United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southern Region Environmental Assessment

March for Tuskegee Upland Pine 2014 Restoration

Tuskegee National Forest: Macon County

For Project Information Contact: Eugene Brooks, Team Leader 2946 Chestnut Street Montgomery, AL 36107 334-241-8149

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 5 Project Area Description ...... 7 Proposed Action ...... 7 Decision Framework ...... 11 Public Involvement ...... 11 Chapter 2 – Alternatives ...... 11 Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative ...... 11 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Summary ...... 11 Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives ...... 11 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 12 Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences ...... 14 Soil Resources ...... 14 Water Resources ...... 21 Overstory Vegetation Resources ...... 26 Understory Vegetation - Rare Plants Community ...... 29 Wildlife Resources ...... 34 Climate Change ...... 41 Recreation/Setting ...... 44 Heritage Resources...... 46 Chapter 4 – Preparers/Consultation/Coordination ...... 47 Chapter 5 - Literature Cited and References ...... 48 Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need

Background The Tuskegee National Forest had its beginning as the Tuskegee Land Utilization Project, which was also known as the Tuskegee Planned Land Use Demonstration. The original project was 10,358 acres of land northeast of Tuskegee Alabama. Much of what is now the Tuskegee National forest was purchased between the years of 1935 to 1938.

Prior to becoming the Tuskegee National Forest the area was highly eroded (photo 1.2-1), cutover, worn-out farmland. In order to accommodate row crops and other types of agriculture, 80% of the trees had been cut. Many of the farming practices that are taken for granted today, such as contour plowing, terracing and no till planting, were rarely, if ever used in this area.

Figure 1.2-1: Erosion in Macon County. (ca. 1937)

Photograph courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The U.S. Government utilizing the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1935 purchased the land. On April 30, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 7027, creating the Resettlement Administration (RA). Rex Tugwell, the Under Secretary of Agriculture was the director. The RA was divided into four programs: the Land Use Program, the Resettlement Program, the Rehabilitation Program, and the Suburban Program. A poster from the Resettlement Program is shown in Figure 1.2-2.

1 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Figure 1.2-2: Resettlement Poster from 1935.

There were four Land Use Programs in Alabama: the Tuskegee Planned Land Development Project; the West Alabama Planned Development in Bibb, Hale, Perry and Tuscaloosa Counties (now the western half of the Oakmulgee Division of the Talladega National Forest); the Pea River Planned Development Project in Dale and Coffee Counties; and the Oak Mountain Planned Development Project. The government purchased sub-marginal farmland and the occupants were resettled on better farmland (Resettlement Administration 1936). The government then developed it for other uses such as wildlife, forestry, recreation, and erosion control. In 1937, the Farm Security Administration was created, replacing the Resettlement Administration. FSA Land holdings are shown in Figure 1.2-3.

2 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Figure 1.2-3: The 1937 Macon County Highway Map shows the FSA having taken over the Land Utilization Project and reflects the removal of many of the structures in the Tuskegee Land Utilization Project between 1935 and 1937.

The successive federal agencies that had responsibility for what was to become the Tuskegee National Forest in 1959, worked to stabilize the soil by controlling erosion and planting trees. On the Tuskegee National Forest, beginning during the 1930s, most plantings were of loblolly, slash pines and some hardwoods. Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-4 depicts serious erosion while Figure 1.2-5 shows the planting of trees.

3 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Figure1.2-4: A typical gully on the Tuskegee Planned Land Development Project, Macon County, Alabama.

Photo 1.2-5: Planting Slash Pine on the Tuskegee Land Utilization Project (ca. 1937).

Photograph courtesy of the Library of Congress.

The Tuskegee National Forest is located in the upper reaches of the East Gulf Coastal Plain Physiographic Region. This region was historically part of the 60-90 million acres of longleaf pine forestland that once covered the Southeastern United States. Currently, 2-3 million acres of longleaf remain across its historical range, much of which is located on public land. The longleaf community has been recognized nationally and by the Southern Appalachian Assessment as critically imperiled

4 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

habitat. There is a critical need to manage, restore and maintain any remaining occurrences of the longleaf pine community, especially in restoring the potential habitat for the endangered or imperiled species which depend upon this ecosystem.

The decline of the longleaf ecosystem has been caused by many factors such as land clearing for communities, agriculture, fire suppression, and in the early part of the 20th century, timber harvesting. In places where longleaf pine was harvested, faster growing loblolly and slash pines invaded or were planted.

The accelerated spread of terrestrial and aquatic invasive species is one of the greatest natural resources concerns in the United States and their prevention and control is critical to the stewardship responsibility of the Forest Service. Invasive species know no boundaries – they span landscapes, ownerships and jurisdictions and are spreading at an estimated rate of 1.7 million acres per year across forests and grasslands. The cost to the United States is over $137 billion each year. Invasive plants threaten ecosystem function, water availability, economic stability, forest production and human health. Second only to direct habitat destruction, invasive species are the greatest threat to native biodiversity and alter native communities, nutrient cycling, hydrology and natural fire. In 2001, $18 million was spent nationally to treat 130,000 acres.

On February 3, 1999, Executive Order #13112 was issued establishing the National Invasive Species Council, and directed Federal Agencies, using existing laws and other pertinent statutes, to prevent the introduction of invasive species, to provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts that invasive species cause. The invasive species threat has been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four significant issues affecting National Forest System lands. In 2008, the National Forests in Alabama (NFsAL) completed the NFsAL Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) Strategy with intent to reduce, minimize or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread and impacts of invasive species across the national forests and the surrounding lands. The Tuskegee NNIPS Control EA and DN (2009) and the NFsAL Enhanced Invasive Plant Control EA and DN (2012) address NNIPS treatment on the Tuskegee National Forest.

Purpose and Need for Action The National Forests in Alabama Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), approved in 2004, made broad decisions regarding allocation of land and measures necessary to manage national forest resources. The Forest Plan establishes direction for the multiple use management and sustained yield of goods and services for National Forest System (NFS) lands on the Nationals Forests in Alabama including the Tuskegee National Forest (Tuskegee) boundaries. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources could be provided from these lands now and in the future (desired future condition). The Forest Plan describes forest-wide goals and objective. The following goals and objectives of the Forest Plan provide the purpose of and need for the current Proposed Action.

• Goal 1: Manage forest and woodland ecosystems in order to restore and/or maintain native communities to provide the desired composition, structure and function (p.2-9).

o Objective 1.2: Restore and maintain approximately 17,000 acres of Upland Longleaf Pine Forests and Woodland Communities on the Coastal Plain management areas (Tuskegee NF)……..Restoration of these native communities will reduce loblolly pine and slash……….(p.2-9).

5 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

o Objective 1.4: thin overstocked stands giving priority to first treatments. Thin stands of species not native to their site which cannot immediately be restored...(p.2-9)

o Objective 1.5: Restore and increase, by 30% as a minimum, areas of each management unit managed as …Upland Longleaf Pine Forest and Woodland…in woodland and savannah condition, with reduced canopy cover and restored native herbaceous ground cover…(p.2-10).

• Goal 11: Substantially contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, and provide for the conservation of sensitive species…(p2-28).

• Goal 18: Use fire to restore and maintain fire dependent and associated communities. Fire regimes are restored within or near the historical range (Condition Class 1).

o Objective 18.1: Strive to burn, using a combination of growing season and dormant season burning...(p.2-53). The Forest Plan further allocates land into management prescriptions. A management prescription is a selected grouping of National Forest lands with similar land and resource characteristics and similar management goals. Management prescriptions provide a more specific set of goals and objectives, which help lead to the Forest’s overall desired future condition (DFC). The six compartments that comprise the Tuskegee Upland project area are predominantly assigned to management prescription 9.D. Restoration of Coastal Plain Longleaf Pine Forests (47%) and 9.G.1 Maintenance and Restoration of Upland and Bottomland Hardwoods and Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forests (39%). The remainder of the project area is allocated to: 7.E.2 Dispersed Recreation Areas with Vegetation Management (12%), 7.D Concentrated Recreation Zone (<1%), 5.A. Administrative Sites (<1%) and 4.E.2 National Register Districts as Special Areas (<1%). The project area contains management prescriptions that have no activities are proposed (i.e. 7.D, 5.A and 4.E.2).

The Forest Plan describes the DFC and standards for management activities that will lead to the DFC of the management prescriptions within the project area. The purpose of the vegetation management portion of the proposed action is to provide for the re-establishment of native Longleaf Pine and restore the longleaf pine-woodland ecosystem using the even-aged silviculture methods of clearcutting with reserves and shelterwood harvest with reserves; prescribed burning; chemical and hand-tool vegetation control.

Thinning is proposed to increase the health and vigor of the stands with slowed growth, crowding and canopy closure, thus making them less susceptible to damage or death from fire, insects, disease and wind throw. Timber thinning in upland stands having a significant hardwood composition often results in an abundance of hardwood root sprouting. This encroachment is undesirable because it displaces the diverse herbaceous plant species found in functional pyrophitic ecosystems. A dense layer of woody undergrowth also shades out fine fuels (grasses and forbs) and does not typically carry fire well. On drier sites where fire does carry through the stand dozens of years’ worth of frequent burns are usually required to control the sprouting in the stand since fire only top-kills the sprouts each time and leaves the carbohydrate reserves in the rootstocks intact and viable. To better control this encroachment and promote diverse, burnable, herbaceous understories, foliar herbicide applications (triclopyr) may be used in areas (Intermediate Thinning stands listed in Table 2, up to 746 acres) where dense hardwood sprouting occurs as a result of the thinning treatments.

Road management and wildlife management actions are connected actions that are associated with the proposed vegetation management actions.

6 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Project Area Description For the purpose of this analysis, the project area is considered as the area encompassed by compartments 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Tuskegee National Forest. This represents about 29% of the total land base or approximately 3270 acres1.

This analysis is site specific to the project area. A list of the individual stands proposed for treatment is located; along with maps of the project area is included in Appendix A. The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama is incorporated by reference in this EA.

This EA also includes the biological evaluation (BE) of Threatened and Endangered species and of the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species (Appendix B). Current conditions, potential effects of the alternatives are considered in detail, and mitigation measures are discussed in the following chapters of the document.

Proposed Action The Tuskegee National Forest is proposing the following actions to achieve the purpose and need (see appendix A for maps).

1) Restore longleaf pine community and create early successional habitat by regenerating approximately 407 acres of existing off-site declining loblolly pine stands. Selected stands for regeneration are generally located on ridge tops and mid to upper side slopes on soils that support xeric pine and pine-oak forests within which fire has historically played a vital role in shaping species composition. To reach desired future conditions of an upland longleaf pine forest and/or woodland ecosystem, all loblolly pine >5 inches will be removed, residual longleaf pine will be left or (clear cut with reserves/shelterwood with reserves), site preparation consisting of application of herbicides (triclopyr, imazapyr, glyphosate) followed by site preparation burning and hand planting longleaf seedlings will follow tree harvest. A post evaluation (3-5 years) will determine the need for herbicide release of tree seedlings. Activities will occur in the following stands:

Table 1.1: Restoration and Maintenance of Longleaf Pine: Stands proposed for even-aged regeneration by harvest method.

Compartment Stand Acres Method Of Harvest

0012 10 67 Clearcut w/reserves 0016 4 71 Clearcut w/reserves 0016 14 35 Clearcut w/reserves 0016 1 10 Clearcut w/reserves 0017 10 17 Clearcut w/reserves 0017 4 21 Clearcut w/reserves

1 All acres within this document are GIS acres. Actual treatment acres will be measured by GPS ….

7 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Table 1.1: Restoration and Maintenance of Longleaf Pine: Stands proposed for even-aged regeneration by harvest method.

Compartment Stand Acres Method Of Harvest

0017 24 38 Clearcut w/reserves 0017 15 41 Clearcut w/reserves 0017 18 8 Clearcut w/reserves 0018 9 15 Clearcut w/reserves 0018 13 52 Clearcut w/reserves 0020 18 9 Clearcut w/reserves 0018 11 12 Shelterwood w/ reserves 0018 10 11 Shelterwood w/reserves Total 407

2) Restore forest health and tree vigor by thinning approximately 733 acres of pine species over age 40 favoring residual longleaf to a basal area of 60 square feet per acre. Thinning will occur in the following stands:

Table 1.2 – Intermediate Thinning: Thinning stands to residual BA of 60. Compartment Stand Acres 0012 7 30 0012 1 46 0012 2 12 0012 8 10 0012 9 52 0012 3 18 0012 5 28 0017 21 21 0017 17 20 0017 2 13 0018 5 29 0018 6 11 0018 18 14 0018 7 63 0018 16 43 0019 9 42 0019 12 32 0019 32 13 0020 16 38 0020 23 8

8 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Table 1.2 – Intermediate Thinning: Thinning stands to residual BA of 60. Compartment Stand Acres 0020 12 63 0020 14 48 0020 13 18 0020 39 61 Total 733

3) Restore forest health and tree vigor by thinning approximately 348 acres of pine species under age 40 favoring residual longleaf to a basal area of 70 square feet per acre. Activities will occur in the stands listed in Table 2.

Table 1.3 - First Thinning: First thinning of pine stands under age 40 to residual BA of 70 square feet per acre. Compartment Stand Acres 0012 6 22 0016 6 61 0017 3 17 0017 12 41 0017 20 18 0017 6 27 0018 19 27 0019 13 22 0019 8 15 0019 4 10 0019 5 38 0019 7 11 0019 16 12 0019 6 27 Total 348

4) Provide for woodland habitat by treating mid-story on approximately 733 acres using handtools followed by stump treatment with herbicides (triclopyr), and foliar herbicide applications (triclopyr) as needed in areas where dense hardwood sprouting occurs as a result of the intermediate thinning treatments. Activities will occur in the stands listed in Table 2 above.

5) Provide for Wildlife Habitat on 15 sites for 9 acres. Maintain and/or improve existing wildlife openings. Maintenance activity typically include, but not limited to, mowing, fertilizing,

9 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

seeding, burning and rehabilitation by creating a seedbed involving mechanical manipulation of the soil. Activities will occur in the stands listed below:

Table 1.4: Wildlife Habitat improvement Compartment Stand Acres 0012 15 0.19 0012 17 0.67 0012 16 1.06 0016 24 0.82 0017 33 0.74 0017 29 0.84 0018 35 0.50 0018 24 0.42 0018 36 0.52 0018 30 0.55 0018 26 0.40 0018 31 0.47 0018 32 0.46 0019 23 0.70 0020 26 0.46

6) Prescribe burn approximately 3000 acres to create and/or maintain fire dependent ecosystem of grass and forbs ground story species dominated by longleaf pine over story with little to no mid story vegetation. Use of fire includes both growing season and dormant season techniques to maintain this type of ecosystem that is subject to encroachment by tree species and brushy community types not adapted to frequent fire.

7) Construct approximately 4 miles of temporary road, less than 1 mile of reconstruction, and less than 1 mile of road construction to access harvest units. Temporary roads would be closed, stabilized and seeded with native vegetation following completion of project. Maintenance of the following national forest system roads(NFSRs) in association with the timber sale activities.

Table 1.5 - Road Maintenance in Association with Timber Sale Activity NFSR Compartment Access 900 12, 17 912 12 905A 12 905 12 949 12 906 17,19 907 17

10 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

908 17, 916 17,18,19 914A 18 919 18 916A 19 916B 19 915 20 915A 20 914B 20

Decision Framework The decision to be made is whether or not to implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or a modification of the proposed action. The decision maker is the Tuskegee District Ranger.

Public Involvement On August 29, 2013 a letter was mailed to the Tuskegee District mailing list detailing the proposed action and offering the opportunity to comment. A legal notice published in the Tuskegee News on August 29, 2013 establishing the official scoping period of August 29, 2013 to September 20, 2013. No comments were received during the scoping period. On January 23, 2014 a Legal Notice was published in the Tuskegee News establishing the official 30-day comment period of this project in accordance with 36 CFR 218.24. No comments were received during the comment period. Chapter 2 – Alternatives

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative This alternative continues current management and proposed no actions. No additional ecosystem restoration activities would occur within the project area.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Summary This alternative proposes approximately 1,081 acres of thinning (first and intermediate thinnings), approximately 384 acres of clearcutting with reserves and 23 acres shelterwood cut with reserves, approximately 733 acres of mid-story treatment, approximately 407 acres of site preparation using chemical treatment followed with prescribed burning, herbicide release of tree seedlings as needed 3 to 5 years post planting, prescribed burn approximately 2,942 acres over an average 3 year return interval, and approximately 9 acres of wildlife opening maintenance. Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives • Forest-wide forest plan standards apply to all action alternatives. A list of standards applicable to this project is in the analysis file.

11 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Comparison of Alternatives An interdisciplinary team of resource specialists from the National Forests in Alabama participated in the development and analysis of the alternatives considered under this project. The effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on the quality of the human environment are briefly discussed in the next section. A comparison of the effects is displayed in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 - Comparison of Effects of the Alternatives by Resource Area No Action Alternative Proposed Action Resource Area No direct impacts. Indirect Erosion, compaction, nutrient Soil Resources impact of sedimentation. loss, sedimentation on 3% to Cumulative impacts 10% of treated acreage. Within unmeasurable. acceptable levels

No Cumulative impacts No direct, indirect or cumulative Negligible increase in sediment Water Resources impacts yield. Increase in water yield for up to 5 years. Slight increase in stream nutrients. Cumulative impacts on 14to 15% of the watershed for up to 2 years. No direct impacts. Reduced density, species shift Overstory Vegetation Resources Indirect - insects, disease, toward desired condition

mortality. Species shift toward (upland longleaf).

hardwood/pine. Cumulative – increased Cumulative impacts acreage of longleaf pine. unmeasurable.

No direct impacts. Short term (<1 year) impacts to Understory Vegetation /Rare Indirect – limited potential for desirable plants. Release of a Community Resources restoration. diverse floral community. Sift Cumulative - unmeasurable from woody to herbaceous understory plants. Increase in NNIPS until treatment can occur (<5 years) Cumulative – Reduction in NNIS, increase in herbaceous understory Species decline of the next Species increase over the next Wildlife Resources(MIS) decade decade Cumulative – beneficial effects Indirect - Degradation of Rare No Effects on listed species. T & E communities, negative impacts Indirect – increase in suitable to the recovery of RCWs in habitat for RCW, American

12 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

No Action Alternative Proposed Action Resource Area Macon County, limit the ability chaffseed, to maintain American chaffseed, no measurable effect of other listed species Cumulative

No direct, indirect or cumulative No substantial effects. Climate Change impacts No direct effects. Changes in setting with timber Recreation/Setting Change in setting as natural harvesting. Presence of processes occur. Thinning of equipment in the woods. stands due to natural mortality. Possible temporary trail closure Sift in species composition or re-routing. toward hardwood/pine. Cumulative –Maintained or improved condition of the trail. Overall change in setting to more open forest. No effect. No direct, indirect or cumulative Heritage Resources No cumulative effect. impacts.

13 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Environmental Consequences

The environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action were considered by resource specialists from the Supervisors Office of the National Forests in Alabama. This section briefly describes the existing conditions and summarizes potential physical, biological, and social impacts of the alternatives considered in detail for this assessment. Resource specialist reports for this project contain further analyses and discussion and are available in the project file.

Soil Resources Affected Environment

Soils within the boundaries of the Upland Pine EA are located in the Upper Hills Subsection. Within this subsection, soils are located within the Tuskegee Hills Landtype Association (LTA). The Tuskegee Hills LTA consists of upland ridges of low relief. Surface terrain is nearly level to sloping with short steep side slopes. Soils are derived from a mixture of marine sediments composed of gravelly fine and coarse sands and clay. Soils are deep, well drained, slowly to moderately permeable with sandy clay loam subsoils. Past agriculture has resulted in severe erosion over most of the forest resulting in loss of soil surface horizons and formation of numerous gullies and rills. Restoration of gullies in the 1950’s has reshaped the landscape. Healed rills can be found throughout the forest.

Soils contained within the Tuskegee Hills LTA are identified by an Order 2 soil resource inventory. A total of 9 soil resource inventory map units are identified and are listed below.

Five 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. Stand layout and delineation of riparian areas, prior to implementing management prescriptions, will eliminate management activities within any wetland or floodplain soils. Maps and soil descriptions are available for viewing at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Montgomery, AL. Soil Resource Inventory Map Units

Map Symbol Soil Map Unit Name

5 Cowarts loamy sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes 6 Cowarts sandy loam, 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 7 Cowarts-Uchee complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes, eroded 8 Dothan sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes 9 Eunola fine sandy loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes, rarely flooded 11 Luverne loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes, eroded 15 Uchee loamy sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes 16 Uchee loamy sand, 5 to 12 percent slopes

Soils located on ridge tops and side slopes are Cowarts, Dothan, Luverne, and Uchee soil series. Cowarts soils are located on slopes ranging from 1% to 25% broken out into 3 separate map units. Cowarts soils have a loamy sand surface approximately 7 inches thick (there are areas within the 3 map units where the surface layer is entirely missing). The underlying subsoil is a sandy clay loam to clay loam approximately 27 inches thick. The remaining stratum is clay loam to a depth of 60+

14 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

inches. Dothan soils are located on slopes 1% - 3%. The surface layer is approximately 7 inches thick consisting of a sandy loam texture. The subsoil is approximately 54 inches thick with a sandy clay loam texture. Luverne soils are located on slopes ranging from 5% to 12%. Luverne soils have a loamy sand surface layer approximately 9 inches thick (there are areas where the surface layer is entirely missing) with a subsoil layer 37 inches thick with a clay loam to sandy clay loam texture. The substratum to a depth of 60+ is clay. Uchee soils are located on slopes ranging from 1% to 12%. The surface layer is loamy sand approximately 9 inches thick. The subsurface layer is loamy sand approximately 12 inches thick. The subsoil is sandy clay loam approximately 31 inches thick. The substratum is sandy loam at a depth of approximately 60+ inches. Eunola soils are found on low stream terraces. Slopes are generally long and smooth. Surface soil texture is fine sandy loam approximately 17 inches thick over subsoil having sandy clay loam textures approximately 53 inches thick.

Macon County in the past has undergone moderate to severe erosion. Rills and gullies formed. Considerable amounts, and in places, the entire surface soil layer has been lost to sheet erosion. This phenomenon is well documented and briefly discussed earlier in this document. However, this is not necessarily the case for all the acreage composing the makeup of the Tuskegee National Forest. Approximately 2,886 acres or 26% are soils classified as floodplain and terrace soils. These areas are accumulation points or building sites for soil as they collect soil during floods. Approximately 2,770 acres or 24% are soils classified as non-eroded uplands. These soils have a good surface layer, often referred to as topsoil. This leaves 5,616 approximate acres or 50% remaining. These soils are classified as being in an eroded phase. The soil map units on the Tuskegee National Forest affected by past erosion are the Cowarts sandy loam on 5% to 12% slopes, Cowarts-Uchee complex on 12% to 25% slopes (the Cowarts portion of the complex is considered eroded), and Luverne loamy sand on 5% to 12% slopes. Past evidence of construction of erosion controlling terraces can be found on most of eroded soil map units. In addition, healed small gullies and rills can be found.

Direct and Indirect 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.

Alternative 1 - 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.

Alternative 2 - This alternative proposes approximately 1,083 acres of thinning (first and intermediate thinnings), approximately 384 acres of clear cutting and 23 acres shelterwood cut, approximately 735 acres of mid-story treatment, approximately 407 acres of site preparation using chemical treatment followed with prescribed burning, herbicide release of tree seedlings as needed 3 to 5 years post planting, prescribed burn approximately 2,942 acres with an average 3 year return interval, and approximately 9 acres of wildlife opening maintenance.

15 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

1200 1000 800 Clear Cut 600 Thinning Mid Story Treatment 400 Herbicide Application 200 Site Preparation Burn 0 No Action Proposed Action

No Proposed Action Action Clear Cut 0 407 Thinning 0 1083 Mid-story Treatment 0 735 Herbicide Application 0 407 Site Preparation Burn 0 407

Figure 3.1.1 - Vegetation Treatment

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 by the stump sprouting of hardwood trees, the root systems of the remaining vegetation on the treated area, and by increasing herbaceous growth.

The greatest percent (67) of the acreage to be thinned and clear cut has a moderate rating for soil compaction. Approximately 32 percent of the acreage has a slight potential for soil compaction (Figure 3.1.2: Soil Compaction Hazard). Less than 1 perent has a severe soil compaction rating. Severe rating acres are soils located in floodplains and will be elimianted from timber harvest during sale layout. Stand layout and 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. Monitoring of timber sales on the NFs in Alabama, including the Oakmulgee Ranger District (1988-2007) 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.

16 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

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

800 700 600 500 Slight 400 Moderate 300 Severe 200 100 0 No Action Proposed Action Thin Pro[osed Action Clear Cut

No Action Proposed Proposed Action Thin Action Clear Cut Slight 0 332 142 Moderate 0 739 262 Severe 0 12 3

Figure: 3.1.2: Soil Compaction Hazard involves fewer passes with equipment, usually less than two, compared to even-age and uneven-age harvests. Implementation of mitigating measures such as ripping/disking, fertilizing and revegetating, can reduce the effects of soil compaction (improve soil bulk density).

Slightly less than half (44 percent) of the acreage to be thinned and clear cut has a moderate/severe rating for soil erosion. The soil map unit 7 - Cowarts-Uchee complex, 12 to 25 percent slopes, eroded is rated as severe. Slope steepness (>15 percent) and the sandy surfaces of both the Cowarts and Uchee soils are the reasons for the severe erosion potential. Soils susceptible to erosion are those soils exposed to the elements of nature, primarily water from rainfall and landform position where increases in slope steepness increases the erosion hazard. Research observations and many studies (Hewlett, Lull, Reinhart, et al.) on experimental watersheds have shown that soil erosion is a product more by fire and/or mechanical disturbance than the actual harvest of trees. Monitoring of stands that had been clear cut (1988, 1993, 1994, 2004, 2005,2006, 2007) have found soil exposure to occur primarily on temporary roads and skid trails with minor soil exposure off roads and skid trails 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. Re-vegetation has been found to occur over a two year period returning the site back to non-erosive conditions. Soil erosion from thinning and restoration operations will be low, occurring on less than 3 percent of the acreage for thinning and 10 percent of the acreage from restoration.

17 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

500 450 400 350 300 250 Slight Moderate 200 Moderate/Severe 150 100 50 0 No Action Proposed Action- Proposed Action- Thin Clearcut

No Action Proposed Proposed Action- Action-Thin Clear Cut Slight 0 411 160 Moderate 0 220 49 Moderate/Severe 0 452 198

Figure 3.1.3: Soil Erosion Hazard

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 miles or 4 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 erosion, water control, and revegetation will result in acceptable soil erosion rates and will assist with restoration of site productivity.

New Road Construction is proposed for less than 1 mile or approximately 2 acres. New roads are permanent resulting in 2 acres of loss soil productivity.

Midstory Treatment is proposed on approximately 735 acres. Treatment proposed is cut and leave using hand tools. Harvest of material will not take place. Soil disturbance is confined to foot travel and is not considered to have no potential for direct/indirect impacts to the soil resource.

Herbicide The herbicides glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr, are proposed for use as site preparation on approximately 407 acres under the proposed action alternative. Treatment of NNIS is covered under a separate decision (refer to the NNIS discussion within this document). The herbicides glyphosate, imazapyr, and triclopyr 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 too 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

18 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

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 on soils and weather. Glyphosphate is similar to triclopyr in that 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

Prescribe burn and site preparation burning Site preparation burning on approximately 407 acres and prescribe burning approximately 1000-1200 acres per year over a 3 year return interval 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.

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

19 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Wildlife Opening Maintenance is proposed on approximately 9 acres. Treatment involves preparing a seedbed for planting involving disking, fertilizing, and seeding which will establish vegetation limiting soil erosion and reducing soil compaction. Addition of fertilizer and lime aids in improving soil productivity. Sites are usually maintained in a vegetative condition which protects the soil surface from erosion. Maintaining a vegetative cover will improve soil conditions over time. Implementation of forest standards for controlling water runoff and re-vegetation will reduce the effects of soil loss and sedimentation of nearby waterways.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - 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, implementation of the Forest Health and Longleaf Restoration EA, control of non-native invasive species, past prescribe burn 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 unmeasurable. 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.

Alternative 2 - 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 opening 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. Long-term loss of soil productivity will occur on approximately 2 acres from new road construction. When compared to past harvesting intensity for the watershed, the proposed alternative does not represent an increase in harvest activity or road use and their associated soil and water 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 Forest Health and Longleaf Restoration EA, control of non-native invasive species, past prescribe burn and other small scale land practices is expected to peak between the years 2014 and 2016. 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 SPB suppression and control, invasive exotic plant control and road maintenance.

20 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Water Resources Affected Environment The proposed project area falls within the boundaries of one assessment watershed, Choctafaula Creek. Public ownership within the Choctafaula Creek watershed is approximately 19 percent. Acre distribution is shown in the table below.

6th level Watershed Choctafaula Creek Public Ownership 7,538 Acres Private Ownership 32,426 Acres Total Watershed Acres 39,964 State Designated Fish & Wildlife Water Classification

Named creeks affected by land management within this analysis are Choctahatchee Creek, Hodnett Creek, Miles Creek and un-named creeks all being tributaries to Choctafaula Creek. Scattered small private ponds and one public (city of Tuskegee) pond are located within the watershed. State designated water classification for Choctafaula Creek is Fish & Wildlife. Within the assessment watershed, private lands are rated fair. Public Lands are overall rated good but have fair and poor rated categories. Forest Service watershed condition assessment rates roads and soils as having a moderate impact on waterhsed condition and invasive species and wild fire as a severe impact on the watershed. Annual precipitation averages about 54-56 inches across the assessment watershed. Precipitation is unevenly distributed throughout the year often causing alternate periods of drought and excessive rainfall. Excessive rains generally occur during spring and summer months.

The network of streams are classified as riverine with a dendritic drainage pattern, having a significant palustrine component, sharacterized by low gradient flow that is poorly to moderately confined, often with braided channels with some channels being entrenched. Stream substrate dominated by sand with a significanr organic fraction. Median 7-day low flow is generally very good [0.2 - 0.4 cubic feet per second per square mile (cfsm)]. Average discharge is about 20 inches (1.4 cfsm). Channel substrate in the assessment watershed is dominated by sand with a clay substrate. A vast majority of the stream network is composed of first and second order streams. Many of the stream bottom lands are narrow with small pockets of wetlands.

The groundwater on the Tuskegee NF is contained in the Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system. The majority of the ground can be found within sand and gravel formations. This aquifer system can be best described as extremely stratified by silt and clay confinement layers. This aquifer system has lateral communication with the surface as evident by re-emergence of water thru springs and seeps. The productivity of this aquifer system is generally good (Miller, 1990). There are no public water supply sources in or within 100 feet of the proposed treatment stands

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 - The No Action Alternative does not propose any new ground disturbance. Under the No Action alternative, there would be no potential for direct and indirect impacts to water resources aside from naturally occurring erosion and sediment runoff to streams.

21 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Alternative 2 - Choctafaula Creek watershed will be less than 4 percent affected from proposed timber harvest actions reflected in the table below. Mid-story treatments will affect less than 2 percent of the watershed. Prescribe burn affects approximately 7 percent of the watershed. Approximately 1 percent of the watershed will be treated by herbicide as part of site preparation on clearcut sites. Streams within the assessment watersheds should be adequately protected from sedimentation and off-site effects by mitigation practices. The effectiveness of the mitigation practices, particularly the application of SMZs, has been confirmed from on-site inspections (NF in AL, 1993, 1994, 2004 and 2007).

Table 3.1 - Summary of Actions Proposed within Watershed 6th level Watershed Choctafaula Creek Watershed Acres 39,964 Proposed Thin Acres 1,083 Proposed Clear Cut Acres 407 Proposed Mid-story Removal 735 Prescribe Burn Acres 2,942

Silvicultural practices of clear cut and thinning (including mid-story treatmetns) are known to potentially affect water quality and water quantity. Timber harvest, both clear cut and thinning, has the potential to cause the following direct effects: erosion, changes in ground cover condition, and changes in stand composition (Golden et al., 1984: Ursic, 1986; Belt et al., 1992; Brown and Binkley, 1994). Indirect effects could include sedimentation, changes in stream nutrient levels (particularly nitrates), increases in water yield, and changes in stream flow behavior (Golden et al., 1984; Brown and Binkley, 1994). The proposed action calls for the clear cutting of approximately 407 acres, thinning of approximately 1,083 acres, mid-story treatment on approximately 735 acres (same acres that will have intermediate thinning ) which involves chainsaw and leave on site. Prescribe burn is proposed for an average 1,000 to 1,500 acres yearly over a 2-3 year return. Surface water runoff and erosion impacts during timber harvests are typically short-term, lasting until understory and forest vegetation in the affected area re-establishes. Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous can enter water bodies attached to sediment, dissolved in water runoff, or through the air. Nutrient losses tend to increase proportionately with sediment losses. Increased nutrient runoff to streams can have either adverse effects or potentially beneficial effects, depending on the level of nutrient runoff, and the current nutrient content of the streams. The potential increase in sediment yields to the watershed listed would be negligible overall and would have temporary effects in the headwater streams and impacts would diminish significantly further downstream in larger, mid-order streams. No timber harvest will occur in riparian corridors when they are flooded, saturated or wet. Minimal soil disturbance is expected to occur in streamside management zones and no soil disturbance in wetland communities since no timber harvests would occur in these areas. Effects to water resources from potential increases in water, sediment and nutrient yields from timber harvest would be minimized by implementing forest plan mitigation measures designed to reduce erosion and sediment. Dissolved organic/inorganic nutrients and sediment in water runoff can impair stream water quality and beneficial uses.

Changes in water yield would occur in response to timber harvest and silvicultural activities. These activities would increase water yield by decreasing the interception of precipitation by trees and the loss of soil water due to transpiration. Stream flow increases do not last long in the southeastern U.S. due to the rapid regeneration of dense new stands on cut areas. Although increased yields are possible from 5 to 10 years after harvest, almost all of the increase is over after 5 years for clear cuts and within 1 to 3 years when less than 50% of the basal area is removed (Swank, Vose and Elliot 2001).

22 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Temporary Roads will have an adverse effect on water quality. 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. Temporary roads associated with timber harvest cuts are also known to potentially affect water quality, water quantity, channel morphology, and downstream designated uses. There less than 5 miles of temporary roads associated with the proposed action. Temporary roads pose the greatest threat to the sustainability of the downstream designated uses. The effects of these temporary roads may be evident for the entire two years of their recovery period. State Best Management Practices as well as Forest soil and water standards (refer to Chapter 1) will be applied to these roads as mitigation measures. Temporary roads are closed after harvest and impacts decrease in intensity as the road surface and cut-fill slopes stabilize, and roads begin to re-vegetate following completion of activities. Design and construction of water controlling structures such as dips and waterbars during construction helps to alleviate one of the main causes of sediment to streams.

Herbicides can cause water pollution during storage, transport, application, clean up and/or container disposal. Direct effects of herbicide application are potential chemical contamination of surface waters and ground waters (Michael and Neary, 1993; VM EIS IV-103). Indirect effects are potential increases in sediment and water yield (VM EIS IV-103). Slight increases in stream nutrients, particularly nitrated (Neary et al., 1993), may also occur as an indirect effect. This alternative proposes the use of glyphosate, imazapyr and triclopyr. The following characterizes these three chemicals:

Glyphosate

• Solubility: Glyphosate dissolves easily in water. • Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: The potential for leaching is low. Glyphosate and the surfactant in Roundup are strongly adsorbed to soil particles. Tests show that the half-life for glyphosate in water ranges from 35 to 63 days. The surfactant half-life ranges from 3 to 4 weeks. • Surface Waters: Studies examined glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) residues in surface water after forest application in British Columbia with and without no- spray streamside zones. With a no-spray streamside zone, very low concentrations were sometimes found in water and sediment after the first heavy rain. Where glyphosate was sprayed over the stream, higher peak concentrations in water always occurred following heavy rain, up to 3 weeks after application. Glyphosate and AMPA residues peaked later in stream sediments, where they persisted for over 1 year. These residues were not easily released back into the water. • Soils: Glyphosate is not soil active or soil mobile, it is rapidly broken down by soil microbes.

Imazapyr

• Solubility: Imazapyr is soluble in water. • Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Imazapyr has a low potential for leaching into groundwater. • Surface Waters: Imazapyr may move from treated areas in streams. Most movement of imazapyr was found in runoff from storms. Use of a streamside management zone can

23 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

significantly reduce the amount of offsite movement of imazapyr in stormflow. The half-life of imazapyr in water is about 4 days. o Additional Mitigation: Do not apply on irrigation ditches. Do not apply where runoff water may flow onto agricultural land. Do not apply to water or wetlands. • Soils: Imazapyr is strongly absorbed by the soil, usually only found in the top few inches. It is soil active with soil mobility being relatively low. Imazapyr can remain in the soil from 6 months to as long as 2 years. Exposure to sunlight assists with breakdown in soil as well as soil microorganisms.

Triclopyr

• Solubility: moderate to low • Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: The potential for leaching depends on the soil type, acidity and rainfall conditions. Triclopyr should not be a leaching problem under normal conditions since it binds to clay and organic matter in soil. Triclopyr may leach from light soils if rainfall is very heavy. • Surface Waters: Sunlight rapidly breaks down triclopyr in water. The half-life in water is less than 24 hours. • Soils: Triclopyr is not highly mobile in soil. It is rapidly broken down by soil organisms.

The potential for surface or ground water contamination from an application of glyphosate, imazapyr and triclopyr is very slight. Foliar hand and mechanical applications offer very little potential for drift. Herbicide applications would be performed to meet label requirements, and follow forest plan standards and mitigation measures. The dispersed nature of herbicide application in combination with the low frequency and low application rates should present a low risk of pollution to surface and groundwater. Streams would be protected from herbicide translocation by limiting herbicide application distances to streams, riparian and aquatic zones. Stream side management zones would absorb any limited movement without noticeable effect on land or aquatic vegetation. Placement of an untreated SMZ parallel to the channel greatly reduces the potential for direct contamination of water resources and these no treatment zones absorbs any movement without noticeable effect on aquatic vegetation. The herbicide imazapyr is soil a soil active herbicide. The method of treatment and the characteristics of the herbicide in regard to soil degradation and movement limit the risk of leaching and water contamination. Prescribe burn and site preparation burning direct effects are potential changes in ground cover and increase in the hydrophobicity (water repellency) of a soil as well as erosion from plowed fire lines (VM EIS, Appendix B; Shahlaee et al., 1991). The severity of indirect effects depends on the intensity of the fire. Indirect effects are potential increase in sediment, storm flows and nutrient levels in the water column (VM EIS, IV-114). Prescribe burn activities have the potential to increase the solubility of some cations in the forest floor, but would not diminish water quality (Knoepp and others 2004). Streamside areas would be minimally impacted by the burns since no harvest would occur in riparian corridors and logging slash would not exist. Fires would be allowed to back down into streamside areas, but typically do not carry far into these damper areas. Very little vegetation is killed in riparian areas by the low intensity fire. There would be little, if any, change in runoff from the burned areas. Fire line construction exposes the mineral soil by removing vegetation, leaf litter and duff. Construction of fire lines increases soil exposed area’s susceptibility to soil erosion and

24 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

displacement of nutrients, organic matter and sediment offsite. Fire lines can recover quickly when they accumulate litter from a forest canopy and/or treated with erosion control measures to control concentrated flow and reduce soil exposure through re-vegetation efforts.

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

Wildlife opening maintenance proposed for approximately 9 acres. Soil disturbance from mechanical treatments involving seed bed preparation at this small scale will not greatly increase the amount of sediment transported downstream.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - Cumulative effects from past and present activities generally result in localized soil erosion which contributes to sedimentation of nearby streams. Cumulative effects from existing roads, implementation of the Forest Health and Longleaf Restoration EA, control of non-native invasive species, past prescribe burn 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 NF, that are reasonably foreseeable would be implemented under the standards for protecting the water resource listed in the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forest in Alabama; therefore, cumulative effects from these actions are expected to be minimal and meet the State designated water classification of Fish and Wildlife. Activities on private lands are expected to continue cumulative effects within the watersheds.

The cumulative risks of impairment from the combined activities under decision in this alternative within the assessment watershed is expected to be short term. Actual ground disturbance on public lands would be a very low percentage of the watershed and would be dispersed over the landscape. Temporary roads pose a short term risk to warm water fisheries, water quality, and aquatic organism from sediment. Private land-use practices would present slight to moderate risks in the assessment watershed.

Alternative 2 - Cumulative watershed effects that result from past and current conditions in the Choctafaula Creek watershed are described under the No Action Alternative. The Action Alternative would result in additional disturbance within the watershed from implementing the timber harvest proposal, mid-story treatments, proposed temporary road construction and pre-haul maintenance activities on system roads associated with use during timber harvest, prescribe burning and wildlife opening maintenance. Actual ground disturbance on NFS lands would be a very low percentage of the watershed within the analysis area and would be dispersed over the landscape. Combining remaining previous decision vegetative (timber clear cut and thinning) treatment acres and proposed vegetative (timber clear cut and thinning) treatment acres results in approximately 6 percent of Choctafaula Creek watershed having ground disturbance. Adding acres disturbed from the proposed action outside of vegetation treatments, i.e. prescribe burn, mid-story treatment, cumulative effects to the water resource are expected on approximately 14-15 percent of the watershed.

The cumulative effects associated with the Action Alternative would occur in the years 2014 thru 2016. The risk from vegetative management begins to be reduced by 2017 returning to pre-exisitng

25 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

conditions by the year 2018 (except for existing roads and periodic under burning). The risk from private land-use practices would continue indefinitely.

Downstream beneficial uses and other watershed indicators within the assessment watershed should be adequately protected by mitigation measures, particularly the application of SMZs which will encompass every scoured channel. The effectiveness of SMZs in protecting the water resource is discussed by Belt and others (1992) plus Brown and Binkley (1994). SMZs will not, however, offset increases in water yield. Water yield will probably increase in response to the reduction in evapotranspiration and could remain increased for up to 5 years after the harvest treatments (Douglas and Swank, 1975). It is not anticipated that any water yield resulting from the proposed action will negatively affect channel morphology or stream flow behavior.

Overstory Vegetation Resources Affected Environment

The project area is considered as the area encompassed by compartments 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Tuskegee National Forest. The stands proposed for first thinning are typically dense loblolly pine plantations, with closed canopies. The stands proposed for intermediate thinning and mid-story removal are generally loblolly pine plantations with scattered natural longleaf pine and a hardwood component in the midstory and overstory. The proposed (approximately 407 acres) regeneration stands currently consist of existing off-site declining loblolly pine. These stands are generally located on ridge tops and mid- to upper side slopes. These stands have moderate to dense hardwood midstories and moderate overstory components, and low to moderate herbaceous understory abundance.

Within the project area approximately ?? acres are within the 0-10 age class. The desired condition for management prescription 7.E.2 is to provide for “4% to 10% of the forested land base in early successional forest (0-10 age class),” and for 9.D. it is “desirable to have 10% to 17%” (Forest Plan, p. 3-32 and 3-38).

The following table displays the district-wide major forest community types.

Table 3.2 - Tuskegee National Current Major Forest Community Types

% % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Forested community Group Acres

Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak- 35% loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 9 Oak and Oak Pine Forest Pine loblolly pine (31) 86

shortleaf pine (32) <1

southern red oak/yellow pine (44) <1

bear oak/southern scrub oaks/yellow 1

26 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

% % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Forested community Group Acres

pine (49) 2 scrub oak(57)

River Floodplain 34% bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 24 Mesic Hardwood Forest Deciduous sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 33

Swamp chestnut oak/cherrybark oak 1 (61)

sweet gum/nuttall oak/willow oak (62) 41

sugarberry/American elm/green ash <1 (63)

sweet bay/swamp tupelo/red maple 1 (68)

Upland Longleaf Pine 21% longleaf pine (21) 100 Upland Forests and Woodland Longleaf

Wet Pine Forest, 9% slash pine (22) 100 Wet Pine Woodlands, and Forests Savannas

Coastal Plain Upland 1% white oak/red oak/hickory (53) 100 Mesic Mesic Hardwood Deciduous

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1(No Action)

No direct effects are anticipated from the no action alternative. Natural processes will continue. Overstocked stands will stagnate as trees compete for light and space. As the stands stagnate and trees become suppressed, they will be susceptible to insect and disease. Eventually tree mortality will occur through suppression, insects and disease. Stand composition will change from predominantly loblolly pine to pine/hardwood as shade tolerant hardwood trees in the midstory are released and begin to occupy main canopy position. Loblolly pine will seed into openings created through natural mortality and the stands will retain a loblolly pine component.

Alternative 2(Proposed Action)

During the proposed thinning operations, first and intermediate, longleaf pine when present will be selected as a leave tree resulting in a gradual shift from loblolly pine to longleaf pine. The density reduction from the thinning will open up the canopy allowing the residual tree more sunlight,

27 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

nutrients and room to grow. Selection of harvest trees will allow those suppressed, diseased, and dying trees to be removed from the site improving the overall stand health. Additional co-dominant trees may be removed to achieve density objectives. Intermediate thinning will allow for crown development so that residual longleaf pines may serve as seed trees for future natural regeneration. Mid-story treatment will also free up stand resources for residual trees reducing competition.

In the stands proposed for regeneration (clearcut with reserves and shelterwood with reserves) existing longleaf pine overstory trees will be left on the site. Following site preparation the clearcut stands will be planted to longleaf pine beginning the process of restoration. The shelterwood area will naturally regenerate to longleaf pine. The regeneration of these stands to longleaf pine and periodic prescribed burning will move the conditions toward the desired condition of “upland longleaf pine forest communities with open herbaceous understories”(Forest Plan, p. 3-38). As per forest plan objective 1.2 (Forest Plan, p.2-9) restoration of upland longleaf pine communities will reduce loblolly pine, yellow pine and slash pine forest types represented in the Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak Pine Forest. The following table displays the district-wide major forest community types following the implementation of this alternative.

Table 3.3 - Tuskegee National Forest Major Forest Communities After Implementation

% % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Forested community Group Acres

Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak- 32% loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 10 Oak and Oak Pine Forest Pine loblolly pine (31) 85

shortleaf pine (32) <1

southern red oak/yellow pine (44) 1

bear oak/southern scrub oaks/yellow 1 pine (49)

scrub oak(57) 2

River Floodplain 34% bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 24 Mesic Hardwood Forest Deciduous sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 33

Swamp chestnut oak/cherrybark oak 1 (61) 41 sweet gum/nuttall oak/willow oak (62) <1 sugarberry/American elm/green ash (63) 1

sweet bay/swamp tupelo/red maple (68)

28 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

% % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Forested community Group Acres

Upland Longleaf Pine 24% longleaf pine (21) 100 Upland Forests and Woodland Longleaf

Wet Pine Forest, 9% slash pine (22) 100 Wet Pine Woodlands, and Forests Savannas

Coastal Plain Upland 1% white oak/red oak/hickory (53) 100 Mesic Mesic Hardwood Deciduous

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative impact analysis for overstory vegetation is bounded by the project area. Vegetation management activities have occurred within the project area within the last 10 years including timber sales, prescribed burning, and NNIS treatment. Prescribed burning and NNIS treatments are expected to continue within the foreseeable future. No additional timber sale activity is expected within the next ten years.

Alternative 1(No Action

Implementation of the no action alternative will not contribute to the forest plan Goal 1 “Manage forest and woodland ecosystem in order to restore and/or maintain native communities…”(Forest Plan, p. 2-9). However, as indirect impacts of this action are limited to the stands not treated cumulative impacts will be unmeasurable.

Alternative 2(Proposed Action)

Implementation of this action along with past and ongoing actions will continue to move the overstory vegetation within to project area toward the desired future condition as described in the Forest Plan. More acres will be occupied by longleaf pine with open herbaceous understories. Longleaf pine will have a more dominate presence across the landscape.

Understory Vegetation - Rare Plants Community DFC of the Tuskegee District’s upland longleaf stands (as discussed in the LRMP, 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.

29 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Affected Environment – Understory Resources The project area is considered as the area encompassed by compartments 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 of the Tuskegee National Forest. The stands proposed for treatment in the Tuskegee Upland Project occur within the Tuskegee hills Land Type Association (LTAs, USDA Forest Service, 1997). Typical soils of the area are generally deep, well-drained, moderately slow-moderately permeable soils with sandy clay loam subsoils (USDA Forest Service, 1995). Natural organic matter and fertility is typically low, however a diverse array of vegetation is represented within this LTA under natural native conditions.

Stands proposed for First Thinning treatments (approximately 348 acres) are typically shaded stands of loblolly pine. The abundance and diversity of the existing herbaceous understory in these stands 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 canopy closure shades and suppresses sun-loving upland herbaceous understory plant communities. Understory-level vegetation in the upland stands proposed for first thinning 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 Pteridium aquilinum, Panicum boscii, and Chasmanthium sessiliflorum.

Understory conditions are similar for the proposed Intermediate Thinning and midstory removal stands (approximately 733 acres), however many of these stands typically have a heavier hardwood component in the midstory and canopy. Overstories are dense and understories are generally suppressed.

The proposed (approximately 407 acres) regeneration stands currently consist of existing off-site declining loblolly pine. These stands are generally located on ridge tops and mid- to upper side slopes. These stands have moderate to dense hardwood midstories and moderate overstory components, and low to moderate herbaceous understory abundance.

The existing wildlife openings (approximately 9 acres proposed) are typically mowed, disked and planted periodically 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.

TES Plant and Rare Community resources are discussed in the Wildlife Resources section of the EA.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 - No immediate direct effects 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 pine habitat areas, regarding desired future conditions (DFC) of the understory vegetation as described in the LRMP, 2004. Effects from prescribed burning, implementation of the previous timber sales associated with the area, and other small scale land practices would continue to occur in the vicinity. However, plant communities associated with open longleaf pine and hardwood woodland ecosystems would not be released within the proposed stands

30 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

under Alternative 1. Fine fuels (especially native grasses) would continue to be suppressed in the first and intermediate thinning stands, and longleaf regeneration stands and the functionality of the ecosystem (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 and promote an open structure. 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. A small percentage of the stands would retain some 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 stands.

Alternative 2: This alternative proposes thinning, restoration harvest, and herbicide 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 longleaf regeneration (clearcut with reserves) 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) and prescribed burning. Due to the high levels of hardwood rootstock that will be left underground in the stands, herbicide will be an important tool in controlling competition during site prep and release. Proposed herbicides include (triclopyr, imazapyr, glyphosate).

Immediate direct effects to existing understory vegetation in areas where either the proposed restoration timber sales and associated herbicide applications 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 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), and composites (Asteraceae). The proposed restoration harvest treatments and site prep and release methods, when followed up with regular controlled fire, will help to successfully establish longleaf 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 very small percentage (9 acres) of the project area and the focus these areas is primarily the concentration (for harvest or viewing) of game species, using native and/or desirable and benign non-native plant species. No adverse effects to adjacent ecosystems are expected in the short or long- term.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1: Other small-scale timber operations have occurred and are likely to occur in the

31 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

vicinity of the Tuskegee Upland Pine Project. Periodic prescribed burning has also been conducted across the district. Adjacent private use includes some commercial timber land harvest, sod-farming and rural residences. When combined with these private uses and other federal actions, the implementation of Alternative 1, in the long-term will result in more shaded (close-canopied) forests across the landscape with less herbaceous understory and fewer longleaf-associated wildlife species.

Alternative 2: Other small-scale timber operations have occurred and are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Tuskegee Upland Pine Project. Periodic prescribed burning has also been conducted across the district. Adjacent private use includes some commercial timber land harvest, sod-farming and rural residences. When combined with these private uses and other federal actions, the implementation of Alternative 2 will provide a more natural forest system across the landscape and contribute to Macon County’s cumulative forest health and floral and faunal diversity.

Affected Environment - Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) There are a number of invasive plant species within the forest, including, but not limited to, cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), sericea (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum), Tallowtree (Triadica sebifera), Japanese wisteria (Wisteria floribunda), Japanese climbing fern (Lygopodium japonicum), and invasive roses (Rosa spp.). These species are found primarily along the roadsides, in recreation areas, along trails, at trailheads, along stream banks and in wildlife openings, but are continuing to spread throughout the forest, posing a serious threat to native ecosystems, recreational opportunities, sustainable forest management, and in some cases public safety.

NNIPS degrade wildlife habitats and ecosystems primarily by displacing native plant species. Many NNIPS, including kudzu, cogongrass, and Japanese climbing fern, are considered stand-replacing species because of their ability to rapidly grow and out-compete native plants. Many NNIPS form physical barriers that impede the ability of native plants to photosynthesize and bring in water and nutrients. Some NNIPS have even been shown to use certain bio-chemicals to prevent germination and/or growth in adjacent plant species (allelopathy), giving the NNIPS yet another means to displace naturally occurring plant populations. Once established in a new site, NNIPS typically build carbohydrate and/or seed reserves very quickly and the rate of spread often increases over time. These disruptions in natural ecosystems can often have many other indirect negative consequences, including an altered fire regime, decreased water quality, and a significant decline in diversity.

High levels of NNIPS infestations are currently known from within the project area. These are typically scattered infestations of kudzu, mimosa, and especially bicolor lespedeza, and are found along the roads (including sections of Alabama Highway 186, FSR’s 906, 916, 900, 949, and County Road 54) and extending into the stands. Approximately 50% of the stands proposed for treatment in this Upland Habitat Project contained some level of NNIPS infestation. The Tuskegee now has an active NNIPS program and a small percentage of the infestations have been treated with herbicide applications. 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.

32 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Direct and Indirect Effects 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 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. In order to be successful in reaching DFC in the proposed stands, a very aggressive NNIPS program will be a necessity. Active monitoring and consistent NNIPS control will need to continue in WLO’s, and when coupled with the successful implementation of the proposed actions in Alternative 2, healthy native understories are expected to be restored in the long term.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1: Other small-scale timber operations have occurred and are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Tuskegee Upland Pine Project. Periodic prescribed burning has also been conducted across the district. Adjacent private use includes some commercial timber land harvest, sod-farming and rural residences. When combined with these private uses and other federal actions, the implementation of Alternative 1, in the long-term will result in more shaded (close-canopied) forests across the landscape with less herbaceous understory. For sun-loving NNIPS like cogongrass and kudzu, this alternative may actually slow the spread of existing infestations and delay the introduction of new invasives. For shade-tolerant NNIPS such as privet, there would be a continued expansion regardless of the alternative.

Alternative 2: Other small-scale timber operations have occurred and are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Tuskegee Upland Pine Project. Periodic prescribed burning has also been conducted across the district. Adjacent private use includes some commercial timber land harvest, sod-farming and rural residences. When combined with these private uses and other federal actions, the implementation of Alternative 2 may increase the potential for certain NNIPS to spread in the Tuskegee and on adjacent private lands, due to increased light levels and soil disturbance in the treated stands. However, the district has an active NNIPS control plans to address these issues in the long term using a consistent integrated system including herbicides.

33 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Wildlife Resources Federally-listed Proposed, Endangered and Threatened Species Affected Environment

A Biological Assessment (BA), sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was completed to evaluate the potential effects of the Proposed Action on Federally-Proposed, Threatened, and Endangered (PET) species known or likely to occur within the project area. Several sources were consulted to determine the federally-listed species that needed to be evaluated for this project. A list of Federally Listed species pertinent to the Tuskegee District was compiled from the current FWS list (Macon County) available at the Alabama Field Office, Daphne website, and from consultation with the Forest Fisheries Biologist and Forest Botanist.

Walking meander surveys of approximately 60% of proposed timber stands were conducted in the uplands during growing season and fall of 2012, during initial stand inventories by the Forest Biologist and Forest Botanist. No PET species were detected during the surveys. The National Forests in Alabama GIS database (for rare plants, animals, and rare communities) houses the Element of Occurrence and rare species inventory data compiled from a multitude of terrestrial and aquatic surveys that have performed over the past several years by both Forest Service personnel and other public and private entities. This database was queried to reveal no known PET locations occur within the proposed treatment areas (stands) or Wildlife Openings. There is designated mussel critical habitat however near (to the north of) the proposed stands, along Choctafaula Creek.

The following Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened species were considered for this project.

E – Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E – Wood stork Mycteria americana E – Southern clubshell mussel Pleurobema decisum E – Ovate clubshell mussel Pleurobema perovatum T – Fine-lined pocketbook mussel Hamiota altilis T – Alabama moccasinshell Medionidus acutissimus E – Relict trillium Trillium reliquum E – American chaffseed Schwalbea Americana

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1: Under the “No Action” alternative only other activities (including timber sales, mowing, road maintenance, etc.) outside this decision would occur. Rare communities, wildlife habitat, and recreational hunting opportunities would be degraded over time in the proposed project area as the native and natural forest structure and biodiversity declined. The “No Action” Alternative does not accomplish Forest Plan Objectives or Goals. Some prescribe burning would continue; however prescribed fire alone, applied within Forest Plan Standards and prescribed thresholds, would probably not be effective in controlling the already dysfunctional structure of the upland forests.

The “No Action” Alternative would have the following potential effects on Federally-listed (Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened) Species:

• The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) no longer occurs on the Tuskegee National Forest. It became locally extirpated during the early 1990’s due probably largely due to woody succession and loss of suitable habitat. Adequate habitats were not maintained to support the species through prescribed burning. RCWs do exist within 20 miles from the District, and

34 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

repatriation through emigration would be conceivable if suitable habitats existed on Tuskegee NF. The “No Action” Alternative however would not provide sufficient expansion and maintenance of foraging and nesting habitats for re-colonization or successful translocation of RCWs, and therefore in the long-term the No Action would likely negatively affect the recovery of RCWs in the county. In the short term there would be no direct effects to the RCW from the No Action Alternative.

• American chaffseed, like the RCW, is associated with open, fire-maintained upland pine stands. Since there are no known populations on the district, no direct effects are expected in the short term by the No Action Alternative. There is some marginally-suitable habitat for the species on the district and the No Action would likely limit the ability to maintain habitat for this species in the future should it naturally or artificially become established on the District.

• The “No Action” Alternative is not expected to have a measurable effect in the short term for the remaining species considered in the Biological Assessment. However, the No Action Alternative does not address the restoration of the project area to a more natural and native state. This may possibly have some negative effects in the long-term to the remaining listed species native to the area, although any negative effects to these rare species from no action are not expected to be measurable over the coming decade.

Alternative 2: The Tuskegee Ranger District proposes to restore and enhance existing upland pine stands by timber harvest, midstory control, herbicide application, and prescribed burning, and to maintain hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities by maintaining existing wildlife openings. Proposed Action implementation would occur in accordance with Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards. Forest Plan standards are applied as mandatory mitigations to all management treatments. The following table summarizes the potential effects the Proposed Action would have on Federally-listed (Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened) species. No effects to Federally-listed species or designated critical habitat are expected.

The red-cockaded woodpecker is given a legal determination of “No Effect” in the BA, since there are currently no individuals known from the district. In the larger picture however all of the proposed actions (with the exception of the wildlife opening maintenance) are consistent with providing and maintaining habitat for this species. A significant increase in suitable habitat across the Tuskegee would be a prerequisite for any successful RCW repatriation efforts and may someday prove to further the recovery of the RCW in Alabama. More detailed information on each individual species is included in the BA.

Table 3.4: Determinations of Proposed Action effects from the Biological Assessment of Federally listed or proposed species. Species Status Determination

Red-cockaded woodpecker endangered No Effect

Wood stork endangered No Effect

Alabama moccasinshell threatened No Effect

Southern clubshell endangered No Effect

Ovate clubshell endangered No Effect

35 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Fine-lined pocketbook threatened No Effect

Relict trillium endangered No Effect

American chaffseed endangered No Effect

Mobile Basin Mussels Critical designated No Effect Habitats

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - Other small-scale timber operations have occurred and are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Tuskegee Upland Pine Project. Periodic prescribed burning has also been conducted across the district. These actions have not been known to affect any of the listed species evaluated in the BA since the extirpation of the RCW. Non-Native Plant Species control (primarily using selective herbicides) also occurs in the vicinity although there are many untreated NNIPS infestations within the project area. Non-federal activities in the area include county road maintenance and general use by the public. Cumulative effects (for all of the above federally listed species) of the No Action are not expected to be measureable when considering other ongoing and upcoming federal and non-federal activities.

Alternative 2 - Other small-scale timber operations have occurred and are likely to occur in the vicinity of the Tuskegee Upland Pine Project. Periodic prescribed burning has also been conducted across the district. These actions have not been known to affect any of the listed species evaluated in the BA since the extirpation of the RCW. Non-Native Plant Species (NNIPS) control (primarily using selective herbicides) also occurs in the vicinity although there are many untreated NNIPS infestations within the project area. Non-federal activities in the area include county road maintenance and general use by the public. Restoration harvests, thinning harvests, temporary access management, and prescribed burning, in addition to other Forest Service management programs for recreational uses of the forest, are mitigated, by Forest Plan design, through Forest Plan standards. Cumulative effects (for all of the above federally listed species) of the No Action are not expected to be measureable when considering other ongoing and upcoming federal and non-federal activities.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species and Rare Communities Affected Environment

Sensitive Species are species “identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern…” (FSM 2670.5(19)). The most recent Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, for the Southern Region (Region 8) list was issued August 7, 2001. All species on that list that occur, or potentially occur, on the Tuskegee National Forest were evaluated in the Biological Evaluation (BE) for the project. This policy is designed to avoid impacts that may cause a trend toward listing of a species under the Endangered Species Act, or loss of species viability. The BE for this project relies heavily on the terrestrial and aquatic species viability analysis done in support of the EIS for the Forest Plan Revision and the Biological Evaluation done in support of the Forest Plan EIS.

Table 3.5: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species evaluated in Proposed Action Biological Evaluation Taxonomic Tuskegee NF Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Group Distribution

36 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Taxonomic Tuskegee NF Scientific Name Common Name Status1 Group Distribution

Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus Florida pine snake S Reptile P

Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear S Mammal P

Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat S Mammal P

Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis S Mammal P

Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow S Bird R

Baptisia megacarpa Apalachicola wild indigo S Vasc. Plant R

Hexastylis speciosa Harper's heartleaf S Vasc. Plant P

Hymenocallis caroliniana (=H. Carolina spider lily S Vasc. Plant L coronaria)

Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sunfacing coneflower S Vasc. Plant R

Crystallaria asperella Crystal darter S Fish R

Etheostoma zonifer Backwater darter S Fish R

Notropis uranoscopus Skygazer shiner S Fish L

Percina lenticula Freckled darter S Fish N

Anodontoides radiatus Rayed creekshell S Mussel N

Lasmigona complanta S Mussel N alabamensis Alabama heelsplitter

Quadrula rumphiana Ridged mapleleaf S Mussel R

Strophitus connasaugaensis Alabama creekmussel S Mussel R

1 Status: E = endangered; T = threatened; P = proposed; C = candidate; S = sensitive (2001 Regional Forester’s List)

2 Distribution: H = historical, P = potential, A = abundant, C = common, L = locally common, U = uncommon, R = rare

N = Near

Species of viability concern include federally listed species, Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, and locally rare species. A comprehensive list of species with potential viability concern was compiled for each management unit of the National Forests in Alabama, including Tuskegee NF, for the Forest Plan revision analysis by Forest Service biologists. Potential limiting habitat requirements of each species were also identified. Because viability regulations (NFMA and USDA regulation 9500-004) focus on the role of habitat management in providing for species viability, habitat characters were the primary factors used to drive species viability evaluation. Not surprisingly, many species of viability concern share needs for certain habitat elements that have become rare in the

37 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

landscape. Many of these rare habitat elements are components of rare communities. Many rare communities are components of, or associated with, wetlands, riparian areas, or aquatic habitats. Therefore, for locally rare species, and for species of viability concern in general, rare community abundance, distribution, and condition effects adequately reflect potential species effects. Mesic, aquatic and riparian-associated rare communities and the viability concern species they could support do not occur within the topographic features of upland pine and pine-hardwood stands and therefore will not be impacted by the proposed actions of the proposed project.

Rare communities are assemblages of plants and animals that occupy a small portion of the landscape, but contribute significantly to plant and animal diversity. Rare communities, wherever they occur on the Forest, are managed to ensure their contribution to meeting goals for community diversity, endangered and threatened species recovery, and species viability. These lands serve as core areas for conservation of the most significant elements of biological diversity identified to date on the Forest. The emphasis of designation and management of these areas are: (1) to perpetuate native communities that are rare (at the scale of their ecological Section or Subsection unit), and (2) to perpetuate or increase associated plant or animal species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, or are of viability concern. These areas are generally unsuitable for timber production. Rare communities on the Tuskegee District include wetland communities, xeric sandhills, basic mesic hardwood forests, and canebrakes. Prime examples of these communities, as identified in the forest-wide rare community database, are managed under the Rare Community Prescription.

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1: Under the “No Action” alternative only other activities (including timber sales, mowing, road maintenance, etc.) outside this decision would occur. No direct immediate effects are expected to any Sensitive species or rare communities. Upland rare communities, wildlife habitat, and recreational hunting opportunities however, would likely be degraded over time in the proposed project area, as the native and natural forest structure and biodiversity declined. Some prescribe burning would continue; however prescribed fire alone, applied within Forest Plan Standards and prescribed thresholds, would probably not be effective in controlling the already dysfunctional structure of the upland forests.

Under the No Action alternative, some level of adverse effect to upland sensitive or species and rare communities would be expected in the long term, as habitats grow more shaded due to unnatural levels of hardwood encroachment, and functionality of the pyrophitic ecosystems continue to decline.

Alternative 2: The Tuskegee Ranger District proposes to restore and enhance existing upland pine stands by timber harvest, midstory control, herbicide application, and prescribed burning, and to maintain hunting and wildlife viewing opportunites by maintaining existing wildlife openings. Proposed Action implementation would occur in accordance with Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards. Forest Plan standards are applied as mandatory mitigations to all management treatments. The following table summarizes the potential effects the Proposed Action would have on Sensitive Species.

Table 4.6 - Summary of Potential Effect on Sensitive Species

Determination of Scientific Name Common Name Effects may impact individuals but not likely Pituophis melanoleucus to cause a trend toward listing or a mugitus Florida pine snake loss of viability; beneficial effects

38 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Determination of Scientific Name Common Name Effects Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear beneficial effects may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward listing or a Corynorhinus rafinesquii Rafinesque's big-eared bat loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward listing or a Myotis austroriparius Southeastern myotis loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward listing or a Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow loss of viability; beneficial effects may impact individuals but not likely Crystallaria asperella Crystal darter to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely Etheostoma zonifer Backwater darter to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely Notropis uranoscopus Skygazer shiner to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely Percina lenticula Freckled darter to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely Anodontoides radiatus Rayed creekshell to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability Lasmigona complanta no impacts alabamensis Alabama heelsplitter

may impact individuals but not likely Strophitus connasaugaensis Alabama creekmussel to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely Quadrula rumphiana Ridged mapleleaf to cause a trend toward listing or a loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward listing or a Baptisia megacarpa Apalachicola wild indigo loss of viability; beneficial effects may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward listing or a Hexastylis speciosa Harper's heartleaf loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely Hymenocallis caroliniana to cause a trend toward listing or a (=H. coronaria) Carolina spider lily loss of viability may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend toward listing or a Rudbeckia heliopsidis Sunfacing coneflower loss of viability; beneficial effects

39 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Aquatic and riparian Sensitive species and rare communities would not be expected to be negatively impacted in the short or long term, either directly or indirectly. Xeric rare communities would benefit from the opening of the canopy and the proposed fire’s release of pyrophitic vegetation over time. Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - Under the No Action alternative, some level of adverse effect to upland sensitive species and xeric longleaf rare communities may be expected in the long term when combined with the current prescribed fire and timber management operations on the district, as these activities have not historically been able to sustain quality open habitats for species such as Bachman’s sparrow, sun-facing coneflower and Apalachicola wild indigo.

Alternative 2 - Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action are beneficial to upland associated species and communities and negligible to aquatic and riparian Sensitive species and rare communities, when all project mitigations are applied. Project mitigations are the Forest Plan standards. Restoration harvests, thinning harvests, temporary access management, and prescribed burning, in addition to other Forest Service management programs for recreational uses of the forest, are mitigated, by Forest Plan design, through Forest Plan standards.

Management Indicator Species

Affected Environment Management Indicator Species (MIS) are species selected “because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities” (36 CFR 219 (a)(1)). MIS are to be used in during planning to help compare effects of alternatives, and as a focus for monitoring. Twelve MIS were chosen for National Forests in Alabama; ten of these MIS occur on Tuskegee NF. Two of these ten MIS occurring on Tuskegee Ranger District will provide the basis of meaningful treatment effects comparisons between the existing and desired future conditions of the proposed activities in upland stands.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives Northern bobwhite and Prairie warbler are native early-successional bird species. The bobwhite forages and roosts on the ground, and its diet consists of both seeds (primarily in the fall winter and early spring) and arthropod prey (primarily late spring and summer) items. Prairie warbler is a migrant that arrives in the southeast in spring and departs for Mexico and Central America in fall. Prairie warbler feeds almost exclusively on insects and other small arthropods and nests in open shrubby early successional habitats in uplands. Both species are indicators of quality native uplands, typically with abundant grassy/herbaceous understory vegetation. Prairie warble is locally common on the Tuskegee in open, fire-maintained pine stands and the bobwhite is somewhat less common.

Under the No Action Alternative, these species would be expected to remain stable in the short term and then decline over the next decade in a scenario that allowed unnatural levels of hardwood encroachment and fire suppression to continue in the proposed stands. Under the Proposed Action, both of these species would be expected to remain stable and then show local increases due to the expansion of early-seral under-story plant communities. There may be short term negative direct impacts to some individuals from the proposed timber operations or burning (i.e., nest losses), but these losses are typically not significant and are easily justified by the creation and maintenance of their required habitats, and the populations will benefit as a whole.

The following species are MIS chosen to compare effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives:

40 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Table 3.7: Management Indicator Species chosen for Tuskegee Forest Health and Longleaf Restoration Project

Common Reason for Selection Related LRMP Name Objectives Of Management Indicator

For Proposed Action and Alternatives

Northern To help indicate management effects on meeting hunting 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, bobwhite quail demand for this species / To help indicate management 16.1, 18.1 effects on creating and maintaining early successional forest communities and other early successional habitats.

Prairie Warbler To help indicate management effects on creating and 1.2, 16.4 maintaining early successional forest communities and other early successional habitats.

Both prairie warbler and northern bobwhite is declining across the southeast due to habitat loss from fire suppression. Breeding bird point count data (R8 BIRD) is collected annually on the Tuskegee district. In concept, an increasing trend in the detected individuals during these point counts would be expected for these two species with the implementation of the proposed activities. Other species (like wood thrush, red-eyed vireo, or yellow-billed cuckoo) theoretically should decline in the same stands since these species favor shaded hardwood canopy forests.

Overall cumulative effects are expected to be beneficial for these two species in the long term, when the proposed activities are coupled with the thinning and burning associated with the previously- signed Tuskegee Forest Health project and other timber and burning projects, and non-federal activities in the vicinity.

Climate Change Affected Environment Climate change can affect the resources in the Upland Pine restoration 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.

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

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

41 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project 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 as 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 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). 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.

42 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

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 and Indirect Effects 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. Current off site pine species will continue to die off at a rapid rate (3-5 years).

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 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

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

43 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

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 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

Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 For both alternatives plus implementing the Forest Health and Longleaf Restoration EA, control of non-native invasive species, and prescribed burning, 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.

Recreation/Setting Affected Environment Several trails traverse the project area. Portions of the Bartram National Recreation Trail are within compartments 12, 17, 18. The trail divides compartment 12 and compartment 17 north to south and has several foot bridges not conductive to large loads. The trailhead for the Bartram Trail is in compartment 18 and a parking area is in compartment 12.

44 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

The Bold Destiny/Bedford V. Cash Memorial horse trail follows the northern border of compartment 19 with trailhead parking in compartment 16. Within compartment 20, NFSR 915A crosses the Bedford V. Cash Memorial horse trail.

Four designated dispersed campsites also occur within the project area. Campsites 8 and 9 are in compartment 20 and campsites 6 and 10 are in compartment 16.

The trails and dispersed camp sites fall within Forest Plan management prescriptions 7.E.2., dispersed recreation areas with vegetation management. The emphasis of these areas is “to provide a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities, improve the settings for outdoor recreation, and enhance visitor experiences, in a manner that protects and restores the health and diversity of the land.”(Forest Plan, p. 3-31)

The district office, residence and work center are located in compartment 12. These areas fall within Forest Plan management area 5.A. Administrative Sites. Administrative sites are “managed to serve/support resource programs and will be maintained to protect capital investment.” (Forest Plan, p.3-22)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1(No Action)

Under alternative one no activities will occur. Current management will continue and there will be no direct effects to the trails, dispersed recreation and setting. Indirect effects of this alternative include the change is setting as natural processes continue. Over time the dense predominantly pine stands will thin due to natural mortality, insect and disease. Dominant tree species will gradually sift from pine to pine/hardwood to hardwood/pine changing the visuals of the area.

Alternative 2(Proposed Action)

One direct effect to the setting of implementing this alternative will be the presence of harvesting equipment in the woods. During timber sale activities, dispersed recreation users will likely see and hear harvesting equipment, felling of trees and log trucks. Portions of the trail will likely be closed or rerouted for visitor safety. Opportunities for dispersed recreation within immediate vicinity of the activities will be reduced for short periods(weeks). Portions of the trails will be directly impacted by harvesting activities as harvesting may occur directly adjacent to trails. Forest plan standards provide for the protection or repair of any impacted trail tread.

Following the proposed activities, the setting will be different as stand densities will be less. The thinning and follow-up activities will provide for a transition to more open stands with grassy and herbaceous understories.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1(No Action)

Natural processes will continue. This alternative would have not cumulative impacts to recreation/setting.

Alternative 2(Proposed Action)

45 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Within the recent past(1-3years), other vegetation management projects including timber harvesting and prescribed burning have occurred within the project area. There are no foreseeable vegetation management projects within the project area within the next ten years. However, trail maintenance and improvement projects may occur within the next 3 to 5 years. The effects of implementing this project in addition to the effect of past and reasonable foreseeable project should result in maintained or improved condition of the trail. The recreation setting for dispersed recreation will be a less dense healthy forest with a more open mid-story and grassy/herbaceous understory.

Heritage Resources Affected Environment Cultural resources include historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), cultural items defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, Protection and Accommodation of Access to “Indian Sacred Sites,” to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIFRA), and collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic resource is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and allocated in such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional religious cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. Archaeological resources include any material of human life or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest. The State of Alabama lowers the threshold of an archaeological resource to just 50 years old.

Section 106 of the NHPA (PL89-655) provides the framework for Federal review and consideration of cultural resources during Federal project planning and execution. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has promulgated the implementing regulations for the Section 106 process (36 CFR Part 800). The Secretary of the Interior maintains the NRHP and sets forth significance criteria (36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural resources may be considered “historic properties” for the purpose of consideration by a Federal undertaking if they meet NRHP Criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v) define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal Agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval by a Federal agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally placed on the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those that meet the criteria and are determined eligible for inclusion.

As it concerns the proposed Tuskegee EA in particular, all the acreage under consideration had cultural resources surveys performed on them in 1983, 1986, or 2012, with no historic properties eligible for inclusion to the NRHP located. At present the surveys performed in 1983 and 1986 doe not meet the State of Alabama standards for archaeological investigation, which were upgraded in 1996, and amended in 2002. The acreage surveyed in 2012 does meet those standards, and since no properties potentially eligible for the inclusion in the NRHP was located those acres should be considered cleared from a cultural resources perspective. The remaining, and majority, of the

46 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

acreage within the Tuskegee EA will need to be resurveyed for cultural resources per the State of Alabama 1996 standards, which the National Forests in Alabama (NFA) has adhered to since 1996. This can be accomplished through the NFA’s Heritage monitoring program. When a monitoring survey is initiated it is not necessarily a complete grid survey, but rather an intensive investigation of certain landforms that previous field surveys, coupled with GIS data analysis, indicate are archaeologically sensitive areas. These monitoring surveys will be conducted prior to any further ground activity within the acreage under consideration.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 -This alternative would have no effect on heritage resources. Alternative 2(Proposed Action)

This alternative would avoid impact to know Class I and Class 2 heritage sites. Log landings, decks, log piles and temporary roads would not pass through or impact these sites. Monitoring by the sale administrator would protect these sites during timber harvest and other connected actions.

The NFA’s will determine the effects of the project on located sites prior to implementation of activities. Part of this determination will be if the located sites are eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion to the NRHP. The SHPO will be consulted after archaeological surveys are performed, but before implementation of ground disturbing activities. A Decision Notice will document concurrence from the SHPO.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 1 – There are no cumulative effects for this alternative.

Alternative 2 - Avoidance of know sites combined with surveys of project areas and consultation with SHPO would avoid cumulative adverse impacts to heritage resources. All types of timber sales and all other site disturbing activities require heritage surveys prior to the start-up of activities. Chapter 4 – Preparers/Consultation/Coordination

List of Preparers – Forest Service resource specialists consulted individuals, federal, state, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment.

Table 5.1 - Interdisciplinary Team Name Title Location

Eugene Brooks Forest Silviculturist – Team Leader Supervisor’s Office

Seth Tiffner Forest Timber CO Supervisor’s Office

Brannon Fraser District Tech Tuskegee NF

Art Goddard Forest Soil Scientist Supervisor’s Office

47 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Marcus Ridley Section 106 Coordinator Supervisor’s Office

Ryan Shurette Forest Botanist & NNIS Supervisor’s Office

Stanley Glover Forest GIS Coordinator Supervisor’s Office

While not formally part of the interdisciplinary team, other forest service resource specialist contributed to the preparation of this environmental assessment.

Dagmar Thurmond – Staff Officer, Natural Resources and Planning Stanley Glover – Forest GIS Coordinator Erika Davis – Forest Engineer Chantz Birch – Student Trainee Kelvin Turner – Student Trainee Amber Hailey – Student Trainee Amber Hines – Student Trainee Tashunda Williams – Student Trainee

Consultation with Others

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Chapter 5 - Literature Cited and References

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.

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin and T. Meril. 1992. Design of Forest Riparian Buffer Strips for the Protection of Water Quality: Analysis of Scientific Literature. Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. Report No. 8 Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID 35pp.

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

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

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.

48 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Brown, Charles J. and D. Brinkley. 1994. Effect of Management on Water Quality in North American Forests. USDA For. Serv. En. Tech. Report RM-248.

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.

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. Douglas, J. E. and W. T. Swank. 1975. Effects of Management Practices on Water Quality and Quantity: Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina. USDA For. Ser. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE13.

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.

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.

Golden, M. S., C. L. Tuttle, J.S. Hush and J. M. Bradley, III. 1984. Forest Activities and Water Quality in Alabama. AL Agric. Exp. Stn. Bulletin No. 555. 87p.

Grier, Charles C., Katherine M. Lee, Nalini M. Nadkarni, , Glen O. Klock, and Paul J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of forests of the United States and its relation to soil site factors and management practices; a review. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-222 51p.

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.

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.

49 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

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.

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.

Li, Q., J. Chen, et al. (2007). "Effects of timber harvest on carbon pools in Ozark forests." Canadian Journal of Forest Research 37: 2337-2348.

Jorgensen, J.R. and C.S. Hodges, Jr. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on the microbial characteristics of soil. In: Proceedings of a Symposium; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, S.C. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. 1971: 68- 76.

Knoepp, Jennifer D., Vose, James M., Swank, Wayne D., August 2004. Long-Term Soil Response to Site Preparation Burning in the Southern Appalachians. Forest Science. Vol. 50. No. 4. pages. 540-550.

Liechty, H. O., K. R. Luckow, et al. (2005). "Soil chemistry and nutrient regimes following 17– 21 years of shortleaf pine-bluestem restoration in the Ouachita Mountains of Arkansas." Forest Ecology and Management 204: 345-357.

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 Management‟s Savannah/Woodland Symposium. G. Hartman, S. Holst and B. Palmer. Kansas City, MO, USA: 40-55.

Miller, James A. 1990. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Segment 6. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas 730-G. U.S. Geological Survey.

Michael, J. L. 1986. Fate of arsenal in forested watersheds after aerial application for forest weed control. Final Rep. Auburn, AL: U. S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., South. For. Exp. Stn.

Michael, J.L. and D.G. Neary. 1993. Herbicide Dissipation Studies in Southern Forest Ecosystems. Enviro. Toxi. Chem. 12:405-410.

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.

50 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

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.

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

Nunery, J. S. and W. S. Keeton (2010). "Forest carbon storage in the northeastern United States: Net effects of harvesting frequency, post-harvest retention, and wood products." Forest Ecology and Management 259: 1363-1375.

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

Ponder, F., Jr. (2007). Biomass removal and its effect on productivity of an artificially regenerated forest stand in the Missouri Ozarks. Proceedings: 15th Central Hardwood Forest Conference, General Technical Report SRS-101. D. S. Buckley and W. K. Clatterbuck. Knoxville, TN, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 135-143.

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.

Pritchett W. L. and Richard E. Fisher. 1987. Properties and Management of Forest Soils. John Wiley and Sons. 500p.

Stone, Jr., Earl L. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on long-term productivity of coastal plain soils. In: Proceedings of a Symposium; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, S.C. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. 1971: 115-127

Shalaee, A. K., W. L. Nutter, E. R. Burroughs, Jr. and L. A. Morris. 1991. Runoff and Sediment Production from Burned Forests Sites in the Georgia Piedmont. Water Resources Bulletin. 27(3):485-493

Swank, W.T., Vose, J.M., and Elliot, K.J. Long-Term Hydrologic and Water Quality Responses Following Commercial Clearcutting of Mixed Hardwoods on a Southern Appalachian Catchment. Forest Ecology and Management 143, pages 163-178, 2001.

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

51 | Page

Tuskegee Upland Pine Restoration Project

Ursic, S. J. 1986. Sediment and Forestry Practices in the South. IN: Proceedings, Fourth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference. p28-37. Las Vegas, NV.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Final Draft, Land Type Associations: Tuskegee National Forest.

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

____. 1973. Impact of soil compaction on the long term productivity of piedmont and atlantic coastal plain soils. Report FS-6200-7. 26p.

____. Hewlett, Lull, Reinhart, et al. 1977. The impact of timber harvest on soils and water. Reprinted from the Report of the President’s Advisory on Timber and the Environment – April 1073. 40p.

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

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the revised Land and Resource Plan, National Forests in Alabama. Management Bulletin R8-MB 112B – January 2004.

______. 2004. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Forest Health and RCW Initiative. Management Bulletin R8-MB 118A.

USDA National Forests in Alabama. 1993, 1994, 2004, 2007, 2006-2008. Watershed monitoring reports on file at Supervisor’s Office.

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.

Wells, C.G. 1971. Effects of prescribed burning on soil chemical properties and nutrient availability. In: Proceedings of a Symposium; 1971 April 14-16; Charleston, S.C. USDA For. Ser. Southeastern Experiment Station, Asheville, N.C. 1971: 86-89

Yarrow, G. K., and D. T. Yarrow. 1999. Managing Wildlife. Sweetwater Press, Birmingham, Alabama, 588 p.

52 | Page