opening for approximately 63.5 acres. Also proposed is 4.3 miles of passive road decommissioning thru placement of gates, and associated treatments with vegetation management, i.e. use of herbicides, fire and mechanical equipment.

4000 3500 Clear Cut 3000 Thinning 2500 Pre-Commercial Thinning 2000 1500 Mid-Story Treatment 1000 Herbicide Treatment 500 Mechanical Site Prep 0 No Action Site Prep Burn

46

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Treatment No Proposed Action Action Clear Cut 0 1027* Thinning 0 3712 Pre-Commercial 0 251 Thin Mid-story Treatment 0 1176 Herbicide 0 2454 Application Mechanical Site Prep 0 244 Site Prep Burn 0 995

*Clearcut acres include 32 acres of seed tree harvest Figure 1. Silvicultural Treatments

Silvicultural practices (clear cut and thinning) are known to potentially affect the soil resource primarily through nutrient removal. Tree harvest methods prescribed by the proposed action involve treatments by clear cutting and thinning. 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).

When vegetation (living biomass) is removed from a site, a portion of potential organic matter and its availability to be recycled into nutrients to the soil is removed, and more sunlight and moisture reach the soil surface. The resultant open canopy condition would reduce evapotranspiration and affect soil temperature, soil moisture, and nutrient cycling. Canopy reduction would increase soil moisture (due to reduced evapotranspiration) and temperature in the topsoil. These conditions would increase soil organic matter decomposition rate and increase available nutrients on the treated area. Other parts of the tree would remain on site to recycle into the soil system over time. Much of this increase in plant available nutrients would be taken up the root systems of the remaining vegetation on the treated area, and by increasing herbaceous growth.

Almost all of the acreage (77%) to be thinned and clearcut has a slight rating for soil compaction. Approximately 20% have a moderate potential for soil compaction and approximately 3% have a severe potential for soil compaction (Table 1 and Figure 2). The 3% or approximately 120 acres of soil that is rated severe for soil compaction are located within the Brushy Creek floodplain and in portions of stands 3, 6, 11, and 12 in compartment 21; and stands 10 and 11 in compartment 31. These stands contain the wynnville soil series that either temporarily ponds water or has a temporary high water table resulting from slow internal drainage charateristics. These stands need to be harvested under seasonal dry conditions, usually late summer to early fall. Approximately

47

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

30 acres located in the floodplain will be dropped from first thinning during stand layout and marking. Performing management practices during either dry soil moisture periods or dry seasonal periods will usually reduce the potential for soil compaction. A good indicator of soil compaction is rutting from equipment tires or tracks. The soils rated moderate for potential compaction and their location is filed at the Bankhead Ranger District office as part of the project files. Monitoring of timber sales on the Bankhead NF (2006-2007) found soil compaction to be minimal off roads and primary skid trails. Compaction was determined by the percentage of tire rutting. Tire ruts observed averaged less than 3 inches and were over short distances of less than 30 feet. Tire rutting was over short distances as a result enforcement of sale contract standard and guidelines. Soil compaction can be reduced by operating equipment during dry ground conditions. Soil compaction has been found to be the most detrimental on roads and skid trails (primary and secondary trails). Thinning involves fewer passes with equipment, usually less than two, compared to even-age and uneven-age harvests. Implementation of mitigating measures such as fertilizing and revegetating can reduce the effects of soil compaction (improve soil bulk density).

The majority of the acreage to be thinned and clear cut, has a moderate rating for soil erosion (Table 1 and Figure 3). The soil map units 60, 62, 80, 82 and 84 have a severe rating for soil erosion. These map units are areas containing bluff lines and associated steep to very steep slopes. Map unit 60, 62 and 82 is the Tidings-Bankhead soils. Bankhead soils are shallow and associated just above rock outcrops. Tidings soils are located below bluffs and rock outcrops leading into drainageways. Map unit 62 is the Townley –Tidings soils generally not associated with rock out crops and bluffs but can be found on slopes exceeding 40 percent. Map unit 84 is the Bankhead soil associated with rock bluffs located on very steep slopes (40-60%). Slopes exceeding 40 percent need to be excluded from harvest if using conventional logging methods.

4000 3500 3000 2500 Slight 2000 Moderate 1500 Severe 1000 500 0 Alt. 1 Alt. 2

Figure: 2: Soil Compaction Hazard

48

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

2000

1500 Slight Slight/Moderate 1000 Moderate Moderate/Severe 500 Severe

0 Alt. 1 Alt. 2

Figure 3: Soil Erosion Hazard

Soil erosion can be expected under high rainfall and road use if standards and guidelines are not followed. Even-age/uneven-age harvest systems have a higher road frequency use and usually require more miles of skid trails than thinning. Other than roads and trails, site preparation usually accounts for most of the erosion potential. Thinning also does not require site preparation since no trees are being planted. Monitoring of even-age harvests and thinning on the National Forest, (2006-2007) has found soil exposure off roads and skid trails to be minimal, usually resulting from equipment tire slippage and dragging of tree stems. Soil erosion on these areas has been found to occur over short distances with soil being trapped by surface debris. Revegetation has been found to occur over a two year period returning the site back to non-erosive conditions. This alternative does not propose to construct any roads; proposal is to use existing roads. Soil erosion will occur primarily from temporary roads accessing stands and from primary and secondary skid trails. Soil productivity is reduced on roads and skid trails primarily from the loss of organic matter and portions of the surface soil horizon. Proper road locations on a landscape, soil interpretations and design level followed by placement of standards and guidelines for erosion, water control, and revegetation will result in acceptable soil erosion rates and will assist with restoration of site productivity.

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. The proposed action constructs an estimated 4.8 miles or 8 acres of temporary roads. The primary source of soil erosion is temporary roads and primary skid trails for the duration they are in use. 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. Temporary roads and primary skid trails will be compacted the greatest from multiple traffic use. Proper road locations on a landscape, soil interpretations and design level followed by placement of standards and guidelines for

49

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

erosion, water control, and revegetation will result in acceptable soil erosion rates and will assist with restoration of site productivity.

Midstory Treatment and pre-commercial thinning have similar effects as prescribed. Midstory treatment is proposed on approximately 1,176 acres and pre-commercial thinning is prescribed on approximately 251 acres. Treatment proposed is cut and leave, using hand tools, and/or herbicide. Harvest of material will not take place. The effects of cut and leave using hand tools will result in minimal soil compaction and erosion. The effects from mid story treatment using herbicide is discussed under the herbicide and section.

Herbicide The herbicides glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr, are proposed for use on up to as many as 2,454 acres under the proposed action alternative. Depending on site conditions after stand treatment(s) less acres may be treated with herbicides. These herbicides have no known effect on 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 to 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). There is, however, a general consensus that herbicide usage at normal forestry rates does not reduce the activity of soil micro-organisms. There is no evidence that the herbicides currently in forest management in the South produce any adverse effects on site and soil productivity. There is evidence that herbicide usage as a silvicultural tool can increase site productivity. Herbicides do not disturb the soil surface, thus the soil erosion is limited to natural processes or to the method of application. Existing organic layer(s) are left intact after herbicide use which mitigates rainfall impact and promotes water infiltration. Examining erosion from a variety of site preparation techniques in the South, it is evident that herbicides use results in sediment yields more similar to undisturbed watersheds than mechanically prepared ones. Neary and others (1986) found erosion rates of 170 kg/ha on herbicide treated plots compared to 67 kg/ha on control plots. Douglas and Van Lear (1983) found erosion rates of 44 kg/ha on burned plots versus 39 kg/ha on control plots. Both experiments were conducted on Piedmont soils with Neary and others having plots located on steeper terrain. In the upper coastal plain Beasley and others (1986) found erosion rates for shear and windrow to be 1,005 kg/ha compared to 205 kg/ha for herbicides. The control plot erosion rate was measured at 147 kg/ha. Nutrient leaching after herbicide use has been little studied. Based on nitrate losses found by Neary, Bush, and Douglass (1983), nitrogen losses are less than 10 lbs/ac due to suppression of vegetative uptake. Losses of other less mobile nutrients are negligible.

Of the three herbicides proposed for use in this project, glyphosate and triclopyr are not soil active, nor soil mobile. Triclopyr is not highly mobile in the soil and is absorbed primarily by plant leaves and moves readily throughout the plant. It is rapidly broken down by soil organisms and ultraviolet light, persists an average of 30-56 days depending

50

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

on soils and weather. Glyphosate is similar to triclopyr in that it is foliar active and not soil active and has a similar half-life of 30-60 days. It is rapidly broken down by soil microbes. Sunlight causes little to no breakdown. Imazapyr is soil active with soil mobility being relatively low. Imazapyr is strongly absorbed by the soil, usually only found in the top few inches. Imazapyr has a half-life of 19-34 days. Studies in Alabama (Michael 1986) determined Imazapyr half-life in treated vegetation under field conditions ranged from 12 to 35 days and in soil from 19 to 34 days. Imazapyr can remain in the soil from 6 months to as long as 2 years. Exposure to sunlight assists with break down in soil, as well as soil microorganisms.

Site preparation burning on approximately 995 acres 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. A high risk from soil erosion occurs on constructed fire lines where soil exposure is usually necessary to maintain control of the fire.

Mechanical Site Preparation is proposed on approximately 244 acres. The mechanical method prescribed is a rolling drum chopper. 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 there is presence of surface debris and/or organic matter. The action of the chopper blade creating 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 minimal due to small, scattered areas of exposed soils, usually a result from the equipment (dozer) when making turns. Moderate to severe ratings reflect soil surface textures that are either loamy to clayey. These soils need to have treatments applied under dry to very dry soil conditions. Although use of a rolling drum chopper usually results in small areas of soil exposure, the potential for soil erosion exists. Application of mitigating measures will assist in reducing the effects of soil erosion over a two to three year period.

51

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

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

Wildlife Opening Construction/Maintenance will be continued on 30 sites on approximately 50.5 acres. Two of the openings will be expanded accounting for an additional 8 acres and a new opening will be constructed accounting for an additional 5 acres. In summary, there will be 31 wildlife openings totaling approximately 63.5 acres. Construction and rehabilitation of wildlife openings will have a very slight effect on soil productivity. Use of a wheel tractor to disc will expose soil for a short time while planted seed recovers the area. Mowing can result in slight soil compaction lasting until the site is disced and replanted. Application of fertilizer will add nutrients to sustain plant growth.

Road Maintenance is scheduled on approximately 45 acres or 31 miles. Road maintenance operations within the road corridor such as blading the road surface and pulling the ditches can lead to increases in soil erosion and increases in sediment production. During road maintenance activities, soil may be displaced and exposed. Soil movement would occur, however, mitigation measures designed to stabilize the road surface, such as adding aggregate surfacing by armoring the soil or limiting distance and amount of concentrated flow by installing water diversion devices (dips, reverse grades, out slopes, leadoff ditches, culverts) would reduce adverse effects. The detachment and distance soil particles move would be reduced by limiting water concentration and movement on disturbed surfaces and/or fill materials.

Cumulative Effect of the No Action and Proposed Action Alternatives

No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative does not propose any new ground disturbance. Effects to soils generally occur because of ground disturbing activities. Cumulative effects from past and present activities generally result in a localized loss in soil productivity due to compaction, rutting, and/or soil displacement. However, soil erosion may also occur which may contribute to sedimentation. Activities on private lands would be site specific to those lands and no cumulative effects would occur to the soil resource from those actions. Cumulative effects from existing roads, thinning 600 acres under previous decision, implementing a 2-3 year return interval prescribe burn program, control of non- native invasive species, past prescribe burn on approximately 40,000 acres and other small scale land practices would continue to occur. Activities, on NF, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting soils listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forest in Alabama; therefore, cumulative effects from these actions are minimal. Activities on private lands would be site specific to soil on those lands and no cumulative effects would occur to the soil resource on public lands from those actions.

52

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Action Alternative Implementation of the Action Alternative considered together with past and reasonably foreseeable future activities is not expected to have a cumulative effect on the soil resource. Cumulative effects from soil compaction and erosion are generally expected to be short term, lasting one year for thinning, mid-story treatment, wildlife linear strip maintenance, road restoration, three years for clear cut with ground disturbing site preparation and three years or less for prescribe burn. On sites where vegetation management and prescribed fire are scheduled within the same three year period, recovery of site productivity may be as long as five years as a result of an expected longer time period for re-vegetation to occur. No long-term loss of soil productivity is expected. When compared to past harvesting intensity for the watershed, the proposed alternatives does not represent an increase in harvest activity or road use and their associated soil impacts. The potential cumulative effect on soil from the action alternatives over time is a loss in productivity. Cumulative effects to the soil resource from implementation of the Action Alternative along with continuing to implement the thinning of 600 acres under previous decision and implementing a 2-3 year return interval prescribe burn program is expected to peak between the years 2015 thru 2017. As forest vegetation restoration is completed, the remaining foreseeable future activities of prescribe burning will continue. Implementing standards for protecting soils listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forest in Alabama and in chapter 1 of this document were designed to minimize effects from these actions. Other past, present and foreseeable activities within the project area watershed that have the potential to interact cumulatively to affect soil are invasive exotic plant control and road maintenance.

Monitoring

Portions of stands have slopes exceeding 40%, particularly soil map units 60, 62, 80, 82 and 84. These portions having sustained slopes exceeding 40% need to be excluded from the stands during stand layout or non-conventional logging equipment is to be used (reference RFLMP, page 2-11, standard FW-7).

53

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Water Resources

Introduction This section discloses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the physical water resources in the analysis area from the alternative. For this water resource analysis the Greater Collier Analysis area (GCAA) is the three watersheds listed in Table 1. The project area is the approximate 6230 acres of treatments within the analysis area (table 1). This chapter provides the scientific and analytical basis to compare a no action approach to the proposed alternative. (40 CFR 1508.9(b).

Summary of Proposed Actions (See pages 10-20 for detailed description) First Commercial Thin approximately 2,450 acres. Intermediate Thin approximately 1,260 acres Restore approximately 920 acres of shortleaf pine woodland by clearcut with reserves. Restore 70 acres of shortleaf pine-hardwood forest by clearcut with reserves. Site prep approximately 990 acres for planting with the use of herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application with backpack sprayers), manual handtools, and/or prescribed burning. This area will then be planted with containerized shortleaf pine seedlings. Seedlings will be released if needed. This release will be accomplished with the use of handtools and/or herbicide (direct cut-stump/ individual stem foliar application/ basal bark with backpack sprayers). Mechanical site preparation (roller drum chopping) is proposed in select stands. (See Silvicultural Treatment Table.) Midstory/understory treatment on approximately 1,200 acres. This will be accomplished with the use of handtools and/or herbicide. Release/Pre-commercial thin approximately 170 acres of existing shortleaf pine with the use of handtools (chainsaws, brushsaws) and/or herbicide. Pre-commercial thin approximately 80 acres of mixed hardwood-pine stands using manual tools (chainsaws, brushsaws) and/or herbicide. Regenerate approximately 30 acres of upland hardwood using the seed tree method. Seed trees will serve as reserves and will not be removed. Stand will be managed as a two-aged stand. Site prep will be accomplished with herbicide and/or prescribed fire. Desirable hardwood species will be released with handtools and/or herbicide.

54

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Expand two wildlife openings and create one new wildlife opening in a southern pine beetle spot. Daylight and maintain existing wildlife openings. Daylight roads in timber sale areas. Restore native communities, glades and wetlands where needed. Install approximately 9 gates on roads that are currently closed but have been subject to illegal traffic. Close a portion of Forest Service Road 234 EA “Low Pressure Road” to vehicle traffic subject to illegal traffic and resource damage.

The proposed treatments within the Bankhead National Forest conforms to the objectives 1.3 and 1.4 of the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA, 2004) moving the project area towards forest ecosystems native to the Southern Cumberland Plateau Region, specifically shortleaf pine woodland and oak-pine woodland and forests as defined by the Forest Health and Restoration Project (FHRP). Data collected indicates that the majority of the areas within this analysis area do not currently meet the desired future condition (DFC). This project will emphasize returning proposed areas to one of six native upland forest community types. The proposed treatment includes approximately 6230 acres of treatments with approximately 244 acres of roller drum chopping site preparation; many times, more than one activity occurred on one acre, resulting in double counting of acres in this amount (Table 1). Herbicide, both hack and squirt and foliar application will be used on approximately 2454 acres. There are an estimated 4.8 miles of temporary roads in this project. Approximately 4.1 miles of existing temporary roads will need slight improvement, and approximately 0.7miles that have an existing road bed but will need to be cleared/graded to be functional. These roads will be built and improved over the next 5 years. Also there is approximately 4.3 miles of roads that will be closed with the installation of gates. An estimated 31 miles of road will have standard maintenance throughout the project. National Forests of Alabama utilizes the model developed by Clingenpeel (2003) in Sediment Yields and Cumulative Effects for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Uses to estimate sediment increases caused by these management treatments (Table 1). Sediment is an appropriate measure to determine the effects of management activities on water quality and its associated beneficial uses on forested lands (Clingenpeel, 2003, Coats and Miller, 1981). At this time only sediment models have been developed to measure erosion rates and sediment delivery from all forest management practices.

55

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

TABLE 1: MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS BY PRESCRIPTION AND WATERSHED.

First SL HRD Mid- Watershed Hardwood Int SL-Oak Watershed Plantation Release Release Story Acres Restore Thin Restore Thin PCT PCT Remove

Sandy Creek- 26,918.40 64 0 0 60 35 0 0 Sipsey Fork Caney Creek- 26,892.80 870 0 479 139 36 49 470 Sipsey Fork Rush Creek- 38,269.44 1518 32 781 796 100 31 706 Brushy Creek Total 92081 2452 32 1260 995 171 80 1176 Grand 6166 Total In addition, wildlife opening management will be continued on 30 sites. Two of the openings will be expanded accounting for an additional 8 acres and a new opening will be constructed accounting for an additional 5 acres. In summary, there will be 31 wildlife openings totaling approximately 63.5 acres.

The analysis conducted in Water Resources Section addresses Management Goal 2.A.2, To Protect and Enhance the Values of River. Water resource impacts from the proposed treatments (Table 1), if impacts do occur, are usually temporary in duration and minor to moderate on site, with elevated sediment concentrations for two to three years (Chang, 2003; Clingenpeel, 2003; Coats and Miller, 1981). Other concurrent management treatments that directly impact this analysis include the approximate 1000 acres of site preparation, the approximate 10,000 to 12,000 acres of yearly prescribed burning within the analysis area, and temporary road construction, improvements and deconstruction for this proposed project. The aspects just described, along with current land conditions, land type acres, and road lengths and types are all analyzed to produce an approximate increase in sediment produced by the management treatments of this project and cumulative effects of past, current, and future proposed projects.

Assumptions

Design Criteria It is assumed all Forest Wide Standards and those applicable to the Bankhead National Forest taken from the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) will be applied throughout this project (USDA, 2004).

Sediment Model The application of the sediment model should not be taken as absolute but as a method that can describe the effects from the range of alternatives and suggest where a greater

56

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

risk with respect to water quality and aquatic biota exist. Based on field observations from Dissmeyer and Stump (1978) and Clingenpeel (2003), the model assumes that all burned areas recover fully after one year and all harvested areas recover after three years. These recovery rates were determined from studies on the Ouachita National Forest and though field observations and are common in much literature and provide a realistic recovery value for the southeast and are appropriate for this level of analysis (Garten, 2006; Chang, 2003; Clingenpeel, 2003). As with any “predicted runoff or erosion value—by any model—will be at best, within plus or minus 50 percent of the true value” (Elliot et al., 1999). The model also assumes a worst case scenario that all proposed treatments, except mid-story removal, occur in 2014.

Private Lands It is assumed no substantial impacts to riparian areas, perennial, intermittent or ephemeral streams would occur; it is assumed BMPs would be adhered to on private forestry land.

Resources Indicators and Measures Existing levels of erosion-based sediment were approximated from current land use activities (methods summarized by Clingenpeel, 2003; Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978). Estimates of erosion and sediment from current land uses have been made by using the land use estimates and average erosion coefficients for these practices (Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978). Measurements are in tons of sediment per year delivered to the streams systems. Increases in treatment area correlate to increases in stream sediment.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition Historically, the Southwestern Appalachian region of northern Alabama supported mixed forests that were dominated by mature hardwoods, longleaf pine, and shortleaf pine. While current vegetation includes this, many areas were planted in loblolly pine. The current condition is about 51% pine and 49% hardwoods. Disturbances in this forest system included fire (both wild and man caused), insects, diseases, storms, droughts and floods.

Climate Storms and storm sequences in the southeastern United States can be severe. Occurrences of rain from 5 to 8 inches or more have been generated from tropical storm events. Thunderstorms and frontal events are frequent, though typically not as rainfall

57

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

intense as a tropical storm. Tornadoes are common throughout the state. The northern part of the state – along with the Tennessee Valley – is one of the areas in the US most vulnerable to violent tornadoes. Generally, precipitation averages 55 inches per year for Bankhead National Forest. Water yield averages 22-24 inches; approximately 31-33 inches is typically utilized by plants in transpiration, or evaporates. The highest potential for precipitation and associated runoff and flooding occurs in the winter and early spring; high flows occurring between December and April and low flows between July and October. Average temperature in the analysis area is 62.5 degrees Fahrenheit.

Geology The Bankhead National Forest is within the western section of the Cumberland Plateau (Bailey’s Ecoregions) of Alabama (Bailey et al., 1994). The Greater Collier Analysis Area (GCAA) is located within two Land Type Associations (LTA); the Moreland Plateau LTA and the Sipsey Plateau LTA (Kleiner et al., 2007; USDA, 2004). The geologic age of the analysis area is the Pennsylvanian geologic sub-period of the Carboniferous period, extending from about 325 to 299 million years before the present. The soil parent material is sandstone and shale. The landforms are strongly dissected plateaus with moderately low relief. The aquatic system is riverine. The drainage patterns are dendritic to parallel dendritic in nature with stream densities averaging from 6.9 to 8.0 km/km² (11.1 to 12.9 mi/mi²). The headwaters do not typically have a floodplain where flood flows are partially detained and/or retained. The extensive networks of canyon and gully channels develop to be efficient for the delivery of flow and sediment. Partially because of this delivery efficiency of surface flow, base flow (or ground water contribution to surface flow) can be a minimal component of stream flow. Elevations of the GCAA range from approximately 900 ft. above mean sea level (AMSL) in the northern most stands to approximately 700 ft. AMSL in the southern stands (510 AMSL is normal pool for Lewis Smith Lake)

Watershed The Analysis Area is within the Cumberland Plateau Ecoregion upon the Sipsey Plateau and the Moreland Plateau land type associations (Kleiner et al., 2007). The hydrologic boundaries of the analysis area fall within the Sipsey Fork Watershed (HUC 03160110) of the Black Warrior River Basin (Figure 1). The analysis area is the three 6th level watersheds of Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork (HUC 031601100103), Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork (HUC 031601100104), and Rush Creek-Brushy Creek (HUC 031601100201) (Figure 1). No waterbodies within the analysis area are listed as impaired (ADEM, 2012). Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork and Rush Creek-Brushy Creek are well forested, 90 and 91 percent, respectively. Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork has more urban characteristics and pasture, with 67 percent forested. All three watersheds are functioning properly and 58

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

classified as good as determined by the USEPA (USDA, 2012). The majority of private land within the three watersheds is forested. Sipsey Fork (West Fork) Scenic River is within the analysis area and abuts or over laps some of the treatment areas of compartments 49, 50, 122, 123 and 124 (Figure 1). Brushy Lake Recreational Area is within the analysis area but not within the treatment area. Named streams within the GCAA follow; Beech Creek, Rush Creek and Collier Creek flow into Brushy Creek; Payne Creek and Grindstone Creek flow into Sipsey Fork. Near the confluence of Brushy Creek and Sipsey Fork, Lewis Smith Lake initiates the lacustrine system. These freshwater systems are suitable for a combination of uses: primary and secondary recreation, as source of drinking water, fishing, survival and propagation of a balanced indigenous community as well as industrial and agricultural uses as determined by the ADEM (2012). Stream flow behavior in the headwater streams is described as “flashy”, meaning that the channels and their contributing stream networks are capable of rapidly delivering a high volume of water in response to sustained heavy precipitation events.

Riparian Areas As explained in RLRMP, Riparian Areas are areas with three dimensional ecotones of interaction that include terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, that extend down into the groundwater, up above the canopy, outward across the floodplain, up the near-slopes that drain the water, laterally into the terrestrial ecosystem, and along the watercourse at a variable width (USDA, 2004). A riparian corridor is an administrative zone applied to both sides of a stream or alongside a pond, lake, seep or spring. Riparian Corridors and SMZ within the Analysis area are found in the GIS directory. Design criteria on the application of SMZs and Riparian Corridors are described in the RLRMP in Chapters 2 and 3 and Appendix C (Figure 1, cutout) (USDA, 2004).

59

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

1:150,000

Rush Creek-Brushy Creek

Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork

Legend

Riparian Corridor Streamside Management Zone

Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork Sipsey Fork, West Fork Scenic River . Sipsey Fork, West Fork Wild River Treatment Area Analysis Area 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles

FIGURE 2: WATER RESOURCES ANALYSIS AREA. CUTOUT IS THE RIPARIAN CORRIDOR AND SMZ MAPPED. THESE ARE MAPPED THROUGHOUT THE ANALYSIS AREA.

Wetlands Digital National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service are available for the entire GCAA (USFW, 2013). Wetland areas are found within the GCAA but are not within any treatment area. There are no surveys available that address springs within the boundaries of the proposed treatment units and all mapped hydric soils are associated with perennial streams.

Roads Within the GCAA, roads are mostly gravel or have a bituminous surface treatment and are designed for periodic to permanent use in such activities as logging, farming, ranching, recreation and access to home sites. State roads are mostly paved and account for very little of the approximate 563 miles of roads within the GCAA. There are approximately 778 road/stream interfaces within the analysis area and 67 road/stream interfaces within the treatment areas.

Herbicides

60

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Herbicides will be applied according to RLRMP directives and standards (USDA, 2004). The following is a short overview of the herbicides used for the proposed treatments on 2454 acres.

Imazapyr is a broad spectrum herbicide which controls most grasses, broadleaf weeds and woody species. It is absorbed by both foliage and roots, is translocated through the plant and is accumulated in the growing tissues and root system. Lateral and vertical movement in the soil is limited. Field studies show that movement is restricted primarily to the top three inches of the soil profile. The major route of degradation is photolysis; also broken down by soil microbes. Generally, imazapyr persists in the soil for three months and this depends on the concentration used and soil moisture. Imazapyr’s potential to leach to groundwater is high; surface runoff potential is high. Imazapyr is highly persistent in soil but breaks down relatively quickly in water. No known detrimental effects to fisheries or human (USEPA, 2006).

Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide used to kill weeds; it is effective in killing a wide variety of plants, including grasses, broadleaf, and woody plants. Glyphosate adsorbs strongly to soil and is not expected to move vertically below the six inch soil layer; residues are expected to be immobile in soil. Glyphosate is readily degraded by soil microbes to AMPA, which is degraded to carbon dioxide. Glyphosate and AMPA are not likely to move to ground water due to their strong adsorptive characteristics. However, glyphosate does have the potential to contaminate surface waters through erosion, as it adsorbs to soil particles suspended in runoff. If glyphosate reached surface water, it would not be broken down readily by water or sunlight (USEPA, 1993). The median half-life of glyphosate in soil ranges between 2 and 197 days; a typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested. Soil and climate conditions affect glyphosate's persistence in soil. The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few days to 91 days (NPIC, 1997).Many field studies involving microbial activity in soil after glyphosate exposures note an increase in soil micro-organisms or microbial activity, while other studies have noted a transient decrease in soil fungi, bacteria and microbial activity (SERA 2003).

Triclopyr is a selective systemic herbicide used to control woody and herbaceous broadleaf plants. There are two basic formulations of triclopyr (triethyamine salt and butoxyethyl ester).Offsite movement through surface or subsurface runoff is a possibility with triclopyr acid as it is relatively persistent and has only moderate rates of adsorption to soil particles. The salt formulation is water-soluble and with sunlight it may degrade in several hours. The ester is not water-soluble and can take longer to degrade. The ester binds to organic particles in the water column and precipitates to the sediment layer.

61

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Bound ester molecules degrade through hydrolysis or photolysis to triclopyr acid which moves back into the water column and continues to degrade (Tu et al., 2001).

Forest Plan Prescription Areas

The RLRMP provides general management direction in stated goals and allocation of prescriptions to specific areas. Forest Plan goal relevant to the Water Resources analysis is:

Goal 4: Watersheds are managed and/or restored to provide resilient and stable conditions to support the quality and quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions and support intended beneficial water uses.

Regulatory Framework Federal and State laws regulate the quality of surface waters in Alabama, including the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 22-22-1 to 22-22-14. Alabama water quality standards provide for the protection and maintenance of the existing and classified uses of the waters of the state. Waters in Alabama are classified for a variety of designated uses, which include: aquatic life, recreation, drinking water and agriculture.

The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has developed, in cooperation with the Forest Service, Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce sedimentation caused by forest management activities. The Forest Service meets or exceeds all of the State’s BMP’s, through the use of forest wide standards.

Federal

Clean Water Act

Section §304(a) of the CWA provides the information for the development of water quality standards the EPA imposes. Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based control program mandated by the Clean Water Act. Water Quality Standards define the goals for a waterbody by designating its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to protect water quality from pollutants. A water quality standard consists of four basic elements:

62

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

1. Designated uses of the water body (e.g., recreation, water supply, aquatic life, agriculture),

2. Water quality criteria to protect designated uses (numeric pollutant concentrations and narrative requirements),

3. An antidegradation policy to maintain and protect existing uses and high quality waters, and

4. General policies addressing implementation issues (e.g., low flows, variances, mixing zones).

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act requires projects to be consistent with the Forest Plan and to make the following findings [16 U.S.C. 1604 (g)(3)(E)]:

1. Soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged; 2. There is assurance that such lands can be adequately restocked within five years after harvest; 3. Protection is provided for streams, streambanks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands and other bodies of water from detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses and deposits of sediment, where harvests are likely to seriously and adversely affect water conditions or fish habitat; 4. The harvesting system to be used is not selected primarily because it will give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output of timber.

Executive Orders

Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977 No long or short term adverse impacts will occur to wetlands associated with the Greater Collier Watershed Forest Health and Restoration Project.

Floodplains, Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977 No adverse impacts to floodplains shall occur that will reduce its natural and beneficial values.

Other Guidance or Recommendations The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has developed, in cooperation with the Forest Service, Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce sedimentation caused by forest management activities. The Forest Service meets or exceeds all of the State’s Forestry BMP’s, through the use of forest wide standards.

63

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

The Black Warrior River Watershed Management Plan (2006) was prepared for the Black Warrior River Basin by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and presents a general assessment of the water quality conditions and water pollution control programs within this basin. This plan designates the Sipsey Fork within the Bankhead National Forest as Tier 3 Waters. Tier 3 waters have the highest level of protection and are identified as outstanding national resource waters.

Environmental Consequences

Resource Indicator The treatment activities proposed for the GCAA may have a variety of effects on water resources such as increased temperature, increased flow and increased sediment. The analysis conducted concentrates on sediment delivered to stream, as this is the leading stream impairment in the country and within Alabama. Past literature show effects from similar treatment and similar treatment area are minimal to moderate and temporary to short term (Grace, 2005; Aust and Blinn, 2004; Fulton and West, 2004).

Methodology Sediment model developed by Clingenpeel (2003) is utilized by the National Forests of Alabama and was used for this water resource analysis. Existing and expected levels of erosion-based sediment were approximated from land use activities delivered to small streams (Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978). Estimates of erosion and sediment from these practices have been made by using the land use estimates and average erosion coefficients for these practices (Clingenpeel, 2003; Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978). The model assumes constant erosion coefficients over a specific land type. The sediment prediction of this model should not be taken as absolutes but as a method that can describe effects from the range of alternatives and suggest where a greater risk with respect to water quality exists (Clingenpeel, 2003). Land areas, stream density, and road lengths were assembled using ArcMap 10.1.

Information Sources Land use estimates and erosion coefficients for those practices were derived from Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978. Map layers gathered for analyses were assembled from the USDA Forest Service, National Forests of Alabama; Bailey et al., 1994; Kleiner et al., 2007; and National Wetland Inventory, USFW, 2013.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The analysis area is within the three 6th level watersheds of Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork (HUC 031601100103), Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork (HUC 031601100104), and Rush Creek-Brushy Creek (HUC 031601100201). The sediment model utilized for these

64

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

findings was designed for analysis on 6th level watersheds for project level analysis. This area captures effects that may be caused by the management activity.

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Project Design will follow standards put forth in the RLRMP (USDA, 2004). Adherence to these design standards will satisfy the Forest Plan Area Goals, reflect and adhere to the Clean Water Act and the National Forest Management Act, and conform to Executive Order 11990 and Executive Order 11988. With the adherence to the design standards in the RLRMP, mitigation measures were not found necessary.

Alternative 1 – No Action Influences on water resources under alternative 1 would be limited to the effects of periodic prescribed burning under already existing project decisions, routine road maintenance, invasive species control, southern pine beetle control efforts, management activities on private lands and climate change. Road maintenance slated for this project would not occur. Sediment modeling based on current conditions indicates approximate levels of sediment being delivered to streams within the watershed areas: Caney Creek- Sipsey Fork 1620 tons per year, Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork 2202 tons per year, and Rush Creek-Brushy Creek 2414 tons per year. Analysis conditions are based on best information available.

Cumulative Effects - Alternative 1

Because of the high density of Forest Service managed lands and privately owned forest lands on the Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork and the Rush Creek-Brushy Creek watersheds, the majority of sediment is derived from forested lands. On the Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork watershed the majority of sediment is derived from private land. Soil loss and sediment yields would be associated with existing roads and ongoing land management activities. On private land, sediment and water quality (including fecal) impacts are primarily associated with communities, roads and timber harvesting. The normal geological and legacy erosion of approximately 63,190 tons per year and sedimentation of approximately 6240 tons/year (Table 2 and 3, Figure 2) for the analysis area (Figure 1) would continue relative to current conditions.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action The proposed management activities (Table 1) has a potential to increase erosion and sediment. Maintaining Riparian Corridors and SMZ’s as well as following all forest management standards in the RLRMP (USDA 2004) will allay this issue. Water resource impacts is primarily temporary in duration and minor to moderate on site with elevated sediment concentrations for two to three years (Grace, 2005 ; Aust and Blinn, 2004; Fulton and West, 2004; Chang, 2003; Clingenpeel, 2003; Coats and Miller, 1981). With

65

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

the concentration of treatments, the model predicts an increase in sediment primarily within the Rush Creek-Brushy Creek watershed but a minor increase in all watersheds.

Timber harvest activities have a potential to affect water quality of streams within the vicinity of harvested areas. Soil disturbance and soil compaction from the use of heavy equipment is the primary initiator to increase erosion, leading to increased stream sediment. Skidder trails/landings and temporary roads have the highest probability to decrease water infiltration and increase surface water flow. This can increase water volume/velocity and soil erosion. The concentrated water, if left uncontrolled can result in stream sedimentation. The development and use of skid trails would likely increase stream sediment during use and for a short term after. Following of RLRMP standards will reduce sediment delivery to streams from skid trails.

Nutrient and sediment delivery to streams correlate. As the density of the forest stand decreases, intercepted rainfall and transpiration decreases, increasing the amount of surface water runoff, soil moisture, and subsurface interflow from the area (Chang, 2003).Sediment and nutrient delivery to streams often increases after timber harvest operations and is proportional to the area disturbed and maintained free of vegetation (Gucinski et al., 2001). Nutrient losses from a site and into a waterbody increase proportionately with sediment movement (Schultz, 1997).

Within some of the stands following the shortleaf/shortleaf-oak restoration treatment, roller drum chopping will crush the remaining vegetation except those trees designated as needed for seed tree or basal area reserve. The roller drum chopping crushes trees and brush while the blades chop them, increasing ground surface roughness (Zachman, 2003). Crushing the remaining woody debris greatly improves water retention and availability on the effected site (Sorensen, 1997) decreasing soil erosion potential. After roller drum chopping is complete, the sites will be planted. Development of understory vegetation after harvest increases surfaces roughness decreasing erosion potential.

Wetlands If wetlands are found within or bordering the treatment areas, refer to RLRMP for forest wide standards and guidelines (USDA, 2004). Proposed treatments will not affect any wetlands mapped by US Fish and Wildlife in the analysis area if standards outlined in RLRMP are followed.

Herbicide Approximately 2454 acres within the GCAA is slated for Herbicide treatment. All stands except the First Plantation Thin and Intermediate thin are proposed for herbicide application. Treatment will take place for removal of undesired residual vegetation, to

66

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

benefit the establishment of desired vegetation and for stand release. No effects to water resources will occur if standards and directives from the RLRMP are followed (USDA, 2004).

The potential for surface or ground water contamination from an application of imazapyr, glyphosate, or triclopyr is very slight. Foliar hand applications offer very little potential for drift. The hack and squirt method would have a lower potential for contamination since the herbicide is applied directly to the cambium of the treated vegetation via a squirt or spray bottle. The herbicide is then readily taken up by the plant. The dispersed nature of herbicide application in combination with the low frequency and low application rates would present a low risk of pollution to groundwater. Streams would be protected from herbicide translocation, as a RLRMP standard, by limiting herbicide application 200 ft. from streams, riparian and aquatic zones (USDA, 2004). This application buffer and the prescribed Riparian Corridors would reduce the amount of offsite movement of imazapyr, glyphosate, or triclopyr in stormflow.

Roads There is an estimated 4.8 miles of temporary roads in this project. Approximately 4.1 miles of existing temporary roads will need slight improvement, and approximately 0.7 miles that have an existing road bed but will need to be cleared and/or graded to be functional. These roads will be improved over the next 5 years. Also there is approximately 4.3 miles of roads that will be closed with the installation of gates. There is an estimated 31 miles of road maintenance in this project that will have standard maintenance throughout the project. Temporary road construction and maintenance and standard road maintenance would produce sediment through grading and ditching. Adverse water quality impacts from temporary road construction and use for timber harvest activities are typically short-lived, occurring at the highest levels during and for a few years after construction. Closing the 4.3 miles of roads will offset some sediment production from opening and clearing temporary roads. Temporary roads are closed after harvest and impacts decrease in intensity as the road surface and cut-fill slopes stabilize, and roads revegetate (Chang, 2003; Fulton and West, 2002; Gucinski et al., 2001). Maintenance of roads and culverts would benefit hydrology and stream water quality by ensuring drainage culverts function properly and that the road bank maintains adequate vegetative cover.

Sediment Model Results Erosion, sediment and sediment concentration estimates were made on the combination of proposed treatment activities. Approximately 6230 acres of vegetation management activities are proposed, approximately 244 acres of roller drum chopping site preparation, and the use of 4.8 miles of temporary roads; many times, more than one management

67

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

activity occurred on one acre, resulting in double counting of acres in this amount. If left untreated, under current conditions the GCAA would produce sediment averaging of 6,236.3 tons per year over the next ten years. The total estimated sediment amounts within the GCAA for the proposed management is 6,359.3 tons per year over the next ten years (Table 2, Figure 2). The decadal response of the proposed management increase sediment levels by 1.97 percent. If all treatment were to occur in 2014, except midstory removal, an initial response to the treatments would the largest, with increase in sediment in the Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork basin, Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork basin, and the Rush Creek-Brushy Creek basin of 10.7%, 1.0% and 18.1%, respectively, and decreasing to normal background levels within 3 years following the treatments (Table 2, Figure 2). Much of increase in sediment would occur during infrequent severe events, therefore sediment increases would be difficult to detect in normal day-to-day observations or monitoring (Chang, 2003). Sediment increases associated with activities would be temporary. As drainage areas increase in size, the increases in sediment would also decline with both dilution and sediment being deposited on floodplains as sediment delivery ratio declines as watersheds get larger (Chang, 2003; Elliot et al., 1999). Sediment values reported that reach the perennial streams are going to be reduced before reaching Smith Lake.

TABLE 2: ALTERNATE 2 SEDIMENT

Caney Sandy Rush Creek- Creek- Creek- Sipsey Sipsey Total Brushy Fork Alt Fork Creek Alt 2 2 Alt 2 Baseline Sediment 562.23 549.10 698.38 1809.71 Current Sediment 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2014 1793.72 2223.98 2852.31 6870.01 Sediment 2015 1754.82 2219.19 2781.66 6755.67 Sediment 2016 1636.13 2202.34 2443.09 6281.56 Sediment 2017 1628.96 2202.34 2436.68 6267.98 Sediment 2018 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2019 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2020 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2021 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2022 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2023 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Average Tons / Year 6359.31

68

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2

Other past, present and foreseeable future activities within the project area watersheds also have a potential to interact cumulatively to affect water resources include herbicide release, SPB suppression and control activities, invasive exotic plant control, system, county, state and special use road maintenance, temporary road construction and maintenance, timber sale activities, prescribed burning, gully restoration/rehabilitation, various types of land uses associated with forestry, agriculture, rural and urban development, golf courses and lake management.

Approximately 700 acres of thinning has occurred within the past two years and approximately 600 acres of additional thinning is to take place within the next two to three years upon completion of this plan within the GCAA. This would supply negligible additional sediment within the GCAA (Table 3).

Prescribed burning following re-vegetation by understory species would increase potential sediment runoff the year following the burn by approximately 8% and increase water yield. A low intensity burn would minimize this. Generally, during low intensity surface burns, woody vegetation recovers quickly along with warm season grasses. Prescribed burning would not be conducted in the regeneration areas in the short term.

Some past and current projects within the effected project area watersheds involve the use of herbicides for selective release and non-native invasive plant control. Herbicide would be applied by on-the-ground, foliar and cut surface application methods. These methods as outlined in the RLRMP would reduce the potential for drift or accidental contamination of non-target areas as well as negate herbicide contaminating stream networks. Herbicides used would degrade in the environment after application, leaving a limited window for accumulation.

69

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

TABLE 3: CUMULATIVE EFFECT SEDIMENT

Caney Sandy Rush Creek- Creek- Creek- Total Sipsey Sipsey Brushy Fork Fork Creek Baseline Sediment 562.23 549.10 698.38 1809.71 Current Sediment 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2012 1629.37 2202.34 2422.71 6254.42 Sediment 2013 1739.72 2202.34 2418.43 6360.49 Sediment 2014 1793.72 2223.98 2852.31 6870.01 Sediment 2015 1754.82 2219.19 2775.24 6749.25 Sediment 2016 1636.13 2202.34 2446.62 6285.09 Sediment 2017 1628.96 2202.34 2440.20 6271.50 Sediment 2018 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2019 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2020 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Sediment 2021 1619.81 2202.34 2414.16 6236.31 Ton / Year 6373.60

Activities on Private Lands

The majority of the GCAA watersheds, including interspersed private lands, consist of closed canopy evergreen forest/woodland. Timber harvest activities on private lands are expected to contribute to both short-term and long-term adverse impacts to water resources in the GCAA watersheds and would interact cumulatively with the proposed vegetation management activities. Overall, these adverse impacts are not expected to be significant since the majority of the watershed is forested, providing protective buffers along streams and wetlands. The implementation of BMP is relatively well accepted as a standard practice on private land and aids in the protection of water quality. Loggers are trained in BMP implementation. The potential for timber harvesting under Alternative 2 to cumulatively contribute to adverse impacts on water resources would be minimal over the short-term.

70

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Required Monitoring The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan provides for the protection, restoration, and monitoring of riparian ecosystems, wetlands, and aquatic systems and for assuring that aquatic habitat conditions are suitable to maintain native aquatic communities. Water quantity and quality, atmospheric deposition, in-stream large woody debris, and aquatic species passage will be monitored. A community-based monitoring approach will be used to assess aquatic habitats, in lieu of designing individual MIS. The species composition of aquatic insects, fish, and mussels will be monitored in representative stream reaches of the GCAA. These approaches will look at community composition as an indication of the overall integrity of aquatic communities. Comparisons of reference and managed reaches will be used to indicate the effects of management activities on aquatic habitat and communities. During the implementation of the management activities watershed conditions, improvement needs, water quality, soil and water standards, and the implementation of BMP’s, specifically Riparian Corridors and SMZ’s, will be monitored.

Summary Following standards and guidelines in the RLRMP, the implementation of the proposed vegetative treatment, as well as, past actions and foreseeable future actions, sediment delivery for the three subwatersheds of the GCAA will have a decadal increase in sediment of 1.97 percent; at the watershed scale, this change is negligible.

71

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

3000.00 Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork Alt 2 Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork Alt 2 2500.00 Rush Creek-Brushy Creek Alt 2

2000.00

1500.00

1000.00

500.00

0.00

FIGURE 3: PROPOSED TREATMENT ACTIVITIES, SEDIMENT IN TONS PER YEAR PER WATERSHED .

Climate Change Analysis

Affected Environment

Climate change can affect the resources in the Greater Collier project area and the proposed project can affect climate change through altering the carbon cycle. Climate models are continuing to be developed and refined, but the two principal models found to best simulate future climate changed conditions for the various regions across the country are the Hadley Centre model and the Canadian Climate Centre model (Climate Change Impacts on the United States 2001). Both models indicate warming in the southern region. However, the models differ in that one predicts little change in precipitation until 2030 followed by much drier conditions over the next 70 years. The other predicts a slight decrease in precipitation during the next 30 years followed by increased precipitation. These changes could affect forest productivity, forest pest activity, vegetation types, major weather disturbances (droughts, hurricanes), and steam flow. These effects would likely be seen across the forest.

72

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Recent scientific literature confirms a general pattern of changes in net ecosystem productivity (NEP)2 and carbon stocks over the period of forest stand development. Most mature and old stands remain a net sink of carbon. Pregitzer and Euskirchen (2004) synthesized results from 120 separate studies of carbon stocks and carbon fluxes for boreal, temperate, and tropical biomes. They found that in temperate forests NEP is lowest, and most variable, in young stands (0-30 years), highest in stands 31-70 years, and declines thereafter as stands age. These studies also reveal a general pattern of total carbon stocks declining after disturbance and then increasing, rapidly during intermediate years and then at a declining rate, over time until another significant disturbance (timber harvest or tree mortality resulting from drought, fire, insects, disease or other causes) kills large numbers of trees and again converts the stands to a carbon source where carbon emissions from decay of dead biomass exceeds that amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis within the stand.

Timber harvesting and burning may change the amount of carbon sequestered in forests. Timber harvests result in lower amounts of carbon left in forests as living biomass is removed, especially when more of the basal area is removed and in clear-cuts1 (Li,Chen et al. 2007; Depro, Murray et al. 2008; Nunery and Keeton 2010), although carbon may continue to be stored in manufactured wood products (Nunery and Keeton 2010). At the same time, timber harvesting of forest products, as proposed for this environmental assessment, may reduce CO2 emissions by forests, increasing CO2 uptake due to enhancement of net primary productivity and net ecosystem productivity (Birdsey, Pregitzer et al. 2006; Boerner, Huang et al. 2008 ). Forest harvesting may result in immediate reductions of forest carbon (Depro, Murray et al. 2008; Nunery and Keeton 2010), but this has been shown to be balanced by increased carbon sequestration in subsequent years (Boerner, Huang et al. 2008 ).

Carbon dioxide and water vapor generally make up over 90 percent of the total emissions from wildland fire (Hardy, Ottmar et al. 2001), releasing approximately 3,000 pounds of CO2 per ton of fuel consumed. Since wildfires usually consume more fuel than prescribed fires, they release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Prescribed burning is used to reduce the fuel load and the risk of severe wildfire, thereby limiting the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Carbon stored in forests may be severely impacted by forest fires, with resulting exacerbation of global climate change. Intensely and extensively burned forest areas no longer sequester carbon at the same rate as they did pre-fire. Unlike large-scale wildfires, prescribed burns are low intensity and cover only small areas at a time. This results in differences between wildfires and prescribed fires in

2 Net ecosystem productivity, or NEP, is defined as gross primary productivity (GPP) minus ecosystem respiration (ER) (Chapin et al. 2006). It reflects the balance between (1) absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis (GPP) and (2) the release of carbon into the atmosphere through respiration by live plants, decomposition of dead organic matter, and burning of biomass (ER). When NEP is positive, carbon accumulates in biomass. Ecosystems with a positive NEP are referred to as a carbon sink. When NEP is negative, ecosystems emit more carbon than they absorb. Ecosystem with a negative NEP are referred to as a carbon source. 73

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

their effect on the forest carbon cycle. During a fire, carbon stocks are released into soils through the death of living vegetation, temporarily increasing the overall carbon content of the soil in some cases; in other circumstances resulting in overall soil carbon loss. Studies have shown that prescribed fires and wildfires both can increase or decrease carbon content in soils (Johnson and Curtis 2001; Cason, Grebner et al. 2006). Low- intensity controlled burns generally do not result in major long-term losses of soil carbon or coarse woody debris on the forest floor (Johnson and Curtis 2001; Hubbard, Vose et al. 2004; Boerner, Huang et al. 2008 ), and they result in less soil carbon loss than high- intensity fires (Cason, Grebner et al. 2006). A short-term loss of biomass resulting from a prescribed fire may be offset by the burned area’s increased ability to produce herbaceous biomass (McCarty 2002). According to a regional study, the largest carbon pool in forests is in living trees (Li, Chen et al. 2007). Regular, periodic prescribed burning results in a risk reduction of catastrophic, stand replacing wildfire occurrence (Fernandes and Botelho 2003). Carbon stocks that had been stored within the trees are released into the atmosphere as a result of wildfires (Hubbard, Vose et al.2004; Birdsey, Pregitzer et al. 2006); prescribed fires generally do not result in large-scale tree death and therefore do not release carbon to the same extent as a wildfire. In fire-mediated ecosystems, carbon sequestration generally equals or exceeds sequestration in unburned systems (Liechty, Luckow et al. 2005).

Soil carbon levels (both organic and inorganic) can also change with forest harvesting, although there is some evidence that timber removal does not change soil carbon levels, as long as the area remains forested (Ponder 2007; Depro, Murray et al. 2008). Two primary changes to soil organic carbon may occur: carbon is released when decaying root systems are consumed and respired by soil microbes; and carbon stored in soil biomass increases with increased forest floor herbaceous vegetation. Changes to soil organic carbon levels resulting from plant turnover may increase energy available to soil microbes, ultimately resulting in decreased inorganic carbon levels deep in the soil. This deep soil carbon is one of the largest carbon pools, and its release and reduction over time may have climatic consequences (Fontaine, Barot et al. 2007).

Direct, Indirect Effects of Alternative 1

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change from the current condition; forested stands are expected to be less resilient to possible climate change impacts such as changes in productivity or insect and disease compared to the action alternative.

Direct, Indirect Effects of Alternative 2

The impacts of the action alternative on global carbon sequestration and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are miniscule. However, the forests of the United States significantly reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2 resulting from fossil fuel emissions. The forest and wood products of the United States currently sequester

74

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

approximately 200 teragrams3 of carbon per year (Heath and Smith, 2004). This rate of carbon sequestration offsets approximately 10% of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels (Birdsey et al., 2006). U.S. Forests currently contain 66,600 teragrams of carbon. The short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates resulting from the proposed project are imperceptibly small on global and national scales, as are the potential long-term benefits in terms of carbon storage.

The currently large carbon sink in U.S. forests is a result of past land use changes, including the re-growth of forests on large areas of the eastern U.S. harvested in the 19th century, and 20th century fire suppression in the western U.S. (Birdsey et al., 2006). The continuation of this large carbon sink is uncertain because some of the processes promoting the current sink are likely to decline and projected increases in disturbance rates such as fire and large-scale insect mortality may release a significant fraction of existing carbon stocks (Pacala et al. 2007). Management actions - such as those proposed – that improve the resilience of forests to climate-induced increases in frequency and intensity of disturbances such as fire, and utilize harvested trees for long-lived forest products and renewable energy sources may help sustain the current strength of the carbon sink in U.S. forests (Birdsey et al. 2007).

It is not expected that the action alternative will substantially alter the effects of climate change in the project area. The regeneration and thinning in the areas to be harvested and other vegetation management will provide more structural diversity to the area, and establish young, vigorous stands of timber and maintain health that may be more resilient to the changes in climate. The proposed fuels treatment in the action Alternative may contribute towards moving the burned area towards a community closer to its historic fire regime which may be more resilient to changes in climate. There will be a direct, short- term increase in carbon emissions during the prescribed burn and a short term increase due to an increase in dead vegetation following the burn. However the short term loss of biomass resulting from a fire may be offset by the burned area’s increased ability to produce herbaceous biomass. There is a direct beneficial effect on climate change of decreased greenhouse gas emissions from the acres to be burned because the risk of acres being burned by uncharacteristically severe wildfires would be reduced. There is also an indirect beneficial effect by treating these acres because live stands of trees will retain higher capacity to sequester carbon dioxide compared to stands killed by uncharacteristically severe wildfires, especially if not immediately reforested.

Overall forestry practices (including timber harvesting) have been shown to act as a net carbon sink (EPA 2001). Regeneration harvests will reduce existing carbon stocks at the harvest sites. The harvest of live trees, combined with the likely increase in down, dead wood will temporarily convert stands from a carbon sink that removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it emits, to a carbon source that emits more carbon through respiration than it absorbs. These stands will remain a source of carbon to the atmosphere until carbon uptake by new trees and other vegetation exceeds the emissions

3 200 teragrams, or Tg, equals 196,841,306 US tons. 75

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

from decomposing dead organic material. The stands will likely remain a carbon source for several years, and perhaps for more than a decade, depending on the amount of dead biomass left on site, the length of time before new trees become reestablished, and their rate of growth once reestablished. As the stands continue to develop, the strength of the carbon sink will increase until peaking at an intermediate age and then gradually decline but remain positive. Similarly, once new trees are established, carbon stocks will accumulate rapidly for several decades. The rate of accumulation will slow as the stands age. Carbon stocks will continue to accumulate, although at a declining rate, until impacted by future disturbances. Thinning stands is considered a short term reduction in carbon stocks with rapid increases in carbon stocks as thinned stands become more vigorous.

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 1 and 2

For both alternatives plus implementing the Action Alternative along with continuing to implement the thinning of 600 acres under previous decision and implementing a 2-3 year return interval prescribe burn program, there is confidence that temperatures are changing at a global scale, yet it is difficult to predict the effect of climate change at local and regional scales because the relationship between climate change and the proposed project areas are at a minute scale. Thus the contribution of the proposed actions and past and future projects to the carbon cycle is extremely small. When looked at the implementation collectively, the risk and rate of additional carbon release through regeneration and harvest and prescribed burning is minimal for the reasonably foreseeable future. Management actions such as those proposed will aid the forest in improving resiliency to changes in climate.

Biological Environment Wildlife, Fisheries, Rare Plants and Rare Communities This section discloses effects to biological elements of the environment expected as a result of implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. The biological environment includes the diversity of plant and animal communities, habitat components, and individual species of concern or interest. Analysis of effects to these elements is organized in a framework derived from the Revised Land & Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama and its Environmental Impact Statement and the Bankhead National Forest’s Forest Health & Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement. Use of this framework is designed to ensure comprehensive consideration of effects to the biological environment. Elements in this framework are listed in Table 1, where they are assessed for their relevance to this project. Only those relevant to the project are analyzed further.

76

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Table 1. Elements of the biological environment, derived from Forest Plan analysis, their relevance to the Greater Collier Watershed Project, and whether they will be further analyzed in this document. Biological Element Analyzed Further? Relevance to this Project (Potential Effects of Concern) Mixed Mesophytic Cove & Yes Present in watersheds. Conifer Northern Hardwood Amount of regeneration may Forest affect future quantity & distribution of mid- & late- successional deciduous forest habitats. Oak and Oak-Pine Forest and Yes Oak and Oak-Pine forests Woodlands present in watersheds. Management will affect future quantity, distribution, structure and composition of mesic oak forest, xeric oak, oak woodlands, oak-pine forest and loblolly pine forest. Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Yes Shortleaf, Longleaf and Forest and Woodlands Virginia Pine Forests present in watersheds. Management will affect future quantity, distribution, composition and structure of pine forests and woodlands. Rare Communities Yes Present in watersheds. Management actions may affect structure, function and/or composition. Aquatic T&E & Sensitive Yes Existing and/or potential Species & habitats habitat present. See biological evaluation. Terrestrial T&E & Sensitive Yes Existing and/or potential Species & habitats habitat present. See biological evaluation. Demand Species Yes Habitat present in watersheds. Management will affect future habitat availability and potentially affecting hunter opportunities/success.

77

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are plant and animal species, communities or special habitats selected for emphasis in planning. MIS are monitored during Forest Plan implementation, at the Forest level, in order to assess the effects of management activities on biological elements. MIS selected for the Bankhead National Forest and their reasons for selection are found in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (RLRMP), January 2004 and in the table below. A subset of these MIS is analyzed further in this analysis because their populations or habitats may be affected by the project.

Table 2. Management Indicator Species (MIS) selected for Greater Collier Watershed Project

Common Reason for Selection Related Analyzed Relevance of the Name RLRMP Further project (Potential Objectives Effects of Concern)

Wood thrush To help indicate 16.2, 16.4, Yes Amount of management effects on 16.5, 16.6 regeneration may wildlife species affect future quantity dependent upon mature & distribution of forest interior conditions. mid- & late- successional forest habitats.

Acadian To help indicate 9.1, 16.2, 16.4 No Proposed flycatcher management effects management will not within mature riparian affect future quantity forest community. of riparian forest

Hooded To help indicate 16.2, 16.4 Yes Amount of warbler management effects on regeneration may mesic deciduous forest affect future quantity and mesic oak and oak- & distribution of pine forest communities. mid- & late- successional deciduous forest and mesic oak-pine habitats.

Scarlet tanager To help indicate 1.3, 16.3, 16.4 Yes Amount of management effects on regeneration may xeric oak and oak-pine affect future quantity forest communities. and distribution of existing xeric oak and oak-pine forests.

78

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Brown-headed To help indicate 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, Yes Pine forests and nuthatch management effects on 1.4, 1.5, 16.1 woodlands identified the pine and pine-oak for restoration. forest community. Management may affect future quantity, distribution, structure and composition of pine forests and woodlands.

Prairie warbler To help indicate 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, Yes Proposed treatments management effects on 16.4 may affect quantity creating and maintaining and distribution of early successional forest early successional (low elevation) forests and woodland communities and other habitats. early successional habitats.

Northern To help indicate 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, Yes Proposed treatments bobwhite quail management effects on 1.4, 1.5, 16.1, may affect habitat. meeting hunting demand 18.1 Management may for this species. affect future hunter opportunities and success.

Eastern wild To help indicate 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, Yes Habitat present in turkey management effects on 16.3 watersheds. meeting hunting demand Management may for this species. affect future habitat availability and hunter opportunities/success.

White-tailed To help indicate 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, Yes Habitat present in deer management effects on 16.3 watersheds. meeting hunting demand Management may for this species. affect future habitat availability and hunter opportunities/success.

Pileated To help indicate 16.2 No Proposed project will woodpecker management effects on not affect amount of snag dependent wildlife snags available species. within the watersheds.

Swainson’s To help indicate 8.2, 9.1, 16.4 No Early successional

79

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

warbler management effects riparian forest not within the early present and proposed successional riparian management will not forest community. affect future quantity of early successional riparian forest.

Potential effects to additional elements of the biological environment were identified as relevant to this analysis. These elements are listed in Table 3. Table 3. Additional elements of the biological environment identified as being potentially subject to effects worthy of analysis and disclosure. Biological Element Analyzed Further? Relevance to this Project (Potential Effects of Concern) Amount of Early Successional Yes Proposed treatments may affect Forest quantity and distribution of early successional forests.

Hard Mast Production Yes Management of existing forests may affect quantity and distribution of mature oaks.

Riparian Corridors Yes Management of riparian corridors effects riparian forest associates and aquatic habitats.

The Greater Collier Watershed project proposal is described on pages 10-20. Refer to the Vegetation Effects Section for information on existing forest communities within the project watersheds. For the purposes of the analysis of the biological elements described above, an analysis area was developed based on watershed units. A map of the analysis area is included below. The analysis area for this project is about 32,546 acres in size. Within that analysis area, 25,602 acres of forest stands were identified and considered for analysis. Many of these 25,602 acres have not been inventoried as a part of this project. Only stands in Collier, Payne and Middle Brushy watersheds were inventoried. Therefore, some of the stand information analyzed is based on old records. However, this is the currently available information for analysis. Within those 25,602 stand acres of the analysis area, 6,847 stand acres are not classified as to forest type or age. About half of those unclassified stands are private lands.

80

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Figure 1. Greater Collier Analysis Area

The desired future conditions identified in the Forest Health and Restoration Project (FHRP) and in this watershed project combined with the resulting forest conditions after implementation of this project will determine the amount of wildlife habitat available in the project area in the future. Rare communities are potentially found in all of the forest communities present and being restored in the project area. The primary forest community emphasized for restoration over the long term is shortleaf pine woodlands. Other forest communities targeted for restoration include oak woodlands, shortleaf pine- oak forests, and hardwood forests. The majority of the areas being restored and converted are currently stocked with loblolly pine. Past management activities and policies have resulted in unhealthy forests and limited wildlife habitat. Unmanaged loblolly pine plantations, particularly those in the sapling/pole stage, are too dense for adequate wildlife habitat. Closed canopy forest

81

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

stands have little understory vegetation needed for cover, forage, and nesting by numerous wildlife species. Overstocking and years of fire suppression hinder the effective use of prescribed burning to restore and maintain native ground cover. Dormant season prescribed fire has been reintroduced in the project area in the last decade and wildlife habitat is improving. However, dormant season prescribed burning alone will not restore quality wildlife habitat. There are currently approximately 7,981 acres typed as loblolly pine in the analysis area. Of that, 3,657 acres typed as loblolly are proposed for treatment through this Greater Collier Watershed project. The majority of the project area lies within RLRMP Management Prescriptions, 7E2 – Dispersed Recreation Areas with Vegetation Management and 9C3 – Southern Cumberland Plateau Native Ecosystem Restoration and Maintenance. The 7E2 prescription emphasizes management that provides a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities while restoring the health and diversity of the landscape. Hunting and wildlife viewing are expected to be the major recreation activities in this prescription allocation, as state Wildlife Management Areas occur within them. The 7E2 prescription describes a desired early successional forest habitat component being present on 4-10% of the area. The 9C3 prescription emphasizes restoration of a mix of hardwood, hardwood-pine and pine (including shortleaf and longleaf) communities. The prescription describes a desired condition with between 10 and 17% of the area in early successional forest. It also describes that the area is primarily in mid- and late- successional conditions. Early successional forest is currently limited in the project area (1.1% of the analysis area) and consists of shortleaf pine planted in southern pine beetle (SPB) impacted areas. White-tailed deer browse in these young forests, while the Eastern wild turkey and numerous neotropical migratory birds forage and nest in them. Soft mast (berries and other fruits) is abundant in early successional forests and is an important habitat component for numerous species, particularly for forage. Snags are present in the SPB impacted areas and throughout the forest stands in the project area. Snags, when standing, are used by bats, woodpeckers, brown-headed nuthatch, and Acadian flycatchers. Once snags fall they are used by numerous insects and herpetofauna. Early successional forests and snags are ephemeral. Snags, soft mast, den trees, and hard mast trees are identified for retention in the RLRMP, the FHRP and the project design criteria to ensure they are consistently available for wildlife. Many terrestrial wildlife species, especially birds, are adapted to certain forest vegetation types and/or successional conditions. These community associates or habitat associations are often used to predict the consequences of land management activities. For this assessment, habitat associations were selected for analysis. They were selected because the wildlife associates may be found in the forest communities that are currently present within the watersheds and/or are desired future conditions within the watersheds being analyzed. Table 2 in Appendix D, adapted from the FHRP, displays the relationship between species habitat associations, forest community types, and management indicator species. North American Breeding Bird Survey trends, frequency of occurrence data, and harvest data for species selected as management indicator species can be found in Appendix D.

82

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Table 4. Past, Present and Reasonable Foreseeable Future Actions

Activity Description Burning-Bankhead National Forest Straw Riddle- 1580acres Implementation of Prescribed Burning and Shooting Range- 1310 acres Mechanical Fuels Reduction Treatments EA Davis Creek- 2652 acres (2013). West Fork (Partial)- 525 acres Beech Creek-786 acres Walston Ridge- 1946 acres Combination of growing season & dormant Collier Creek- 1188 acres season burns. Brushy Lake- 1064 acres Combination of short (2-4 years) and long (5+ Well Woman- 683 acres years) rotation burn frequency. Holmes Chapel- 794 acres All areas have been in semi-regular rotation for Brushy West-973 acres the last decade. Brushy East- 1063 acres Riddle (Partial)- 257 acres Payne Creek- 906 acres Payne Demo- 392 acres

Midstory Removal-FY 2009 Mechanical Fuels Approximately 350 acres of midstory removal Reduction and Wildlife Habitat Improvement was conducted in 2012. NNIS treatment-Enhanced Invasive Plant NNIS is treated as identified and as budjet Control EA (2012) allows. Wildlife Openings There are currently 30 wildlife openings in the analysis area totaling 50.5 acres Commericial Thin - (FHRP 2003) There has been approximately 50 acres thinned within the analysis area within the last 2 years. Rural and Residential Private Lands Existing Rural residential homes and pastures with the analysis area. No new planned residential developments known. Scattered tracts of private non-industrial timber lands and industrial timber lands.

Refer to the Vegetation Effects section for the current forest conditions in the project watersheds and effects of the alternatives on the forest communities. 83

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Mixed Mesophytic Cove & Conifer Northern Hardwood Forest Wood Thrush & Hooded Warbler Affected Environment Mixed mesophytic forests are among the most biologically diverse-canopied forests in the temperate regions of the world and can consist of over 30 canopy species. Most cove forests in Bankhead are associated with riparian corridors and within Riparian, Botanical Area, Wilderness or Canyon Corridor prescriptions. Cerulean warbler and several other wildlife species of “Greatest Conservation Need” (GCN) as identified in the Alabama Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CWCS) are associated with this community. A number of bird species, including the cerulean warbler, favor mature, mesic deciduous forest habitats with diverse and well-developed canopy structures that include canopy gaps and associated midstory and understory structural diversity. This structural diversity often results from mortality and canopy gaps associated with older forests. In the analysis area, approximately 95% of cove, mixed mesophytic and mesic hardwood forests are in the mid or late-successional condition. Approximately 76% of those forests are over 81 years old (late successional). Structural diversity within this community type on Bankhead results from individual and group tree mortality caused by lightening strikes, insects and disease, wind or ice damage, and age. Wood Thrush- The wood thrush is an area sensitive mid- to late-successional forest associate. Primary habitat is deciduous or mixed forests with a fairly well-developed deciduous understory, especially where moisture is present. Optimal habitat includes bottomlands and other rich hardwood forests. This bird also frequents pine forests that have a deciduous understory. Habitat management for the wood thrush centers on maintaining large tracts of deciduous forest habitat. Habitat degradation and fragmentation are threats to this species with habitat size being as important as habitat type. Currently on National Forest system lands, about 26% of the analysis area provides optimal habitat for wood thrush. This is found in mid- and late-successional cove, mesic hardwood and mesic mixed hardwood-pine forests. The areas within short rotation prescribed burn units being managed towards a woodland desired future condition (DFC) will not provide optimal wood thrush habitat as the dense understory will be replaced over time with an herbaceous one. Loblolly pine forests were not included as optimal habitat for wood thrush in this evaluation. Upland loblolly pine forest is not a DFC on Bankhead and will be replaced over time. However, some of these stands with dense understories are used by wood thrush. According to RLRMP analysis, 95% of the Bankhead National Forest falls within landscape units which are 70-100% forested and secure from the potential effects of forest fragmentation. The remaining 5% of the forest which may be influenced by the effects of forest fragmentation are in the northern section of Bankhead at the Tennessee Valley’s agricultural interface. Although there is a larger interspersion of privately- owned lands in the southern portion of Bankhead, the area is still considered to be forested and habitat for forest interior (area-sensitive) species is available. 84

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Hooded Warbler - The hooded warbler uses moist deciduous forests and mixed forests with a fairly dense understory. It is also found in the deciduous understory of mature pine forests. Habitat management includes creating canopy gaps if not present and maintaining a shrub layer. Hooded warbler is sensitive to forest fragmentation and requires well-developed understory and midstory layers. As with wood thrush, about 26 % of the analysis area is suitable for hooded warbler in mid- and late-successional cove, mesic hardwood and mesic mixed hardwood-pine forests. Understory and midstory vegetation within forest stands in the project area is abundant. This abundance of midstory and understory results from lack of prescribed burning and/or prescribed burning during the dormant season. Loblolly pine stands were not included in the habitat analysis for hooded warbler. However, hooded warbler may use these forests where a dense understory or midstory is present. Refer to the section above for a discussion of forest fragmentation. Alternative 1 – The no action alternative will have no effect on mixed mesophytic cove forest or associated wildlife species. Under all alternatives, cove habitat for these species would increase by 1% during the 10-year analysis period due to stand age. Alternative 2 - There will be no change in the amount or condition of cove forest habitat available for associated wildlife species. Approximately 27% of the analysis area will be available for wood thrush and hooded warbler in cove, mesic hardwood and mesic mixed hardwood-pine forest types. This is a 1.1% increase over current conditions. This increase is due to stands maturing into the mid- and late-successional age classes during the ten-year analysis period. No proposed treatments are aimed at restoring community types used by hooded warbler or wood thrush. However, wood thrush and hooded warbler may be encountered in upland stands proposed for restoration. Thinning is proposed in loblolly pine stands, loblolly-hardwood stands and hardwood- pine stands. While these are not optimal wood thrush and hooded warbler habitat, where these stands contain dense understory and midstory vegetation, they may be used. Thinning these stands will create canopy gaps. Thinning should improve habitat for hooded warbler and wood thrush in the first few years following harvest by allowing for dense understory development. However, stands planned for woodland restoration (approximately 60% of the acres proposed for thinning) will lose the dense shrubby understory component over time due to short rotation and growing season burning and midstory removal. Clearcut harvests proposed to regenerate and convert stands will not provide nesting habitat for these mesic deciduous forest associates requiring mid- and late-successional forests. However, post-breeding use of clearcuts and early successional forests by mature-forest birds including hooded warbler and wood thrush is well documented. A potential negative effect of clearcutting is potential predation and parasitism associated with edge effect. Recent research has shown that edge effects are minimal in openings created in mostly forested landscapes. Some studies have shown that predation is higher in remaining mature stands adjacent to clearcut stands. Gram et al. found brood parasitism to be generally low in the Missouri Ozarks following group selection (uneven- aged management) and clear-cutting (even-aged management). Additionally, they found

85

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

hooded warblers to move into an area after harvest and a trend in higher hooded warbler densities in even-aged and uneven-aged harvested stands as compared to untreated stands. In woodland stands, wood thrush and hooded warbler nesting habitat will be reduced. Midstory removal will immediately reduce nesting and foraging habitat. Midstory removal is prescribed for upland stands with a woodland desired future condition. Pine and oak woodlands are not optimal habitat for wood thrush or hooded warbler, so midstory removal effect should not effect these species. Powell et al. found that management for red-cockaded woodpecker (thinning and prescribed burning pine forests and woodland management) did not negatively impact wood thrush survival, density or population growth rates. They attribute these results to the fact that wood thrush is highly mobile and will move when necessary. The potential for direct negative effects includes destroying nests if timber harvesting is implemented during nesting. Most midstory removal and timber harvesting activities are planned for existing pine stands being restored to woodlands. These stands do not provide optimal habitat for these mature, deciduous forest associates. Therefore, negative effects are not expected. Cumulative effects of managing and maintaining riparian areas, canyons, cove forests and upland hardwood forests throughout the Bankhead National Forest will benefit forest interior and mid- and late-successional mesic deciduous species like wood thrush and hooded warbler. Management of woodlands in portions of the Bankhead will not provide optimal habitat for these species. Oak and Oak-Pine Forest and Woodlands Hooded warbler and Scarlet Tanager Affected Environment Following analysis in the RLRMP Environmental Impact Statement (Chapter 3.B., Section 1.3), Dry Mesic Oak Forest, Dry and Xeric Oak Forest and Woodlands, Loblolly Pine Forest, and Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine Forest communities are included in the Oak and Oak-Pine Habitat group. Refer to Table 2-1 in the RLRMP or Table 3-B1 RLRMP EIS for forest types included in this habitat group. For this Environmental Assessment, forest type, soil type, and management proposed, determine the amount of each community type present and resulting from implementation of the alternatives. Currently in the analysis area, the majority of this habitat group occurs as loblolly pine forest and mixed loblolly-hardwood forests (9,825 acres). The stand condition, or structure, in addition to forest type, determine the suitability for terrestrial wildlife. Hard mast is an important component of oak-pine forest communities. The hard mast component is analyzed later in the biological section. Most Dry Mesic Oak Forest on the Bankhead is classified as white oak/red oak/hickory. American chestnut historically occurred as a co-dominant species in upland sites in this habitat group. Hooded warbler is selected as an MIS for mesic oak and oak-pine habitats in this group. 86

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Hooded Warbler – As described in the cove section above, the stand condition (structure), a moist deciduous or mixed forest with a fairly dense understory, is what determines suitability for hooded warbler. Habitat management includes creating canopy gaps if not present and maintaining a shrub layer. Currently on National Forest system lands, 26% of the analysis area is suitable habitat for hooded warbler. Understory and midstory vegetation within forest stands in the project area is abundant. This abundance of midstory and understory results from lack of prescribed burning and/or prescribed burning during the dormant season. Loblolly pine and mixed loblolly-hardwood stands are not included in this analysis of hooded warbler habitat. Many are closed canopy plantations and do not provide good habitat. Xeric oak forest and woodland community includes chestnut oak/scarlet oak and bear oak/scrub oak types. The oak-pine community type is comprised of mixed oak-pine forests including southern and northern red, white, and black oaks and loblolly, shortleaf and Virginia pine. Scarlet tanager is selected as an MIS for the dry upland oak habitats in this group. Scarlet Tanager - The scarlet tanager uses a variety of hardwood and hardwood-pine forests. The tanager prefers mature deciduous forests, but may be found in young woodlands. It favors upland forests. Scarlet tanagers use the canopy of upland hardwood forests. Additionally, scarlet tanager is sensitive to fragmentation of forested landscape by non-forested cover. Habitat management includes maintaining large forested tracts and creating open canopies or canopy gaps. Currently about 2.5% of the analysis area is available xeric oak-pine or pine-oak habitat for scarlet tanager. The majority of the oak-pine group is currently loblolly pine and loblolly-hardwood forests. These forests do not currently provide habitat for scarlet tanager and were not included in the analysis for this species. There are no hardwood woodlands in the analysis area. All available habitat is in mixed stands. Refer to the wood thrush and cove section above for a discussion of forest fragmentation and current land ownership patterns. Loblolly pine forest comprises the majority of the oak-pine community type currently on Bankhead. There are no management indicator species selected for loblolly pine forest because there are no RLRMP management goals for loblolly pine. Effects Alternative 1 – Effects to hooded warbler habitat are described in the previous section. The no action alternative will have no effect on the xeric oak, oak-pine forest, pine-oak forests and woodlands communities available for scarlet tanager. Alternative 2 – There will be an approximately 0.1% decrease in the xeric oak and oak- pine habitats with the implementation of Alternative 2. This decrease is a result of converting a hardwood-pine stand to a two-aged hardwood stand by a seed tree harvest. No other treatments are proposed in xeric hardwood or hardwood-pine stands that would change the amount of available tanager habitat. The effects to hooded warbler, an MIS for oak-pine habitats, are described in the cove section previously. 87

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Direct and indirect effects to scarlet tanager are similar to hooded warbler because scarlet tanager also relies on canopy gaps and mature forest conditions. Scarlet tanager, like hooded warbler and wood thrush, is sensitive to forest fragmentation. Thinning will create canopy gaps within forested stands which should benefit scarlet tanager. However, thinning is primarily proposed for loblolly pine stands, which do not provide scarlet tanager habitat. There are 11 stands currently in mixed (loblolly-hardwood) conditions that will be thinned to promote oaks with desired future conditions of hardwood forest or hardwood woodland. These 11 stands will provide additional scarlet tanager habitat in the future, although are not considered optimal habitat during the analysis period. Clearcutting will not provide habitat for scarlet tanager as it is uses mature upland hardwood forests. One stand that is currently habitat for scarlet tanager will be harvested by the seed tree method and regenerated to hardwoods. A potential negative effect is potential predation and parasitism associated with edge effect. Refer to the previous section on wood thrush and hooded warbler for a discussion on predation associated with clearcutting. The greatest benefits to scarlet tanager from the proposed treatments are conversion over time of loblolly pine forests to oak and oak-pine forests and woodland restoration, especially oak woodlands. Scarlet tanager may use woodland areas that have been thinned, had the midstory removed, and have been burned. The method of midstory removal will not affect scarlet tanager’s use of the restored area. Alternative 2 proposes 1,540 acres of thinning, thinning and midstory removal, clearcutting, and hardwood release treatments to begin conversion of existing stands, primarily loblolly pine, to the desired future condition of oak-pine forest or xeric oak woodlands. It is important to note that while habitat will be improved for scarlet tanager, thinning and midstory removal treatments will not convert existing stands from loblolly pine to desired hardwood communities in one treatment. The majority of the stands treated will result in a mixed pine-hardwood condition. Natural regeneration of hardwood forests and release of existing early successional hardwood forests will have no direct effects on this tanager. However, restoration of upland hardwood and mixed forests on dry sites will provide scarlet tanager habitat over the long term, 30 plus years. The cumulative effect of restoring upland oak forests and woodlands on the Bankhead through implementation of watershed restoration prescriptions like this project will benefit the scarlet tanager. The northern portion of the Bankhead is considered to be continuous in its forested cover and ownership patterns and fragmentation is not a threat.

Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forests and Woodlands Brown-headed Nuthatch & Prairie Warbler Affected Environment

88

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

For this Watershed Assessment, “pine woodlands” includes all shortleaf, longleaf, loblolly and mixed pine woodlands. Pine and pine-oak forests include loblolly pine forests, shortleaf pine forests, Virginia pine forests, mixed pine forests, longleaf pine forests, Virginia pine-oak forests and shortleaf pine-oak forests. Currently, six loblolly pine woodland stands and one loblolly pine-hardwood woodland stand exist in the analysis area, totaling approximately 255 acres. A number of species of conservation concern are associated with southern yellow pine forests maintained in an open condition by frequent fire, including management indicator species (MIS) brown-headed nuthatch and prairie warbler. The structure of pine woodlands includes a widely spaced open canopy with a grassy-herbaceous understory and scattered shrubs and saplings. This structure is significant to numerous rare species of wildlife and plants that are associated with fire maintained woodlands. At least 10 species of birds are considered pine-grassland obligates. These include red-cockaded woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, brown-headed nuthatch, Northern bobwhite, prairie warbler, pine warbler, Bachman’s sparrow, chipping sparrow, eastern wood- pewee, and indigo bunting. This group of birds and their habitat is in decline and are identified in Partners in Flight’s Bird Conservation Plans. Brown-headed Nuthatch - The brown-headed nuthatch is associated with pines, especially mature, open pine woodlands. Habitat management includes maintaining mature pine forests and restoring and maintaining appropriate fire regimes. Optimal pine woodlands habitat only occurs in seven stands (255 acres) in the project area. However, approximately 25.6% of the analysis area, 6,554 acres, is available habitat for brown-headed nuthatch. Much of these acres are in unmanaged loblolly pine forest. While this habitat is used by the nuthatch, it is not optimal habitat. Current forest management includes woodland restoration, thinning loblolly pine forests and prescribed burning which improve habitat for this bird. Prairie Warbler - The prairie warbler is found in southern pine forests with scattered trees and a shrub layer. This warbler breeds in fire-maintained woodlands, abandoned fields, regenerating young forests and other early successional habitats. Recommended management for optimal prairie warbler habitat includes timber harvesting resulting in early successional forest and woodland restoration. This species is of conservation concern due to loss of quality early successional forest and woodland habitats. As described above, pine woodlands habitat currently exists on 255 acres in the analysis area. There are an additional 284 acres of early successional forest in the analysis. Current management includes thinning of loblolly pine forests and prescribed burning. Current management does not provide for early successional forests. Tornadoes and mortality from southern pine beetles create the only early successional forest habitat in the analysis area at present. Effects Alternative 1 –During the 10 year analysis period, habitat availability for brown-headed nuthatch will increase as pine stands move into the mid- and late-successional age

89

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

classes. Approximately 34% of the analysis area will be available for brown-headed nuthatch at the end of the analysis period with no action. During the 10 year analysis period, habitat availability for prairie warbler will decrease. All early successional habitat will move into older age classes making it unsuitable for this warbler. Early successional forest will not be available for prairie warbler under the no action alternative. The current 255 acres of woodland habitat will be available. Approximately 1% of the analysis area will be available habitat for prairie warbler at the end of the analysis period. Alternative 2 – Approximately 31% of the analysis area will be available for brown- headed nuthatch with the implementation of Alternative 2. The increase from current conditions results from pine stands moving into older age classes during the analysis period. There are 770 acres of pine forest and woodlands that are currently available for brown-headed nuthatch which will be regenerated under Alternative 2. These clearcut acres will not be available for brown-headed nuthatch under this alternative. However, Alternative 2 still provides for a 6% increase in habitat over current conditions. It is important to note that many acres of pine stands currently available are not optimal habitat for brown-headed nuthatch, as they are dense, unmanaged pine stands. Of the stands proposed for treatment, 1,973 acres will be thinned and have a desired future condition of woodland. These will provide optimal habitat for the nuthatch beyond the analysis period. The structure of these forests will change, improving habitat quality. Alternative 2 will result in a greater increase in woodlands, from 215 existing acres to 1,228 acres of woodlands with the proposed action. This alternative provides for quality habitat for brown-headed nuthatch. Alternative 2 provides for an 6.5% increase in prairie warbler habitat compared to current conditions. Regeneration harvests (clearcutting) is proposed on 1,026 acres to convert off-site loblolly pine and pine-hardwood stands to shortleaf, shortleaf-oak and hardwood community types. The clearcuts provide early successional habitat for prairie warbler. Additionally, the proposed action results in 1,176 acres of woodland habitat for prairie warbler during the 10 year analysis period. These acres (8.6% on the analysis area) will provide optimal habitat for prairie warbler. Regeneration harvests (clearcuts) will negatively affect brown-headed nuthatch during the ten year analysis period, as this bird uses mature pine forests and woodlands. However regeneration, designed to restore shortleaf pine woodlands over the long term, ensures quality future habitat for this species. All stands planned for regeneration in Alternative 2, with the exception of one, have a desired future condition of shortleaf pine woodland or shortleaf pine-oak forest. Regeneration harvests benefit prairie warbler by providing early successional forest habitats. Prairie warbler is a shrub nester and breeding habitat will be available in the young clearcuts. The method of site preparation may affect the value of the clearcut to birds associated with early successional forests. A study in Maine showed that herbicide site preparation reduced the complexity of vegetation through three years post-treatment compared to untreated clearcuts. And, that total numbers of birds were less abundant on those treated clearcuts.

90

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Thinning, midstory removal and prescribed burning for pine woodland restoration will benefit the brown-headed nuthatch and prairie warbler. Any proposed method of midstory removal will benefit these woodland associates. Brown-headed nuthatch is a cavity nester. There will be no removal of snags in any treatment proposed by this project. Snag retention guidelines are described in the RLRMP and Project Design Criteria, Appendix A of this document. Snags may be created to benefit bats and cavity nesting wildlife. These will provide nesting structure for brown-headed nuthatch. The cumulative effect of restoring pine woodlands on the Bankhead through implementation of watershed restoration prescriptions like this project benefit the brown- headed nuthatch by providing optimal habitat. On-going thinning and prescribed burning in loblolly pine plantations improves brown-headed nuthatch habitat. Like brown-headed nuthatch, all treatments implemented for pine woodland restoration (thinning, midstory removal and prescribed burning) increase the amount of optimal habitat for prairie warbler. Any proposed method of midstory removal will benefit prairie warbler. Regeneration cuts including site preparation and planting shortleaf pine forests will benefit prairie warbler. These treatments will provide early successional forest habitat in the short term (3 – 5 years), with many of these having a desired future condition of pine or oak woodlands. Gram et al. found that larger clearcut openings had higher densities of many early successional forest species than smaller openings. Wildlife opening management practices included in the proposed action will result in permanent early successional habitat. These acreages, while small, will benefit prairie warbler. Prairie warbler will benefit from the cumulative effects of woodland restoration being implemented across the Bankhead through the RLRMP and watershed restoration prescriptions. Habitat management outlined and being implemented in the Bankhead Quail Emphasis Areas (Black Pond and Inmanfield communities) will improve prairie warbler habitat. The Quail Emphasis Areas, described in the next section, are not within the Greater Collier analysis area. Demand Species Northern Bobwhite Quail, Eastern Wild Turkey, White-tailed deer Affected Environment Three species are selected as MIS to represent public demand issues for hunting, Northern bobwhite, Eastern wild turkey and white-tailed deer. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 40% of Alabama’s population participated in wildlife based recreation in 2006, either hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, or a combination. The Fish & Wildlife Service’s report also shows that 39% of hunters hunted on public lands, with 15% hunting exclusively on public lands. Hunting in Alabama provides a significant impact on the state’s economy.

91

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

The Greater Collier project analysis area includes areas inside of and outside of the Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area (WMA). Hunting regulations (seasons, bag limits and licenses) differ between the Black Warrior WMA and the Forest Service lands on Bankhead outside of the WMA. These are described for each species in the following sections. The Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area is managed by the Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries (WFF) in cooperation with the Forest Service. Game harvest and associated regulations are managed by the WFF. The vicinity map below shows the WMA boundary in tan and the portions of the analysis area within and outside of the WMA. Figure 2. Greater Collier Vicinity Map

92

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Northern Bobwhite Quail -Throughout the range, Northern bobwhite is found in brushy areas, abandoned fields, hedgerows, thickets, woodland margins and open pine woodlands. Particularly this game species is associated with early successional plant communities and is disturbance dependent. Northern bobwhite may be associated with a climax community such as mature longleaf pine if disturbance is frequent enough to maintain early successional grass/forb ground cover. Midstory and understory conditions in forested habitats shade ground level vegetation which affects habitat suitability. The Northern bobwhite requires multiple cover types for daily, seasonal, and annual habitat needs. Quality habitat for the bobwhite requires interspersion of multiple microhabitats. In forested areas, Northern bobwhite uses thinned forest corridors, permanent forest openings and open forest stands (woodlands). Brushy vegetation is necessary in winter to provide woody escape and thermal cover. Stands of native grasses and forbs are used for roosting. Wildlife openings, native grass stands, and woodland understory vegetation provide important food sources annually. In fall and winter, seeds and fruits including beggar weeds, ragweed, beggar ticks, partridge peas, panic grasses, vetches, smartweeds, butterfly peas, grapes, and blackberries are consumed. In spring and summer, fruit and seed are important, as well as the invertebrates that use the wildlife openings, understory vegetation of woodlands, and native grass stands. Fallow native grass stands are required for nesting, while broad-leaved herbaceous vegetation is used during brood-rearing. Bird point count surveys in the southern national forests show Northern bobwhite being most frequently associated with grass/forb stages of pine and hardwood-pine forests; highly associated with all successional stages of longleaf-slash pine and also associated with later successional loblolly-shortleaf pine. In southern pine forests, quality bobwhite woodlands can be maintained using short rotation prescribed burning. Heavy thinning of pine forests to 30-50% canopy closure is optimal for quail production. Additionally, patch cuts, seed tree cuts and regenerating forest stands can provide quality habitat for a few years if properly managed. The Northern bobwhite is present throughout Alabama and is an important game species. Quail hunting historically has been a social and recreational tradition in the south. Population densities have declined throughout the state over the last 30 years. Loss of optimal habitat and predation are the cause of declines in Alabama. Fire suppression and clean farming practices have reduced the abundance and quality of bobwhite habitat. Declines on the National Forests in Alabama are attributed to a loss of early successional habitats. The majority of existing pine forests in the analysis area have closed canopies or such dense midstory vegetation that they are not suitable for Northern bobwhite. Currently there are 255 acres of existing woodlands in the analysis area. There are also 284 acres of early successional forest habitat within the analysis area. So, approximately 1.9% of the analysis area is currently considered optimal habitat for Northern bobwhite. Current management includes woodland restoration, thinning of loblolly pine forests and prescribed burning. Current management does not provide for additional early successional forests. Restoring and maintaining woodland ecosystems is on-going throughout the Bankhead. Direction for and descriptions of woodland restoration and maintenance are found in the 93

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (RLRMP) and the Bankhead’s Forest Health and Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement (FHRP). A focused approach to quickly restore upland pine woodland systems for the benefit of early successional wildlife species has been implemented. On the Bankhead National Forest, the Black Pond (5,198 acre area) and Inmanfield (4,850 acre area) Quail Emphasis Areas have been identified for priority pine woodland restoration in the uplands. A multi-year partnership with Quail Unlimited, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and Southern Company jump started the process to restore optimal quail habitat in these areas. Projects implemented through this partnership include thinning, prescribed burning, midstory removal, wildlife opening management, strip disking, daylighting roads, native warm season grass and forb plantings, longleaf and shortleaf pine reforestation, non-native invasive species control, and improving walk- in quail hunting opportunities. Shortleaf pine woodland restoration practices in the Greater Collier watersheds are planned to improve early successional and pine woodland habitat for quail. The areas identified for woodland restoration are regularly prescribed burned on a short rotation schedule (2-4 year return interval). Additionally, overstocked loblolly pine stands are undergoing thinning. A new multi-year partnership with National Fish & Wildlife Foundation for shortleaf pine restoration on Bankhead will continue these practices and improve quail habitat. The partnership projects described above were designed to restore quail and other early successional wildlife habitat, but also improve hunting opportunities on the Bankhead, while restoring native forests and woodlands on Bankhead. Currently quail hunting opportunities are considered to be poor within the Greater Collier watersheds. This is due to the existing acreage of available habitat. Some hunters use managed wildlife openings (food plots) on the National Forest when hunting quail. There are currently thirty wildlife openings in the analysis area which are proposed for treatment totaling 50.5 acres. Openings are managed by mowing, disking, and/or planting. Spring plantings target quail, turkey and deer, while fall plantings target deer. Mowing and/or disking semi-annually is conducted to control succession and promote native warm season grasses and forbs. The project proposal includes constructing one new wildlife opening, expanding two existing wildlife openings, and managing wildlife openings through planting, mowing, and/or disking. A total of 31 wildlife openings, totaling 63.5 acres, are proposed for management in the Greater Collier watersheds. Hunting regulations for Northern bobwhite on Bankhead follow state-wide regulations. Northern bobwhite is not common on the Black Warrior WMA, and participation in hunting is limited there. The hunting season for quail on the Black Warrior is the same as on Bankhead, state-wide regulations. However, the bag limit on the Black Warrior is reduced. On Bankhead National Forest, a state hunting license is required. On Black Warrior, in addition to a state hunting license, a management area license and permit are required for hunting. Eastern Wild Turkey - This species is of interest because it is a high-demand game species and it is associated with both mature hardwood forests and open, fire-maintained habitats.

94

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Eastern wild turkey uses a variety of forested and non-forested habitats, but a mature forest with a moderate understory is key. In the South, the wild turkey uses upland hardwood and pine forests, as well as bottomland forests. Forest Service bird point count survey data indicate that Eastern wild turkey are associated with a variety of habitats but show a strong association with grass/forb stages of pine and hardwood-pine forests. A mix of mature mast-producing stands during fall and winter, shrub-dominated stands for nesting, and herb-dominated communities for brood-rearing provide optimum habitat for Eastern wild turkey. A diversity of soft mast producing plants is another important habitat component. Recommended habitat management activities include prescribed burning, thinning, and developing herbaceous openings. The Eastern wild turkey is found throughout Alabama and population densities are generally medium to high. High population densities are associated with greater amounts of oak forest and agricultural lands and lesser amounts of developed and coniferous forestland. Turkey densities are generally higher on private, state and national forest lands than other ownerships. More than half of the analysis area is suitable for Eastern wild turkey. There are 13,844 acres available including early successional forests, mid- and late-successional pine, pine- hardwood, and hardwood forests, and woodlands. Many of these acres are currently typed as loblolly pine forests and are not considered optimal habitat. The amount of woodland habitat and early successional forest habitat currently available has been described above. There are 6,871 acres of forests that will produce hard mast. Current habitat management in the analysis area includes thinning of loblolly pine, prescribed burning and other woodland restoration practices which improve turkey habitat. Refer to the Northern bobwhite section above for a discussion on hunting opportunities, requirements and existing wildlife openings. Spring turkey hunting season is open all day on the Bankhead National Forest during the month of April. This follows state regulations for Winston, Franklin and a portion of Lawrence counties. In the Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area, turkey season is open for half days during the month of April. White-tailed Deer - White-tailed deer is described as the most economically important wildlife species in the south. White-tailed deer is the most popular game species pursued on the Bankhead National Forest. It was not uncommon in the recent past for 700 - 1000 deer hunting permits to be issued on the opening weekend of deer season on the Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area on Bankhead. In recent years, 2012 and 2013 seasons, about 400 permits were issued on opening weekend of deer season on the Black Warrior. White-tailed deer use a variety of habitats throughout the south. Deer rely on edge and an interspersion of different habitats. A variety of forests and successional stages are required to meet the annual needs of white-tailed deer. Older forests, particularly those producing acorns, are important for deer in fall and winter. Early successional regenerating forests provide woody browse, herbaceous vegetation and soft mast which are heavily used in the spring and summer. Additionally, white-tailed deer use wildlife

95

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

openings in winter and spring. Wildlife openings are particularly important during a year of poor mast production. In the early 1900s, Alabama’s deer numbers were estimated at 2,000. The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources has actively and effectively re- stocked and managed Alabama’s white-tailed deer herd since that time. Deer densities have greatly increased throughout the state over the last 25 years. In 2000, the state’s deer population was estimated at 1.75 million animals. White-tailed deer are found throughout the National Forests in Alabama and Bankhead National Forest. High deer densities are associated with greater amounts of cropland and lesser amounts of developed and coniferous forestland. Populations tend to increase as the amount of early successional habitat increases. Early successional habitat in Alabama’s national forests has been in decline, however overall deer numbers have been increasing on the forests. Prescribed burning, influences from surrounding private lands and an increase in the statewide deer herd may be contributing factors to this increase. Management recommendations for white-tailed deer include regulated harvest and habitat management including prescribed burning, timber thinning, retaining and maintaining mature oak-pine stands, mowing clearings, planting native vegetation, removing exotic species, providing road bypasses and protecting travel corridors. More than half of the watersheds project area is suitable for white-tailed deer. Refer to the Eastern wild turkey section above for a discussion of the available habitat. Current habitat management includes thinning of loblolly pine and prescribed burning which improve habitat for deer. Refer to the Northern bobwhite section for a discussion on hunting opportunities and existing wildlife openings. Stalk hunting regulations for deer in the analysis area vary between lands within the Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and outside the WMA in the general forest. Outside of the WMA on the Bankhead, antlered deer harvest rules follow state regulations. Opportunities for hunting unantlered (doe) deer on the general forest outside of the WMA are more restrictive, with only one week being open as opposed to the entire season being open on private lands. On Bankhead, unantlered deer season is open for 18 days. On Bankhead, a state hunting license is required. On the Black Warrior WMA, opportunities for harvesting deer are more limited (fewer days are open) than on the general forest. Additionally, on Zone B of the WMA, an antler restriction is in place, as the area is being managed under the harvest principles of the quality deer management program. On the WMA, state hunting license and management area hunting license and permit are required. Effects Alternative 1 – Under the no action alternative, there will be no direct effect to demand species or hunting opportunities. However, during the 10 year analysis period, habitat availability for demand species will change. All early successional forest will move into the sapling/pole stage making it unsuitable. Approximately 1% of the analysis will be suitable for Northern bobwhite with no action. Additional oak and pine forest habitats

96

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

will become available for deer and turkey as they mature during the analysis period, a 9.5% increase from current available habitat. However, there will be no habitat management under the no action alternative, except for prescribed burning. Habitat quality will decline in the absence of management. Additionally, early successional forest will not be created. Current wildlife opening management would continue with the implementation of the no action alternative. No openings would be improved or created. No changes to hunting regulations are proposed under the no action alternative. No wildlife habitat improvements are proposed under Alternative 1. Therefore, there would be no change in hunting opportunities or hunting pressure as a result of Alternative 1. Alternative 2 – Current management of wildlife openings will continue. One new opening will be constructed and two openings will be expanded, adding 13 additional acres under wildlife opening management. No changes to hunting regulations are proposed under any alternative. The increases in demand species habitat are described below. These increases will facilitate improved hunting opportunities. Hunting opportunities will be reduced temporarily during implementation of treatments. Hunters are not likely to use an area while forest management activities are occurring (example, active logging). Loss of hunting days due to active logging or other management activity will only occur once. The long term benefit of improved habitat after treatments outweighs this temporary reduction in hunting opportunity. Northern Bobwhite Quail - This disturbance dependent early successional game bird will benefit from the implementation of Alternative 2. Alternative 2 results in 8.6% of the analysis area available for Northern bobwhite, a 6.5% increase over the current situation. Woodland restoration and all associated practices (thinning, midstory removal, prescribed burning and shortleaf pine reforestation) will provide optimal habitat for Northern bobwhite. All proposed methods of midstory removal will benefit Northern bobwhite. The native grass understory of restored woodlands will provide roosting and foraging habitat for quail. Alternative 2 results in 1,176 acres of woodlands at the end of the 10 year analysis period. Regeneration harvesting (clearcuts) including site preparation and planting shortleaf pine will provide habitat for quail. These treatments result in early successional forest habitat in the short term (3 – 5 years) which provide thermal and escape cover for quail. Regeneration harvests will provide woodland habitat in the long term, as shortleaf and hardwood woodlands are the desired future conditions of most stands proposed for regeneration. Wildlife opening management and daylighting roads and openings will also improve habitat for Northern bobwhite. These practices result in permanent early successional habitat. Thirteen additional acres of wildlife openings will be added through Alternative 2. The potential exists that ground disturbing activities may have negative effects on quail. Harvesting or drum chopping during nesting may result in loss of nests. However, the benefit of restoring early successional forest habitat on almost 9% of the project area

97

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

through implementation of the action alternative outweighs the short term losses that may occur during treatments. Northern bobwhite will benefit from the cumulative effects of woodland restoration being implemented across the Bankhead through the RLRMP and watershed restoration prescriptions. Partnership projects described on page 94 focus forest management in the Bankhead Quail Emphasis Areas on improving habitat for early successional wildlife species, particularly the Northern bobwhite. Currently there are no known private landowners within the watersheds project area that are managing to improve habitat for Northern bobwhite specifically. However, loblolly pine plantations and pastures exist on private lands within and adjacent to the project area. These pinelands may provide early successional forest suitable for quail when they are regenerated. Eastern Wild Turkey - Although the Eastern wild turkey is considered to be a habitat generalist and habitat is currently available for this game bird within the analysis area, implementation of Alternative 2 will improve the amount and quality of available habitat. Alternatives 2 will result in almost 64% of the analysis in suitable habitat for Eastern wild turkey. This is a 9.5% increase in current suitable habitat. These increases are the result of changes in three important habitat components for wild turkey: hard mast and associated deciduous community types, woodland community types, and early successional habitat. Hard mast, an important food source for Eastern wild turkey, will be available in mature, deciduous forests and woodlands. Alternative 2 provides 7,232 acres of mature hardwood and hardwood-pine forests and woodlands and cove forests during the 10 year analysis period. Riparian areas also provide hard mast and are heavily used by turkey in the south during fall in winter. Acres of riparian forest will not be affected by implementation of any alternative proposed for this project. Woodlands currently occupy 255 acres in the analysis area. Alternative 2 will provide 1,176 acres of hardwood, hardwood-pine, and pine woodlands. The Eastern wild turkey is a ground-nester. There is a potential for direct negative effects from ground disturbing activities like site preparation by drum chopping and timber harvesting. The Eastern wild turkey is known to re-nest. Drum chopping is normally conducted during the summer, after turkey nesting, and should not result in a reduction in successful nesting. It is anticipated that drum chopping will be used less often than herbicide in this project, further reducing potential direct impacts to nests. The potential direct impacts are outweighed by the long term benefit of woodland restoration. Restored pine and oak woodlands and associated herbaceous understory will provide nesting and brood habitats. Additional acres of wildlife openings will provide brood habitat for turkey. Road closures included in Alternative 2 will provide additional nesting habitat and reduce disturbance to this species.

98

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Cutover hardwoods are known brood habitat in Northwest Alabama. Early successional hardwood forest doesn’t exist in the project area. Alternative 2 provides for 32 acres, one stand, of early successional hardwood forest through seed tree treatment. Early successional forests created through regeneration harvests (clearcuts) provide suitable nesting habitat and herbaceous plants and soft mast for foraging. In addition to the 32 acres of early successional hardwood forest presented above, shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak reforestation areas will provide additional acres of this limited habitat. Alternative 2 proposes 995 acres of early successional shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine- oak forest. Early successional forests will be used by Eastern wild turkey for a short time (2 to 3 years) after harvest. Pine stands are best suited for Eastern wild turkey when they have moved out of the sapling/pole stage (over 30 years old) and are burned and thinned. Loblolly and loblolly- hardwood stands will be reduced by 7.3% in the analysis area through the proposed action. Many of the remaining pine and mixed pine stands will be improved through thinnings and prescribed burning. The proposed action includes thinning 3,712 acres, which results in improved habitat for turkey. Off Forest Service lands, conversion of forests and pastures to non-forest and agricultural uses, such as residential development, results in a loss of turkey habitat. The loblolly pine plantations that exist on industrial and non-industrial private lands around the Bankhead National Forest may provide early successional forest suitable for turkey for a few years. However, the cumulative effects of restoring woodlands and upland oak-hickory forests through the Bankhead’s watershed prescription projects should improve turkey habitat and turkey hunting opportunities across the Forest. Additionally, the cumulative effects of providing managed wildlife openings on the Black Warrior WMA in the northern portion of Bankhead will benefit the Eastern wild turkey and turkey hunters on the area. White-tailed Deer - Like Eastern wild turkey, the white-tailed deer is a recreationally important species and a habitat generalist. With regard to foraging, deer are opportunistic herbivores consuming forbs, fruits, hard mast, grass, flowers, and fungi and foraging on shrubs, trees and vines. In the fall and winter, acorns are an important food source. Hard mast will be available in mature, deciduous forests and woodlands. Alternative 2 provides 7,232 acres of mature hard mast producing forests during the 10 year analysis period in the analysis area. This is approximately 28.2% of the analysis area and a 1.4% increase over current condtions. Riparian areas also provide hard mast and will not be affected by the proposed action. Soft mast is important for white-tailed deer because it is available for a long period in the spring and summer. Early successional forest created through regeneration harvests, clearcutting, will provide browse including herbaceous plants and soft mast. Early successional forest will be available on 1,026 acres under Alternative 2. Midstory removal by all methods will reduce soft mast within a stand. However thinning and restored woodlands will increase understory browse for deer as sunlight reaches the forest floor. Woodlands are available currently on 255 acres within the analysis area. Implementation of Alternative 2 results in 1,176 acres of restored woodlands in the 10 year analysis period.

99

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Wildlife openings are important for hunting opportunities, but also provide supplemental food sources for deer. Alternative 1 would continue current management of the existing wildlife openings in the analysis area. Alternative 2 proposes 13 acres of additional wildlife openings. These practices will benefit deer and turkey. Cumulative effects described for Eastern wild turkey are expected to be similar for white- tailed deer.

Amount of Early Successional Forest Affected Environment For analysis purposes, forest succession is divided into four stages: early, sapling/pole, mid, and late. (Direction derived from Page 3-144 of the Revised Land & Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama, Environmental Impact Statement (LRMP EIS).) Early successional forest is defined as regenerating forests ages 0-10 years for all forest communities. These forests are generally woody (regenerating trees and shrubs) with a significant grass/forb component. Compared to permanent grassy openings, they are dominated by dense woody vegetation.

As described previously, there are suites of wildlife species associated with particular successional stages and specific forest structure. For example, birds like prairie warbler, blue-winged warbler, yellow-breasted chat, field sparrow, indigo bunting and Northern bobwhite are found in early successional habitats.

Early successional forest (0 – 10 years old) currently exists on approximately 1.1% of the analysis area. There are currently 13 shortleaf pine stands between the ages of 3-9, totaling 284 acres, in the analysis area.

Early successional wildlife habitat is also available in existing wildlife openings. The Greater Collier Watershed Project proposed action includes wildlife opening management which has been described in the section on demand species. There are currently 50.5 acres of wildlife openings under management in the analysis area for this project.

Effects Taking no action, Alternative 1, will result in the loss of all early successional forest except what may be created through storm damage or insect infestation. The proposed action, Alternative 2, will create early successional forests on the 4% of the analysis area. This will be accomplished by regenerating 1,026 acres in the Greater Collier watersheds. Current loblolly and loblolly-hardwood forests will be clearcut and planted to shortleaf pine and shortleaf pine-oak forests. The proposed action will result in approximately 2.9% increase in early successional forest over the current conditions. Wildlife openings will be increased by the proposed action. Alternative 2 proposes managing 63.5 acres of wildlife openings in the Greater Collier watersheds project. The 100

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

additional openings in the analysis area under management will continue to be managed as early successional openings. The cumulative effects of this action combined with other similar projects in the Greater Collier watershed project will increase early successional habitat on the Bankhead during the 10 year analysis period. However, the combined actions do not meet the amount of early successional habitat emphasized in the RLRMP for the 9C3 and 7E2 land management allocations. Aside from this project, the Grindstone, Mill & Inman Forest Health and Restoration projects which are nearing completion, and catastrophic events such as tornados, early successional forested habitat is not being created or maintained on the Bankhead.

Hard Mast Production Affected Environment Hard mast production is estimated by considering the amount of mid- and late- successional hardwood, hardwood-pine, mixed mesophytic and cove forests present in the watersheds. Approximately 6,871 acres, 26.8% of the analysis area, may produce hard mast. Additionally, there are numerous stands of loblolly pine-hardwood forests in the area that have a hard mast component. These acres are not captured here, as they are predominantly loblolly pine. Effects There is almost no difference in the potential amount of hard mast produced between the current conditions and Alternatives 1 and 2. The slight differences between the current condition and conditions during the 10 year analysis period after implementing either alternative results from age. Several stands will move into the mid- or late-successional class over the 10 year analysis period. There are currently 6,871 acres of mid- and late-successional hardwood and hardwood pine and mixed mesophytic and cove forests in the analysis area (26.8% of the area). With implementation of the no action alternative 1, 7,253 acres (28.3%) will be available to produce hard mast. The proposed action alternative 2, has a slight decrease in the amount of hard mast production when compared with Alternative 1. One stand currently producing hard mast will be regenerated to early successional hardwood forest. This results in 7,232 acres, or 28.2% of the analysis area, being available for hard mast production with the implementation of Alternative 2. That is a 1.4% increase over current conditions. Additionally, the amount of riparian forest, which also produces hard mast will not change. Riparian forests are addressed below. The cumulative effects of this action combined with other similar projects in the Greater Collier analysis area should maintain the amount of hard mast production on the Bankhead National Forest. There are no other projects proposed that would affect hard mast production. Restoring upland hardwood forests and woodlands on Bankhead over the long term as identified in the FHRP should promote hard mast production.

101

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Riparian Corridors Riparian areas and their associated management emphasis are described in the RLRMP beginning on pages 2-22 and 3-59. On Bankhead, there are approximately 40,226 acres of land managed under riparian and streamside management zone protections. In the analysis area for the Greater Collier watershed project, 4,375 acres, or 13.4% of the analysis area, falls into this category of riparian corridor. With the implementation of any alternative, there will be no change to the amount of riparian forest or land managed under the riparian corridor prescription.

Rare Communities Affected Environment Rare communities are assemblages of plants and animals that occupy a small portion of the landscape, but contribute significantly to plant and animal diversity. They are characterized by relatively discrete boundaries and occupy a small area in a limited number of occurrences across the landscape. Table 2.8, Alabama’s Rare Communities Managed under Alabama’s “9F Rare Community Prescription”, on page 2-38 of the RLRMP lists the rare communities potentially found on Bankhead National Forest. These are described in the RLRMP EIS in Chapter 3, Section 3.B, Biological Elements, Section 2.0, Rare Communities. Goals identified in the RLRMP for rare communities include protecting or restoring the composition, structure, and function of rare communities and protecting areas with special geological, paleontological, botanical, zoological, cultural, or heritage characteristics. Rare communities, wherever they occur, are managed under Prescription 9F to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. Sandstone outcrops, rockhouses, bluffs and wetlands (gum ponds) have been encountered in the analysis area. Many federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species are associated with rare communities. Effects to these are analyzed later in this section and in the biological evaluations for this project. Effects Wetlands (upland seasonal ponds or gum ponds) and sandstone rock features (glades, outcrops, bluffs and rock houses) are the only rare communities known from the analysis area. The rare communities present within the watersheds will be protected through the rare community, riparian, and canyon corridor prescriptions and associated standards found in the RLRMP. The proposed action includes restoring rare communities where there is a need. Where vegetation has encroached into rare communities that should be open, vegetation will be removed through commercial or non-commercial methods, for example timber sales, hand tools or with herbicides. Rare communities will be protected from heavy equipment during removal of encroaching vegetation. Where wetland

102

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

hydrology has been altered, restoration would include plugging ditches, removing berms, or other treatment to restore flow or depth. Direct and indirect effects of removing encroaching vegetation include allowing more sunlight to reach plants on the ground associated with rare communities. Direct and indirect effects of restoring wetlands include restored hydrology to these rare communities. If no action is taken, rare communities will continue to become encroached and structure and function will be lost over time. Habitat for rare plants associated with these rare communities will be unavailable. The cumulative effects of implementing RLRMP standards and guidelines across the Bankhead are protected and restored rare communities which will benefit the rare communities and associated species.

Aquatic Habitats and Listed Aquatic Species The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (RLRMP) includes standards for management activities for the Bankhead National Forest. The standards for management activities are designed to protect rare and sensitive habitats on the forest, including aquatic ecosystems. The use of these standards in conducting forest management practices is considered by resource professionals and natural resource agencies to provide adequate protection to aquatic ecosystems. The DFC is planned to provide restoration of native plant communities of the Cumberland Plateau, including shortleaf pine and oak woodlands. To complete the restoration, many stands of existing loblolly pine and other forest cover types must be managed in order to achieve the restoration goal. There are a number of methods proposed that are steps toward achieving restoration goals. In order to eventually convert off-site loblolly pine stands to another forest condition (DFC), restoration will require active forest management. All activities within a watershed, whether conducted on Forest Service or private lands, contribute to the overall conditions of the aquatic ecosystem. The Greater Collier Watershed Forest Health & Restoration Project and its proposed action is the culmination of planning efforts to achieve this goal.

Aquatic Habitat This analysis addresses streams within the Greater Collier analysis area. Additional analysis of the proposed action alternative upon aquatic habitat and listed species is included within the Biological Evaluations for the project. An analysis area for the Greater Collier Watershed Project was developed based on watershed units. The District uses a “District Planning Watershed Unit” when developing watershed projects like this one. The Greater Collier Watershed Project includes treatments in the following watershed units; Beech, Middle Brushy, Rush, Collier, Davis, Middle Sipsey, and Payne. The analysis area was developed based on these units. The anlaysis area is approximatly 32,546 acres in size. Of that, only approximately 5,197 acres are proposed for treatment.

103

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Affected Environment The primary streams within the analysis area which were considered for this evaluation include Sipsey, Payne, Collier, Brushy, Beech and Rush. Additionally tributaries and downstream habitats were considered. The analysis area is located within the following 6th Level HUC watersheds; Rush Creek-Brushy Creek, Caney Creek-Sipsey Fork, and Sandy Creek-Sipsey Fork. It is located within the following 5th Level HUC watersheds; Upper Sipsey, Lower Sipsey and Upper Brushy. Refer to the Water Resources section for a description of these 6th level HUC watersheds. Records of species occurrence in the analysis area were reviewed as part of this assessment. Both federally listed and Forest Service sensitive apecies are known from the project watersheds. Critical habitat for Mobile Basin mussels is present with the project analysis area.

Sipsey, Payne, Collier, Brushy, Beech and Rush are free flowing streams. Brushy Creek has a small (approximately 30 acres) manmade reservoir on it which is in the Greater Collier Project analsysis area. Brushy Lake was built by the Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930’s for recreational purposes. Above and below Brushy Lake, Brushy Creek is free flowing. Sipsey and Brushy creek’s main channels are inundated by the Lewis Smith Lake reservoir. A number of listed species (Forest Service Sensitive and federally listed species) occur within the main stem streams of Sipsey and Brushy. Listed species also are known in Payne, Beech and Rush. These streams and listed aquatic species present would potentially be impacted if water quality issues occurred. There are records of 12 listed aquatic animals (federally listed or Forest Service sensitive species) within the Rush-Brushy, Caney-Sipsey and Sandy-Sipsey 6th level HUC watersheds which are included in the Greater Collier project analysis area. Effects to these listed aquatic species is included in the Biological Evaluations for this project.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources and the Geological Survey of Alabama have selected watersheds and river segments in the five major HUC 4 subregions in Alabama to focus conservation activities for managing, recovering, and restoring populations of rare fishes, mussels, snails, and crayfishes. These Strategic Habitat Units (SHUs) and Strategic River Reach Units (SRRUs) include a substantial part of Alabama’s remaining high-quality water courses and reflect the variety of aquatic habitats occupied by these species historically and presently. The SHUs were selected based on the presence of federally listed and state imperiled species, potential threats to the species, designation of critical habitat, and the best available information about the essential habitat components required by these aquatic species to survive. This includes areas with: (1) geomorphically stable stream and river channels; (2) stream flow regimes that support normal behavior, growth, and survival of the animals; (3) acceptable water-quality conditions necessary for normal behavior, growth, and viability of all life stages of the animals; (4) a diversity of channel substrate types, with minimal amounts of fine sediment and filamentous algae; (5) for mussels, the presence of fish hosts with adequate living, foraging, and spawning areas; and (6) few or no competitive or predaceous nonnative species. The purpose of designating SHUs and SRRUs is to facilitate and coordinate watershed management and 104

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

restoration efforts as well as to focus funding to address habitat and water-quality issues. On Bankhead, the Upper Sipsey Fork is designated as a Strategic Habitat Unit (SHU), Unit 22. The Greater Collier analysis area is within this Upper Sipsey Fork SHU.

A fish passage assessment was conducted on Bankhead National Forest by the Forest Service Southern Research Station’s Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer team in 2005 & 2006. Crossings in the Greater Collier analysis area have been assessed. One culvert that was a barrier to fish passage in the watershed has been replaced. Others are replaced, removed or repaired as funding becomes available. Sipsey Fork and Brushy Creek provide recreational fishing opportunities. Other streams in the analysis area generally considered too small to provide a recreational fishery, except perhaps at the lower ends at the confluence of Sipsey and Brushy. However, a review of records of occurrence reveal that several sportfish have been recorded in the analysis area. Aside from a number of shiners, darters, and chubs, records indicate bluegill, warmouth, longear and redear sunfish, redeye bass, spotted bass, largemouth bass, flathead and channel catfish, and white and stripe bass are present in the area.

Riverine and depressional wetlands exist within the watershed but are not quantified. A few depressional wetlands, known as gum ponds, are known to occur on Forest Service lands within the analysis area. These are usually found in upland landscape positions and are generally less than one acre in size. If wetlands occur in stands that are prescribed for treatment, they will be identified with paint and riparian standards described in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama (RLMRP) will be applied to protect these wetlands. There are no treatments proposed adjacent to Brushy Lake. There are no treatments planned for any riparian area.

Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities Potentially Affecting Species and Habitats All treatments included in this Greater Collier watershed project are proposed for upland stands and will not directly impact streams. There are no planned stream crossings of any creek as part of this project that might induce bank instability. There are no treatments proposed for riparian areas. A listing of potential impacts to aquatic species and/or aquatic habitat are listed below. 1. Water Pollution: Sources of chemical pollutants are not generally permitted on National Forests. Selective application methods of herbicides are planned for project. 2. Sediment: Under the RLRMP, streamside management zones (SMZs) and riparian standards minimize sediment release during such Forest Service permitted activities as silvicultural and timber management treatments, wildlife opening management,

105

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

and herbicide use. Numerous resource protections within the RLRMP and project plan are in place to minimize the incidence of erosion associated with proposed treatments.

3. Temperatures: Without protective measures, Forest Service silviculture and timber management activities could influence stream temperatures. Protective measures include recognition of SMZs and retention of canopy cover in riparian forests.

4. Nutrients: Runoff associated with erosion and herbicide application can cause changes to nutrient levels in streams.

5. Channel Structure: No project activities are proposed that could potentially modify in-stream habitat.

6. Flow: Harvesting activities and clearing of vegetation can influence water flow. Large scale changes in forest cover could affect this parameter.

Effects Analysis

For aquatic species and their habitat, potential management influences include any activity that could accelerate erosion or deposition, increase sedimentation or turbidity, alter water flow or chemistry or temperature, favor the spread of invasive species, or block aquatic organism passage.

The no action alternative will have no effect on aquatic species. Impacts associated with the proposed action are presented below.

Direct impacts to aquatics, such as crushing or burying individual animals or eggs by filling streams, will not occur as a result of this project. No treatments are proposed in aquatic or riparian habitats. Stream crossings are not included in any practice proposed in the Greater Collier project.

Indirect effects include potential impacts to water quality affecting aquatic habitat. Silvicultural practices (thinning, clearcutting, reforestation, midstory removal, etc) may affect water quality, water quantity, and channel morphology. Harvesting and other ground distrubing activities, like mechanical site preparation or wildlife opening construction, can cause erosion and sedimentation, changes in stream nutrient levels and sediment delivery from runoff, increases in water yield and changes in flow. Harvesting may also affect streamside forest cover which can result in changes to water temperature. There is potential for impacts to water quality, quantity, and channel morphology from roads as well. Water pollution can occur when using herbicides. Surface or ground water may be contaminated when using herbicides. There is a potential for increase in

106

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

sediment and water yield when using herbicides for silvicultural treatments. There is also a potential for increase in stream nutrients from herbicide applications.

Potential changes to aquatic habitat, such as water quality and flow, can negatively affect aquatic wildlife. These potential negative effects are minimized through project design, RLRMP standards and best management practices. Stream crossings are not proposed. Management activities within riparian areas are not proposed. Therefore there should be no change to flow, channel structure, canopy, or temperature that would be expected from those practices. Additionally, there are no practices associated with this project that would risk the opportunity of introducing non-native invasive animals. As no stream crossings are proposed, there is no risk to aquatic organism passage.

Affects to water quality have been evaluated by Forest Service Southern Research Station Hydrologist for this project. Refer to the water resources section for an analysis and description of sediment modeling.

According to the EA’s water resources report, the proposed action for the Greater Collier project has the potential to increase erosion and sedimentation. An increase in erosion and sedimentation could negatively effect aquatic species, especially those rare ones which are sensitive to changes in water quality. It is expected that following RLRMP standards and streamside management zone (smz) and riparian corridor application will reduce potential negative effects from increases in erosion. Impacts to aquatic habitat are expected to be temporary in duration with minor to moderate increases in sediment for two to three years. Based on the Hyrdrologist’s sediment modeling using a worst case scenario in which all proposed practices were implemented in one year, there would be an increase in sediment levels in the Caney-Sipsey watershed of 10.7%, in the Sandy – Sipsey watershed of 1.0% and in the Rush-Brushy watershed of 18%. Sediment would decrease to background levels within 3 years. Much of the estimated increase would occur during infrequent severe events and would be difficult to detect in normal day-to day observations. The total estimated sediment amounts within the three watersheds would increase by 1.97% over the ten year analysis period as a result of implementing the proposed action. For the Caney-Sipsey watershed, current sediment is estimated at 0.06202 tons/acre/year and would increase to 0.0667 tons/acre/year with the implementation of Alternative 2. For the Sandy-Sipsey watershed, the current sediment estimate is 0.0818 tons/acre/year and would increase to 0.0826 with the proposed action. For the Rush-Brushy watershed, the current sedimet is estimated at 0.0631 tons/acre/year and would increase to 0.0715 tons/acre/year. By most accounts, erosion from undisturbed, as well as carefully managed forest land, is 0.05 – 0.10 tons/acre/year, which is less than the geologic norm of 0.18 – 0.30 and far less than maximum tolerable rates for agricultural land (1 – 5 tons/acre/year) (Patrick 1976).

Siltation and turbidity may affect mussels, for example, by altering the rocky insterstitial spaces where they live. Siltation and turbidity associated with erosion can affect aquatic wildlife by reducing foraging and reproductive effectiveness. This is addressed by employing project standards and best management practices to limit and minimize the

107

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

transfer of sediment that potentially enters into aquatic sources. No treatments are proposed in riparain areas. All riparian forests will be retained which should reduce sedimentation and siltation in streams. An increase in erosion, as predicted by the sediment delivery model for this project, is expected to result in an increase in siltation and turbidity. This effect will be pronounced during storm events.

Surface runoff can increase after silvicultural treatments (harvests, herbicide applications, etc) and this may increase nutrient and sediment delivery to streams. This increase is proportional to the amount of area disturbed and kept free of vegetation. Areas to be thinned, while being disturbed temporarily, will remain vegetated. Areas to be clear cut, will be reforested and native understory is expected to revegetate the sites during the first growing season after harvest. Wildlife openings constructed or expanded by this project will be planted with native plants or non-persistent annual grains. All areas that are disturbed through this project will be re-vegetated. Maintaining vegetation and/or reforesting sites will reduce surface runoff and associated nutrient and sediment increases to streams. Additionally, maintaining riparian areas buffer streams further reducing inputs.

Potential impacts to water quality, quantity, and channel morphology from roads is minimized in this project. No new road construction is proposed. Existing and temporary roads will be used to access treatment areas. Temporary roads are vegetated or slashed with organic debris when they are no longer needed to access the treatment stands. Temporary roads are blocked, gated, or otherwise permanently closed after use. Timber roads are constructed with waterbars and turnouts to reduce erosion and sediment.

In addition to potential increases in runoff, sediment delivery and nutrient delivery to streams described above, herbicide use also has the potential for surface or ground water contamination. However, according to the water resources analysis for this project, that potential is very slight. Project design and RLRMP standards eliminate negative impacts to water quality from herbicide application. These include selective application methods, for example individual stem or foliar treatments. There should be no effect to aquatic species or habitats if RLRMP standards are met.

Standards regarding riparian areas, riparian corridors and streamside management zones are outlined in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama. These standards are in place to protect aquatic species and their habitats. Treatments are not planned for riparian areas. Erosion control measures as described in the RLRMP will prevent excessive soil erosion. Erosion control (project design criteria) will be utilized where indicated by FS personnel to control erosion, with regard to log landings and skid trails, temporary roads, wildlife opening management and other ground distrubing practices. Treatment areas will be monitored and erosion control prescribed as needed. The exercise of RLRMP standards which are part of this project will provide protection of aquatic resources in the Bankhead National Forest. Another project water

108

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

quality protection is the use of an entry schedule which is developed by the District Silvculturist and Timber Management Assistant. The entry schedule will adjust the disturbance over the entire watershed for the project and over multiple years to reduce and manage soil disturbance. These standards and project design criteria will reduce potential impacts to aquatic species and their habitats by protecting water quality on the Bankhead.

A cumulative effects analysis should consider incremental impact of actions when added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The analysis includes all actions regardless of who undertakes the actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. Cumulative watershed effects are of particular concern given the interspersion of private in-holdings on Bankhead. The management of private lands is not governed or regulated by the Forest Service. However, it is included in the sediment yield modeling for this project. It is expected that private land management observes state best management practices. Forest Service actions within the analysis area include southern pine beetle control, invasive plant control, road maintenance, special use permitting for road rights- of-way, and forest management including thinning and prescribed burning. The water resources report for the Greater Collier EA concludes that current thinning practices would supply negligible amounts of additional sediment and that prescribed burning increases potential sediment runoff the year after the burn by about 8%. Prescribed burning that are low intensity would reduce this potential increase. Cumulative effects of all of the proposed practices are minimized by RLRMP standards and project design criteria as described. These standards will provide resource protection for aquatic wildlife and habitat.

Table 5 - Aquatic Species Considerations & Protections

Concern Protection Mechanism(s) Applicability to Project Anticipated Results Water Quality – Herbicide Selective Potential use on up to Herbicide is Use Herbicide 1176 acres for midstory prevented from vegetation control; 995 reaching water Application acres for shortleaf pine sources Method site preparation and release; 32 acres for Proper use of Aquatic labeled hardwood restoration and labeled herbicides herbicide use release; 171 acres for shortleaf pine Riparian release/precommercial Protection thinning and 80 acres of Standards in hardwood RLRMP release/precommercial thinning treatments.

Sediment – potential FW-7 Harvesting Thinning – 3712 acres Soil disturbance is ground disturbing slope limits limited 109

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

practices: FW-8 Temporary Regeneration Harvest – Thinning road crossings 1027 acres Soil erosion is Regeneration regulated minimized Harvests (Clear FW-13 Site prep and planting – cuts and site Mechanical site 995 acres Disturbance near preparation and prep confined to water courses is planting) slopes < 20% Wildlife Opening prevented and Wildlife Opening FW-15 Equipment Construction limited Management operation on Enlargement, Rehab, Temporary Roads contour (drum Management – 50.5 Bare soil is Mechanical chopper) acres vegetated in a midstory removal FW-37 Erosion timely manner control required in timely manner Midstory Removal – FW-39 Forest Plan 1176 acres or State BMP’s required 1/ Herbicide FW-56 SMZ’s Release/Precommercial FW-68 Landings thinning treatments - 251 not in SMZ Entry schedule planned to reduce and manage soil disturbance within watersheds over time.

Temperature FW-56 SMZ’s No practices will occur Water within or adjacent to temperatures are streams not at risk

Nutrient Cycling No practices No avenue of enrichment No risk of nutrient planned that from this project cycling would fit this category

Flow FW-51 Even-age Regeneration Cuts – Treatments are treatment blocks total 1027 acres made in small are less than 80 blocks (less than acres in size 80 acres) thus limiting the Clearcuts are not vegetative cover adjacent to each change to other, at least 330 numerous areas feet apart spread over a larger watershed reducing run-off

110

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Habitat Connectivity No practices that No stream crossings No restriction or restrict habitat proposed or planned in impairment of this connectivity treatment units habitat value 1/ - Forest Plan standards that exceed State BMP’s apply

Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species and Habitat Affected Environment/Existing Condition and Effects Analysis There are sixteen aquatic species of plants and animals that are federally listed for the Bankhead National Forest. They are presented below. Table 6. Federally Listed Aquatic Species of the Bankhead National Forest

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

Sternotherus depressus Flattened musk turtle T Etheostoma phytophilum Rush darter E Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian combshell E Epioblasma metastriata Upland combshell E Epioblasma turgidula Turgid blossom pearly mussel E Hamiota altilis Fine-lined pocketbook E Hamiota perovalis Orange-nacre mucket T Medionidus acutissimus Alabama moccasinshell T Medionidus parvulus Coosa moccansinshell E Pleurobema furvum Dark pigtoe E Pleurobema perovatum Ovate clubshell E Pleurobema plenum Rough pigtoe E Ptychobranchus greeni Triangular kidneyshell E Lampsilis orbiculata (L. abrupta) Pink mucket pearlymussel E Sagittaria secundifolia Kral's water-plantain T Thelypteris pilosa var al. Alabama streak-sorus fern T 1E = endangered; T = threatened

Five species of mussels, ovate clubshell, dark pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, Alabama moccasinshell and orange-nacre mucket, have designated critical habitat on Bankhead National Forest. The rush darter has designated critical habitat on Bankhead. There are ten aquatic species of plants and animals that are listed as Sensitive for the Bankhead National Forest. They are presented below. Table 7. Regional Forester's Sensitive Aquatic Species – August 7, 2001

Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Hydroptila paralatosa A caddisfly S Rhyacophila carolae A caddisfly S 111

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Elliptio arca Alabama spike S Strophitus subvexus Southern creekmussel S Villosa nebulosa Alabama rainbow S Etheostoma bellator Warrior darter S Etheostoma douglasi Tuskaloosa darter S Etheostoma tuscumbia Tuscumbia darter S Percina sipsi Bankhead darter S Necturus alabamensis Black Warrior waterdog C&S 1S = sensitive; C = candidate for Federal listing

The Greater Collier Watershed Project analysis area falls within the Rush-Brushy, Caney- Sipsey and Sandy-Sipsey 6th level HUC watersheds. Critical mussel habitat for Mobile Basin mussels is designated in this area. Within the project area, there are records for orange-nacre mucket, Alabama mocassinshell, Warrior pigtoe, triangular kidneyshell, Alabama streak-sorus fern, Kral’s water-plantain, flattened musk turtle, Black Warrior waterdog, Tuskaloosa darter, Warrior darter, Bankhead darter, Alabama spike, Alabama rainbow and southern creekmussel. Effects to listed species are included in the Biological Evaluations (BE) for this project included as Appendix B. A discussion of increased sedimentation resulting from this project is included previously. The project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed aquatic species present or their potential habitat based on project design criteria and RLRMP standards. The BE findings for the sensitive species present in the Greater Collier analysis area is “may impact individuals, but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing.” Again, this finding is based on project design criteria and RLRMP standards to protect aquatic habitat.

The table below presents the effects to potential aquatic habitat for the federally listed and Sensitive species. Table 8. Effects of Alternatives on Aquatic Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

Flattened Musk Turtle 0 0 0 0 Rush Darter & critical habitat

Cumberlandian Combshell 0 0

Ovate Clubshell & critical 0 0 habitat

112

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Upland Combshell 0 0

Turgid Blossom Pearly 0 0 Mussel

Fine-lined Pocketbook 0 0

Orange-nacre Mucket & 0 0 critical habitat

Alabama Moccasinshell & 0 0 critical habitat

Coosa Moccasinshell 0 0

Warrior (Dark) Pigtoe & 0 0 critical habitat

Rough Pigtoe 0 0

Triangular Kidneyshell & 0 0 critical habitat

Pink Mucket Pearlymussel 0 0

Kral’s Water-plantain 0 0

Alabama Streak-sorus Fern 0 0

Hydroptila paralatosa 0 0 0 0 Rhyacophila carolae 0 0 Alabama spike 0 0 Southern Creekmussel 0 0 Alabama Rainbow 0 0 Warrior Darter 0 0 Tuskaloosa Darter 0 0 Tuscumbia Darter 0 0 Bankhead Darter 0 0 Black Warrior Waterdog

113

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

0 = No change in available habitat; + = Increase in Potential Habitat; + + = Large Increase in Potential Habitat; - = Decrease in Potential Habitat; - - = Large Decrease in Potential Habitat

Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Affected Environment/Existing Condition There are ten terrestrial species of plants and animals that are federally listed for the Bankhead National Forest. They are presented below. Table 9. Federally Listed Terrestrial Species of the Bankhead National Forest

Scientific Name Common Name Status1

Myotis grisescens Gray bat E Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared bat P Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E Dalea foliosa Leafy prairie clover E Lesquerella lyrata Lyrate bladder-pod T Marshallia mohrii Mohr's Barbara's Buttons T Xyris tennesseensis Tennessee yellow-eyed grass E Leavenworthia crassa Fleshyfruit gladecress P Apios priceana Price's Potato-Bean T 1E = endangered; T = threatened; P = proposed

The terrestrial species of plants and animals that are listed as Sensitive for the Bankhead National Forest are presented below. One species is a candidate for federal listing. Table 10. Regional Forester's Terrestrial Sensitive Species of the Bankhead August 7, 2001

Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Helianthus eggertii Eggert's sunflower S Aesculus parviflora Small flowered buckeye S Astragalus tennesseensis Tennessee Milkvetch S Aureolaria patula Spreading yellow false foxglove S Carex brysonii Bryson's sedge S Delphinium alabamicum Alabama larkspur S Diervilla rivularis Riverbank bush-honeysuckle S Hymenophyllum tayloriae Gorge filmy fern S Jamesianthus alabamensis Alabama jamesianthus S Juglans cinerea Butternut S

114

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Leavenworthiaalabamica var.alabamica Alabama Gladecress S Lesquerella densipila Duck River Bladderpod S Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap S Asplenium x ebenoides Scott's Spleenwort S Marshallia trinervia Broadleaf Barbara's buttons S Minuartia alabamensis Alabama Sandwort S Neviusia alabamensis Alabama snow-wreath S Platanthera intergrilabia White fringeless orchid C&S Polymnia laevigata Tennessee Leafcup S Robinia viscosa Clammy Locust S Rudbeckia triloba var pinnatiloba Pinnate-lobed Black-eyed Susan S Scutellaria alabamensis Alabama skullcap S Sedum nevii Nevius' stonecrop S Silene ovata Blue Ridge catchfly S Talinum calcaricum Limestone Fameflower S Talinum mengesii Menge's fameflower S Thalictrum mirabile Little mountain meadow rue S Trillium lancifolium Lanceleaf Trillium S Trillium simile Jeweled Trillium S Speyeria diana Diana Fritillary S Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's Big-eared bat S Cheilolejeunea evansii A liverwort S Aneura maxima A liverwort S Pellia X appalachiana A liverwort S Plagiochila echinata A liverwort S Radula sullivantii A liverwort S Riccardia jugata A liverwort S Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle S 1S = sensitive; C = candidate for Federal listing Bankhead records indicate that a number of these terrestrial species occur in or have potential habitat in the Greater Collier Watershed analysis area. No terrestrial threatened, endangered, proposed or sensitive species (PETS) were encountered during field surveys for this project or for the Bankhead Forest Health and Restoration Project (FHRP). Sandstone outcrops, rockhouses, and bluffs have been encountered in the Greater Collier analysis area. Wetlands are known in the analysis area. Existing environment, habitat requirements and effects from implementation of Alternative 2 for PETS are found in the Biological Evaluations for this project, Appendix B. Effects Analysis - Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Effects of the preferred alternative 2 are presented in the Biological Evaluations, Appendix B. The table below presents the effects of all alternatives in relation to the amount of potential habitat available under each alternative. Sensitive plant species have been grouped by their habitat association. Refer to Appendix A for a listing of sensitive plant species and their habitat associations.

115

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Table 11. Effects of Alternatives on Terrestrial Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action Proposed Action

Gray Bat 0 0

Indiana Bat 0 0

Northern long-eared Bat 0 0

Red-cockaded Woodpecker 0 0

Leafy Prairie Clover 0 0

Lyrate Bladderpod 0 0

Fleshy-fruit Gladecress & 0 0 proposed critical habitat

Mohr’s Barbara’s Buttons 0 0

Tennessee Yellow-eyed 0 0 Grass

Price’s Potato Bean 0 0

Bald Eagle 0 0

Rafinesque’s Big-eared Bat 0 0

Mixed Mesic Associates 0 0

Riparian Associates 0 0

Wetland Associates 0 0

Rock Outcrop and Cliff 0 0 Associates

Glade, Prairie and Woodland 0 + Associates

Southern Yellow Pine Forest 0 + Associates

0 = No change in available habitat; + = Increase in Potential Habitat; + + = Large Increase

116

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

in Potential Habitat; - = Decrease in Potential Habitat; - - = Large Decrease in Potential Habitat

Heritage Resources Affected Environment The Bankhead National Forest has a rich variety of heritage resources. The archaeological sites range from prehistoric to mid-twentieth century historic sites. This area is part of the Cumberland Plateau, the tail end of the Appalachians, where narrow ridges with steep drainages characterize the terrain. The archaeological site distribution in the Appalachian Highlands tends to follow similar patterns. The Bankhead Forest is no exception. Most prehistoric upland sites are shallow scatters of lithic materials located on ridges near streams and stream confluences. They usually date to the Archaic through Woodland periods (8000 B.C. to A.D. 900). The soils were not suitable for larger scale prehistoric agricultural methods that relied on renewable bottomlands. Thus, large late prehistoric and early historic Native American sites are scarce except where there are extensive bottomlands. Prehistoric people occupied many natural rock overhangs. Many of these rock shelters are multi-component and contain cultural materials deposited in layers representing thousands of years of human activity. This evidence is very fragile. There are remains of ancient hearths, storage pits, and activity areas as well as artifacts, particularly of stone, pottery, bone, and charred botanical material. Careless digging can easily destroy these. Artifacts that are not recorded in context lose much of their meaning. The Bankhead National Forest also has several prehistoric petroglyph sites in rock shelters and on exposed rock outcrops. These rock art sites are extremely rare in the East and are also vulnerable to vandalism. Beginning in the early nineteenth century, when Federal land patents were granted, small farmsteads were established on some ridges though poor soils did not encourage large- scale agriculture. Several community structures such as mills, schools and churches were built during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. During the Civil War (1861- 1865), a few area caves were mined for saltpeter which was used to make gunpowder. Indicative of past economic activity, evidence of liquor stills can be found along small drainages, representing several generations of moonshiners processing corn for market. When the Forest Service acquired most of the present area of the Bankhead Forest in the 1920’s and 30’s, standing structures were bulldozed to prevent them from being fire hazards. Thus, little of these structures remain except occasional rock piles from chimneys or foundations. Many of these have been subsequently “mined” for building materials. Domestic vegetation and evidence of dug wells also were present at old houseplaces. However, the Forest Service filled in most of the wells as a safety 117

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

precaution. There are a number of structures dating to the 1930’s built by the Civilian Conservation Corps for the Forest Service. These include camps, bridges, picnic shelters, rock walls, and fire towers. There are also several important early transportation routes including the Byler Road, Alabama’s first state subsidized road opened in 1822. There are three areas on the Bankhead that were designated as “special study areas”. These were proposed as Indian Tomb Hollow, Kinlock, and High Town Path Districts. These areas are under investigation to determine their significance. All of the proposed actions will avoid these areas. Environmental Effects Alternative 1 (no action) With this alternative no damage would be incurred by significant sites. However, with the No Action Alternative, the proposed project areas are unlikely to be inventoried for these resources. There has been little investigation to determine whether inventory or no action is the best method to protect these resources or what percentage of inventory is beneficial to overall heritage management concerns. Since significant sites will not be systematically identified, their locations cannot be effectively monitored and looting and vandalism may occur to these sites. Alternative 2 These alternatives have potential to damage significant sites on the Bankhead National Forest due to treatments that would disturb the ground or make sites more accessible. However, the proposed treatment areas would be surveyed for heritage resources prior to the beginning of any ground disturbing activity. Survey would begin with a systematic inventory of recorded data, followed by field survey, evaluation, and preservation aimed at the enhancement and protection of significant heritage resources in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the Heritage Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (1980). This process emphasizes integration of heritage resource management concerns with the views of the public, scientific community, consulting Native American Tribes, and special interest groups. Following a meeting with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on May 5, 2003, to discuss strategies for effectively identifying and documenting significant sites within a large acreage, the following plan was formulated to meet Section 106 guidelines. The acreages in the proposed action will be divided into smaller parcels for archaeological evaluation over a five-year period. Each year, the survey parcels will consist of several, usually adjacent or nearby treatment areas of 300 to 600 acres in size. Each survey parcel will be considered as a separate archaeological project and will have a separate project report. The reports will go through the Section 106 compliance process individually and no ground disturbing activity will take place on any parcels until Section 106 compliance has been achieved through the SHPO and THPO (Tribal Historic Preservation Office) review process. This process includes the following steps: Background research:

118

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

o Review of Forest Service land acquisition records o Review of Alabama State Site Files o Review of Bankhead National Forest Archaeological Status Atlas o Examination of historic, topographic, and soils maps o Examination of historic and current aerial photographs o Review of National Archaeological Database (NADB) documents o Consultation with Native American Tribal representatives Field Survey, analysis, and report preparation: o Follow guidelines established by the Alabama Historical Commission Policy for Archaeological Survey and Testing in Alabama (revised January 24, 2002) Sites eligible for or potentially eligible for the NRHP identified by the above methods and through previous archaeological surveys will be flagged for avoidance as “special areas”. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act and with Executive Order 11593. Cumulative Effects With the proposed action, more sites will be identified and evaluated than were previously recognized. There will also be more site disturbance than with the no action alternative. No long-term substantive studies on the Bankhead Forest have been conducted to determine whether sites have been degraded or disturbed as a result of treatments similar to those in the proposed project. However, since significant historic properties will be avoided there is no likelihood of adverse effects. Monitoring Sites that are potentially eligible, eligible, or listed on the NRHP will be flagged for avoidance as part of the archaeological survey process. A Forest Service contract inspector or sale administrator will monitor these sites to insure no damage occurs during treatment activities.Sites are vulnerable to damage by looting or vandalism and by natural disasters such as floods or tornadoes. Forest Service archaeologists, in conjunction with law enforcement, should systematically monitor potentially eligible, eligible, and listed NRHP historic properties according to an established monitoring plan that takes into account factors such as degree of vulnerability and relative significance.

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:

Chad Yocum, Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station

Jean Allan, District Archeologist, Bankhead National Forest

119

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Allison Cochran, District Wildlife Biologist, Bankhead National Forest

Ryan Shurette, Wildlife Biologist, National Forests in Alabama

Art Goddard, Soil Scientist, National Forests in Alabama

Tripp Gaskins, District Silviculturist, Bankhead National Forest

Tony Crump, Hydrologist, USDA Forest Service, Southern Region

ID Team Members Allison Cochran, Bankhead National Forest

Kerry Clark, Bankhead National Forest

Ryan Shurette, National Forests in Alabama

Art Goddard, National Forests in Alabama

Paul Gilliland, Bankhead National Forest

Travis McDonald, Bankhead National Forest

Blake Addison, Bankhead National Forest

Lorenzo Walton, Bankhead National Forest

Jody Tetlow, Bankhead National Forest

Jean Allan, Bankhead National Forest

John Garcia, Bankhead National Forest

Eugene Brooks, National Forests in Alabama

Tripp Gaskins, Bankhead National Forest

Matt Brock, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division Bankhead Liaison Panel

120

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

References ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2006. The Black Warrior River Watershed Management Plan. Or: http://www.adem.state.al.us/programs/water/nps/files/blackwarriorbmp.pdf.

ADEM (Alabama Department of Environmental Management). 2012. 303d Information and Map. http://adem.alabama.gov/programs/water/303d.cnt

Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Auburn University. Biotics Database. 2014.

Alabama Rivers and Streams Network. http://www.alh2o.org/

Annand, E.M., F.R.Thompson III. 1997. Forest Bird Response to Regeneration Practices in Central Hardwood Forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 61, No. 1. pp. 159-171

Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC; national Climatic Data Center: 117-126.

Aust, W.M. and C.R. Blinn. 2004. Forestry best management practices for timber harvesting and site preparation in the eastern United States; an overview of water quality and productivity research during the past 20 years (1982-2002). Water, Air, and Soil Pollut Focus 4, 5-36,

Bailey, M.A., J.N. Holmes, K.A. Buhlmann, and J.C. Mitchell. 2006. Habitat Management Guidelines for Amphibians and Reptiles of the Southeastern United States. Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Technical Publication HMG-2, Montgomery, Alabama.

Bailey, R.G., Avers, P.E., King, T., and McNab, W.H., eds., 1994, Ecoregions and subregions of the United States (map) (supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and edited by McNab, W.H. and Bailey, R.G.): Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture–Forest Service, scale 1:7,500,000.

Barnett, S.W. and V.S. Barnett. 2008. The Wild Turkey in Alabama. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Montgomery, Alabama.

Barnette, James P. and Brissette, John C. Regenerating Shortleaf Pine: Results of a 5 year Cooperative Research Initiative

Battle, B. 2003. Evaluation of landscape-level habitat attributes of Indiana bats autumn home ranges in the Bankhead National Forest, Alabama. Alabama A&M University.

Beasley, R. S.; Granillo, A. B.; Zilmer, V. 1986. Sediment loses from forest management; mechanical vs chemical site preparation after clear cutting. J. Env. Qual. 15:413-416.

Biram, Dena., Gwaze, David., Hoss, Greg. Shortleaf Pine Seedling Production and Seeding Trends in Missouri

Birdsey, R. et. al. 2007. North American Forests. In King, A.W.; Dilling, L.; Zimmerman,

121

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Birdsey, R.; Pregitzer, K; Lucier, A. 2006. Forest carbon management in the United States: 1600- 2100. Jouranal of Environmental Quality 35: 1461-1469.

Blizzard, Elizabeth M. et al. Shortleaf Pine Reproduction Abundance and Growth in Pine-Oak Stands in the Missouri Ozarks

Boerner, R. E. J., J. Huang, et al. (2008 ). "Fire, thinning, and the carbon economy: effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on estimated carbon storage and sequestration rate." Forest Ecology and Management 255: 3081-3097.

Borland, D.W. 2006. White Paper. Conceptual Woodland Community Descriptions: Upland Oak Woodland, Longleaf Pine Woodland, Shortleaf Pine/Grassland; Bankhead National Forest. The Nature Conservancy, Birmingham, Alabama.

Brawn, J.D., S.K. Robinson, and F.R. Thompson III. 2001. The Role of Disturbance in the Ecology and Conservation of Birds. Annu.Rev.Ecol.Syst. 2001, 32:251-76.

Brennan, Leonard A. 1999. Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/397

Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 2337-2348.

Carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle, a report by the US Climate Change

Cason, J. D., D. L. Grebner, et al. (2006). Current knowledge on effects of forest silvicultural operations on carbon sequestration in southern forests. 13th Biennial Southern Silvicultural Research Conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-92. K. F. Connor. Asheville,NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station 57-60.

Chang, M. 2003. Forest Hydrology: An Introduction to Water and Forests. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Clatterbuck. Knoxville, TN, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern

Clemson University Extension. 1997. Responses of Wildlife to Clearcutting and Associated Treatments in the Eastern United States. Technical Paper Number 19. Clemson University, Department of Forest Resources.

Clemson University. Herbicide Prescription Manual for Southern Pine Management. Available at http://www.clemson.edu/extfor/Herbicide%20Prescription%20Manual/HerbicideManual. htm

Clingenpeel, J. A. 2003. Sediment Yields and Cumulative Effects for Water Quality and Associated Beneficial Uses. (Process paper for Forest Plan revisions) Ouachita National Forest, Supervisors Office, Hot Springs, AR. 37 pages.

Clingenpeel, J.A. and M.A. Crump. 2005. A manual for the Aquatic Cumulative Effects Model. Ouachita National Forest, Supervisors Office, Hot Springs, AR. 42 pages.

122

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Clinton, Barton D., Elliott, Katherine J., Knoepp, Jennifer D., and Vose, James M. Restoration of shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata- hardwood ecosystems severly impacted by the southern pine beetle

Coats, R.N. and T.O. Miller. 1981. Cumulative Silviculture impacts on watershed: A hydrololic and regulatory dilemma. Environ. Manage. 5: 147-160.

Code of Alabama, http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/acas/codeofalabama/1975/coatoc.htm or http://www.legislature.state.al.us/codeofalabama/1975/125823.htm. Accessed, 12 Nov 2014.

Cook, Chris and Bill Gray. 2003. Biology and Management of White-tailed deer in Alabama. Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Montgomery, Alabama.

Depro, B. M., B. C. Murray, et al. (2008). "Public land, timber harvests, and climate mitigation: Quantifying carbon sequestration potential on U.S. public timberlands." Forest Ecology and Management 255(3-4): 1122-1134.

Dickson, J.G. ed. 1992. The Wild Turkey – Biology and Management. Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, PA.

Dickson, J.G. ed. 2001. Wildlife of Southern Forests Habitat and Management. Hancock House Publishers, Blaine, WA.

Dickson, J.G., F.R. Thompson III, R.N. Conner, and K.E. Franzreb. 1993. Effects of Silviculture on Neotropical Migratory Birds in Central and Southeastern Oak Pine Forests. IN USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Experiment Station Gen Tech Report RM – 229; Finch, D.M. and P.W. Stangel, eds. Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. Pp. 374-385.

Dilling, L.; Zimmerman, G.P.; Fairman, d.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.;

Dimmick, R.W., M.J. Gudlin, and D.F. McKenzie, eds. 2002. The Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina.

Dissmeyer, G. E., and R. F. Stump. 1978. Predicted erosion rates for forest management activities in the Southeast. Atlanta, GA, USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Area.

Douglass, J. E.; Van Lear, D. H. 1983. Prescribed burning and water quality of ephemeral streams in the piedmont of South Carolina. For. Sci. 29:181-189.

Duncan, L., J. Dilustro, and B. Collins. 2004. Avian response to forest management and military training activities at Fort Benning, GA. Georgia Journal of Science.

Eakes, Ron. 2008. Personal Communication.

Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall, and D.L. Scheele. 1999. WEPP (Draft 12/1999) WEPP Interface for Predicting Forest Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. U.S. Department of

123

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center, Moscow, Idaho.

Evans, A.M. 2012. Ecology of Dead Wood in the Southeast. Forest Guild publication. Santa Fe, NM.

Ferguson, E.R. 1958. Age of rough (ground cover) affects

Fernandes, P. M. and H. S. Botelho (2003). "A review of prescribed burning effectiveness in fire hazard reduction." International Journal of Wildland Fire 12(2): 117-128.

Fletcher, K. and Friedman, B. 1986. Effects of the herbicide glyphosphate, 2-4-5-T, and 2-4-D on forest litter composition. Can. J. For. Res. 16:6-9.

Fontaine, S., S. Barot, et al. (2007). "Stability of organic carbon in deep soil layers controlled by fresh carbon supply." Nature 459: 277-280.

Ford, B., S. Carr, C. Hunter, J. York, and M. Roedel. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Interior Low Plateaus. American Bird Conservancy.

Forest Conference, General Technical Report SRS-101. D. S. Buckley and W. K.

Forest Ecology and Management 204: 345-357.

Forest Guild Southeast Biomass Working Group. 2012. Forest Biomass Retention and Harvesting Guidelines for the Southeast.

Fulton, S. and B. West. 2002. Forestry impacts on water quality. In: Wear, D., Greis, J., (Eds.). Southern forest resource assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-53, Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, pp. 501–518.

G.P.; Fairman, D.M.; Houghton, R.A.; Marland, G.; Rose, A.Z.; Wilbanks, T.J.; eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American carbon budget and implications for the global carbon cycle, a report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Asheville, NC; National Climatic Data Center: 117-126.

Gaines, G. and Morris E. 1996. The Southern National Forest’s migratory and resident landbird conservation strategy. Atlanta, GA: USDA Forest Service, Southern Region.

Garten, C.T., Jr. 2006. Predicted effects of prescribed burning and harvesting on forest recovery and sustainability in southwest Georgia, USA. Journal of environmental management. Vol. 81, no. 4 (Dec. 2006): p. 323-332.

Gnehm, Paula C. and Hadley, Brad. The Effects of Wildfire on Pine Seedling Recruitment

Grace, Johnny M., III 2005. Forest operations and water quality in the south. Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 48(2): 871-880.

124

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Gram, W.K., P.A. Porneluzi, R.L. Clawson, J. Faaborg, and S.C. Richter. 2003. Effects of experimental forest management on diversity and nesting success of bird species in Missouri Ozark forests. Conservation Biology 17(5).

Gucinski, H., M.H. Brooks, M.J. Furniss, and R.R. Ziemer. 2001. Forest roads : a synthesis of scientific information. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Techinical Report PNW-GTR-509, Portland, Or. : http://purl.access.gpo.gov/GPO/LPS13433.

Guldin, James et al., (2011) Factors Affecting the Sprouting of Shortleaf Pine Rootstock Following a Prescribed Fire

Guldin, James H., Lynch, Thomas B., Stevenson, Douglas J., Hardwood Regeneration Related to Overstory Shortleaf Pine Basal Area and Site Index in Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma

Guldin, James M. Restoration and Management of Shortleaf Pine in Pure and Mixed Stands- Science, Emperical Observation, and the Wishful Application of Generalities

Hamel, Paul B. 1992. Land manager’s guide to the birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437p.

Hardy, C. C., R. Ottmar, D, et al. (2001). Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire, National Wildfire Coordination Group: 226.

Heath, L.S. and J.E. Smith, 2004: Criterion 5, indicator 26: total forest ecosystem biomass and carbon pool, and if appropriate, by forest type, age class and successional change. In: Data Report: A Supplement to the National Report on Sustainable Forests – 2003 [Darr, D.R. (coord)]. FS-766A, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 14 pp.

Helms, John A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry. CABI Publishing, Oxon, UK.

Hodkins, E. J., M. S. Golden, and W. F. Miller. 1976. Forest habitat regions and types on a photomorphic-physiographic basis: A guide to forest site classification in Alabama- Mississippi. Alabama Agricultural Experimental Station and Mississippi Agricultural and Experimental Station Southern Cooperative Bulletin 210. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/contents/12785

Hubbard, R. M., J. M. Vose, et al. (2004). "Stand restoration burning in oak-pine forests in the southern Appalachians: effects on aboveground biomass and carbon and nitrogen cycling." Forest Ecology and Management 190: 311-321.

Hudson, M.K. 2008. Personal Communication.

Johnson, D. W. and P. S. Curtis (2001). "Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: Meta-analysis." Forest Ecology and Management 140(2-3): 227-238.

Kabrick, John M.; Dey, Daniel C.; Gwaze, David. 2007. Shortleaf pine restoration and ecology in the Ozarks: proceedings of a symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-P-15. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 215 p.

125

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Kansas City, MO, USA: 40-55.

Kleiner, K. J., M. D. Mackenzie, A.L. Silvano, J. A. Grand, J. B. Grand, J. Hogland, E.R. Irwin, M. S. Mitchell, B. D. Taylor, T. Earnhardt, E. Kramer, J. Lee, A. J. McKerrow, M. J. Rubino, K. Samples, A. Terando, and S. G. Williams. 2007. GAP Land Cover Map of Ecological Systems for the State of Alabama (Provisional). Alabama Gap Analysis Project. Accessed (8 NOV 2013) from www.auburn.edu\gap.

La Sorte, F.A.; Thompson, F.R, III; Trani, M.K.; Mersmann, T.J. 2007. Population trends and habitat occurrence of forest birds on southern national forests, 1992-2004. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-9. Newtown Square, PA: USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

Lemly, A.D. 2000. Using bacterial growth on insects to assess nutrient impacts in streams. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 63: 431-446.

Li, Q., J. Chen, et al. (2007). "Effects of timber harvest on carbon pools in Ozark forests."

Management‟ s Savannah/Woodland Symposium. G. Hartman, S. Holst and B. Palmer.

Mayack, D. T.; Bush, P. B.; Neary, D. G.; Douglas, J. E. 1982. Impact of hexazinone on invertebrates after application to forested watersheds. Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxical. 11:209-217.

McCarty, K. (2002). Fire management for Missouri savannahs and woodlands. Society for Range

McNab, W.H., T. Miller, and E.V. Brender. Growth and Fusiform Rust Responses of Piedmont Loblolly Pine after Several Site Preparation and Regeneration Methods. South. J. Appl. For. 14(1): 18-24.

Mettee, M.F., P.E. O’Neil, and J.M. Pierson. 1996. Fishes of Alabama and the Mobile Basin. Oxmoor House, Birmingham, Alabama.

Miller, James H. (1987)The Use of Herbicide in Hardwood Forestry

Miller, W.P. 1987. Infiltration and soil loss of three gypsum-amended Ultisols under simulated rainfall. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 51(5): 1314-1320.

Mirarchi, R.E. ed. 2004. Alabama Wildlife, V. 1. A checklist of vertebrates and selected invertebrates: aquatic mollusks, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Mirarchi, R.E., J.T. Garner, M.F. Mettee, and P.E. O’Neil, eds. 2004. Alabama Wildlife, V. 2. Imperiled aquatic mollusks and fishes. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Mirarchi, R.E., M.A. Bailey, T.M. Haggerty, and T.L. Best, eds. 2004. Alabama Wildlife, V. 3. Imperiled amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

126

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Moorman, C.E., D.C. Guynn Jr., and J.C. Kilgo. 2002. Hooded warbler nesting success adjacent to group selection and clearcut edges in a southeastern bottomland forest. The Condor 104(2).

Mount, R. H. 1975. The Reptiles and Amphibians of Alabama. Auburn University, Alabama.

Mowbray, Thomas B. 1999. Scarlet Tanager (Piranga olivacea), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/479

Murphy, Paul A.; Nowacki, Gregory J. 1997. An old-growth definition for xeric pine and pine- oak woodlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-7. Asheville, NC: USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Neary, D. G.; Bush, P. B. Douglass, J. E. 1983. Offsite movement of hezazinone in stormflow 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. Manage. 14:23-40.

Net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products." Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1363-1375.

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2013. Alabama Tornado Occurrence. “Alabama Tornado Statistics.” 23 APR 2013. http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/?n=tornadostats2. Accessed: 8 NOV 2013.

Nolan Jr., V., E.D. Ketterson, and C.A. Buerkle. 1999. Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/455

NPIC (National Pesticide Information Center Technical) Factsheet on: GLYPHOSATE. Oregon State University, 333 Weniger Hall. Or http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.pdf. Accessed:

Nunery, J. S. and W. S. Keeton (2010). "Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States:

Ogden, L.J., and B.J. Stutchbury. 1994. Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrine), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/110

Oswalt, Christopher M. Spatial and Temporal Trends of the Shortleaf Pine Resource in the Eastern United States

Pacala, R. et. al. 2007. The North American carbon budget past and present. In King, A.W.;

127

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Pashley, D.N.; Beardmore, C.J.; Fitzgerald, J.A.; Ford, R.P.; Hunter, W.C.; Morrison, M.S.; Rosenberg, K.V. 2000. Partners in Flight: Conservation of the Land Birds of the United States. American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.

Patrick, J.H. 1976. Soil erosion in the eastern forest. J. For., 74 (1976), pp. 671-677.

Personal Conversation. 2013. Matt Brock. Area Manager and Wildlife Biologist, Black Warrior Wildlife Management Area.

Ponder, F., Jr. (2007). Biomass removal and its effect on productivity of an artificially

Powell, L.A., J.D. Lang, M.J. Conroy, and D.G. Krementz. 2000. Effects of Forest Management on Density, Survival, and Population Growth of Wood Thrushes. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1).

Pregitzer, K.S. and Euskirchen, E.S. 2004. Carbon cycling and storage in world forests: biome patterns related to forest age. Global Change Biology 10: 2052-2077. regenerated forest stand in the Missouri Ozarks. Proceedings: 15th Central Hardwood

Research Station: 135-143.

Robinson, W.D. and S.K. Robinson. 1999. Effects of selective logging on forest bird populations in a fragmented landscape. Conservation Biology 13(1).

Rodewald, P.G. and K.G. Smith. 1998. Short-term effects of understory and overstory management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4).

Rogers, Sherry R.H. & Marion, Ken R. Evaluation of the Population Status of the Flattened Musk Turtle (Sternotherus depressus) in the Sipsey Fork and Brushy Creek Branches of Lewis Smith Lake, Alabama. 2004. University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Rogers, Sherry R.H. & Marion, Ken R. Evaluation of the Suitability of Selected Stream Sites in Bankhead National Forest for Occupation by Populations of Flattened Musk Turtles (Sternotherus depressus)and the Potential Effects of Silvicultural Improvements on Habitat Quality. 2004. University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Roth, R.R., M.S. Johnson, and T.J. Underwood. 1996. Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/246

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel MD. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/BBS/

Schotz, Alfred. 2006. An account of limestone and sandstone glades in William Bankhead National Forest. Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Montgomery, Alabama.

128

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

Schultz, Robert P. 1997. Loblolly pine: the ecology and culture of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Agriculture Handbook 713. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 493 p.

SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003. Glyphosate – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. SERA TR 02-43-09-04a. USDA Forest Service BPA: WO-0103187-0150, draft dated March 203. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Fayetteville, NY. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/publications/herbicide_info/2003_glyphosate.pdf.

SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2003. Triclopyr – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. USDA Forest Service BPA:. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Fayetteville, NY. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/publications/herbicide_info/2003_triclopyr.pdf

SERA (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc.). 2011. Imazapyr – Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. USDA Forest Service BPA:. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc., Fayetteville, NY. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/Imazapyr_TR-052-29-03a.pdf

Sorensen, D. 1997. In: Monsen, S.B. and R. Steven, comps. 1999. Proceedings: ecology and management of pinyon-juniper communities with in the Interior West: 1997 September 15-18; Ptovo, UT. Proc. RMRS-P-9. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Southern Appalachian Man and the Biosphere (SAMAB). 1996. The Southern Appalachian Assessment Terrestrial Technical Report. Report 5 of 5. Atlanta: USDA Forest Service. Southern Region.

Spetich, Martin A. ed. 2004. Upland oak ecology symposium: history, current conditions, and sustainability. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-73. Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.

Stewart, Stan. 2005. Ecology and Management of the Bobwhite Quail in Alabama. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries. Montgomery, Alabama.

Stinger, Jeff. Two-Age System and Deferment Harvests. University of Kentucky

Stoleson, S.H. 2013. Condition varies with habitat choice in postbreeding forest birds. The Auk. Vol. 130. No. 3. pp. 417-428.

Sznajderman, Michael. 2008. Encyclopedia of Alabama. “Lewis Smith Dam and Lake.” 11 DEC 2012. http://encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1888. Accessed: 8 NOV 2013.

Tank, J.T. and J.R. Webster. 1998. Interaction of substrate and nutrient availability on wood biofilm processes in streams. Ecology. 79: 2168-2179.

The Longleaf Alliance, Longleaf Restoration, Longleaf Note #6, p. 2. http://www.longleafalliance.org/restoration.html 129

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

Trani, M.K., W.M. Ford, and B.R. Chapman. Eds. 2007. The Land Manager’s Guide to the Mammal’s of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Durham, North Carolina.

Tu, M., C. Hurd, R. Robison, and J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook: Tools and Techniques for Use in Natural Areas. The Nature Conservancy. Online Reference: http://www.invasive.org/gist/handbook.html.

Ursic, S.J. 1986. ‘Sediment and forestry practices in the South’, in Proceedings of the Fourth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Subcommittee on Sedimentation of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, Las Vegas, Nevada, PP. 2:28-37.

US Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, March 2008 Public Review Draft

US Global Change Research Programs, National Assessments Syntheis Team. 2001. Climate change impacts on the United States – the potential consequences of climate variability and change. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 612 pp.

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2012. Enhanced Invasive Plant Control Environmental Assessment. National Forests in Alabama.

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2011. Grindstone, Mill, and Inman Environmental Assessment. Bankhead National Forest

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan - National Forests in Alabama. Management Bulletin R8-MB 112A.

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2012. USDA Forest Service, Watershed Condition Class and Prioritization Service. Website last updated September 13, 2012. Accessed November 24, 2013. http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final environmental impact statement vegetation management in the Appalachian Mountains. Volume 1. 89-91

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Draft Supplemental Information Report, Management Indicator Species. National Forests in Alabama.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Final Environmental Impact Statement for Forest Health and Restoration Project. Bankhead National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. National Forests in Alabama.

USDA Forest Service. R8 Bird 3.0 Database. Reports on Bankhead National Forest Landbird Monitoring Data.

USDA Forest Service. 1997. Final Draft, Land Type Associations: Bankhead National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 1999. A Watershed Analysis for the National Forests in Alabama.

130

Bankhead Ranger District, Bankhead National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Final environmental impact statement Forest Health and Restoration, Bankhead National Forest.

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2013. Pine Flat Environmental Assessment. Talladega National Forest Service

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan. National Forests in Alabama.

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2013. Rock Creek Health and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment. Conecuh National Forest

USDA Forest Service (USDA). 2013. Suppression of Hemlock Woolly Adelgid. Bankhead National Forest

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Fish Passage Status of Road-Stream Crossing on Selected National Forests in the Southern Region in 2005. A Report of the Southern Research Station, Center for Aquatic Technology Transfer. Blacksburg, Virginia.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report, Fiscal Year 2001-2003. National Forests in Alabama.

USDA National Forests in Alabama. 1988, 1993, 1994, 2007, 2008. Watershed monitoring reports on file at Supervisor’s Office.

USDA National Forests in Alabama. 1988, 1993, 1994, 2007, 2008. Watershed monitoring reports on file at Supervisor’s Office.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and US Department of Commerce, US Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 1993. "Registration Decision Fact Sheet for Glyphosate (EPA-738-F-93-011)" (PDF). R.E.D. FACTS. 0r http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/0178fact.pdf.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region 4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment. Originally published November 1995. Website version last updated November 30, 2001. http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/riskassess/ecolbul.html.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b. Water: Water Quality Standards. What are Water Quality Standards. Website last updated October 4, 2012. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/about_index.cfm.

USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Imazapyr.

131

Greater Collier Forest Health and Restoration Project

USFW (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service) 2013. National Wetlands Inventory. Website last updated October 17, 2013. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.

USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey). 2013. ”USGS 02450250 SIPSEY FORK NEAR GRAYSON AL”. 02 DEC 2012. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/nwisman?. Accessed: 8 NOV 2013.

W.Keith Moser, Mark Hansen, William H. McWilliams, and Raymond M. Sheffield. Shortleaf Pine Composition and Structure in the United States

Whitehead, Donald R., and Terry Taylor. 2002. Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/614

Wilbanks, T.J.; eds. The First State of the Carbon Cycle Report (SOCCR): The North American

Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Conserving Alabama’s wildlife: a comprehensive strategy. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, Alabama.

Williams, James D., A.E. Bogan, and J.T. Garner. Freshwater mussels of Alabama and the Mobile Basin in Georgia, Mississippi, and Tennessee. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Wilson, Lawrence A. 1995. Land Manager’s Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of the South. The Nature Conservancy, Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC.

Withgott, James H., and Kimberly G. Smith. 1998. Brown-headed Nuthatch (Sitta pusilla), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/349

Yarrow, G.K. and D.T. Yarrow. 1999. Managing wildlife on private lands in Alabama and the southeast. Eds. Dan Dumont. Alabama Wildlife Federation. Montgomery, Alabama.

Zachman, D. 2003. Mechanical Treatments to Meet Resource Needs. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Resource Notes #67. Available at http://www.blm.gov.nstc/resourcenotes/respdf/RN67.pdf

132