Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Hurricane Ivan - Red-cockaded Forest Service November Woodpecker Expansion Project 2004 Conecuh Ranger District, Conecuh National Forest Covington and Escambia Counties, Alabama

Responsible Official:

Gary L. Taylor District Ranger 16375 US Hwy 29 Andalusia, AL 36420 334-222-2555

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

INTRODUCTION The Forest Service has prepared this EA (Environmental Assessment) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations, including the HFRA (Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003). This EA discloses the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of this project to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact. The reports cited in this EA and additional project documentation are available from the Conecuh Ranger Station in Andalusia, Alabama. This authorized hazardous fuel reduction proposal is on the Conecuh National Forest, which is located in Covington and Escambia counties between Andalusia and Brewton, Alabama. The project area is within the habitat management area designated for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, an endangered species. The Forest Plan (Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Alabama, 2004) designates the Conecuh National Forest as Management Area 21. The following is a summary of the desired future condition for upland pine communities on the Conecuh2. These areas are dominated by large longleaf pine with grassy, herbaceous understory and sparse midstory. Fire-dependent ecosystems are burned frequently during the growing season to mimic the natural role of fire in these ecosystems. Vegetation patterns are primarily the result of fire (including prescribed fire), hydrology, and timber harvest activities. Water quality meets or exceeds state standards, providing biodiversity and beneficial downstream uses. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Hurricane Ivan blew down, snapped off, and damaged trees across the Conecuh National Forest on September 16, 2004. Most of the concentrated damage occurred on the western portion of the Conecuh with some scattered damage on the eastern side as well. Damage estimates range from five to 60 trees per acre (averaging about 15 trees per acre). Higher amounts of damaged pine trees in uplands increase hazardous fuel loading, increase residual smoke concerns following prescribed burning, and increase insect threats. This also poses increased safety concerns for forest visitors and workers. Within this area there is also an identified need to strategically expand the RCW (red-cockaded woodpecker) population by improving habitat through thinning, prescribed-burning, artificial cavity construction, and controlling midstory in cluster sites. This RCW Expansion Project builds on our continuing success where we have increased this population by addressing longleaf pine ecosystem management needs along with cavity needs and

1

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

translocation efforts. Although hurricanes are natural events and dead and down trees play an important role in ecosystems, part of our proposal is to reduce the concerns created by Hurricane Ivan while retaining many dead and down trees scattered throughout the forest. Prior to Hurricane Ivan impacting the Conecuh, treatments to improve RCW habitat had already been identified, presented to the public, and garnered widespread support; impacts to the RCW population from Hurricane Ivan (direct mortality of three breeding females and two juveniles and loss of many nest/cavity trees) has made this proposed work all the more important. The proposed action is an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project under the HFRA due to windthrow from Hurricane Ivan and the opportunity to enhance threatened and endangered species habitat characterized by a fire-dependant ecosystem. The goal of this project is to reduce concerns caused by Hurricane Ivan while advancing toward Forest Plan desired future condition of restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem and recovering the red-cockaded woodpecker. Although it is not a primary goal of this project, the proposed action along with on-going prescribed-burning and landline maintenance projects would reduce hazardous fuels in the wildland urban interface. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION Following Hurricane Ivan, a proposal was collaboratively developed among Covington and Escambia County officials, the Wildlife and Fisheries Division (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources), the Alabama Forestry Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Longleaf Alliance, WildLaw, and the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership where both the Hurricane Ivan damage and red-cockaded woodpecker expansion needs would be considered in an environmental analysis. Notice of and opportunity to comment on the proposed action was provided by: (1) Legal notice on October 16, 2004 in the Andalusia Star News (paper of record) with opportunity to comment to conclude 30 days following publication. (2) Scoping packages mailed on October 15, 2004 to individuals, groups, and agencies who have expressed interest in project planning for the Conecuh National Forest, which also explained the official public comment period. (3) Open House at the Conecuh Ranger Station on October 28, 2004 from 4-7:00 p.m. One person attended the Open House and no written comments were received during the official comment period. Using comments from the public and other agencies, the interdisciplinary team identified several issues regarding the effects of the proposed action. Main issues of concern included reducing hazardous fuels, reducing insect threats, enhancing red-cockaded woodpecker habitat, old growth management, soil and water protection, and safety of the public and forest workers. No other alternatives were proposed during the collaboration process or the public comment period. Therefore, as directed by the HFRA, only the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives were considered in this analysis. No Action: Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No removal of trees damaged from Hurricane Ivan and no red-cockaded woodpecker enhancement work would be implemented to accomplish project goals. The areas proposed for work would remain as described in

2

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

the Need for the Proposal. If no action is taken, hazardous fuel loadings would remain and increase, insect damage would increase and spread to surrounding healthy trees and habitat for the RCW would be further reduced. Hazardous conditions would persist and worsen for workers engaged in fire suppression and prescribed burning. Due to the heavy fuel loads, some areas would not be safe for wildfire suppression or prescribed burning. Residual smoke concerns on public roads and nearby residents would continue due to the heavy fuels that will smolder for several days following prescribed burns. Areas with higher tree densities that were only slightly or not damaged by the hurricane would not be thinned and made more suitable for the RCW. The Proposed Action: Treatments proposed by the Forest Service to meet the purpose of and need for action are to: (1) Remove upland pine trees that were damaged from Hurricane Ivan (up to about 8,000 acres). Reference Sale Areas & Proposed Salvage maps (Project Record). (2) Thin stands of dense young longleaf pine trees to promote longleaf pine ecosystem restoration and to provide future red-cockaded woodpecker habitat (approximately 1,100 acres). Reference Proposed RCW Thinning map (Project Record). (3) Thin foraging and nesting habitat needed to increase the red-cockaded woodpecker population toward recovery goals (approximately 7,000 acres). Reference Proposed RCW Thinning map (Project Record). Connected actions that are not a part of the decision to be made, but are part of the overall strategy to address Hurricane Ivan concerns and expand suitable RCW habitat in this planning period are: a continued prescribed burning regime (3-year rotation that includes both dormant and growing season burns) to mimic historic fires, artificial cavity construction and midstory control in RCW nest areas as needed, and translocation of RCW from other populations to augment the resident population. The effects of these connected actions, as well as our strategic conversion of off-site stands to meet our long-term longleaf ecosystem restoration goals3, were considered in this analysis. Proposed Action Design Criteria 1. No mechanical operations will be allowed within 200 feet of active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees during nesting season. 2. Cavity trees will be identified and protected during operations. 3. Logging operations will be conducted with rubber-tired equipment in a manner that will minimize damage to the soil by carefully locating log decks and skid trails and by the using low PSI equipment when needed. 4. Streamside management zones will be implemented as directed in the Forest Plan. If operations are conducted in these areas, Forest Watershed personnel will be consulted. 5. Heritage resource sites designated with painted boundaries will be avoided during salvage and thinning operations. The District Archaeologist will monitor compliance. Upon completion of salvage and thinning operations, priority will be placed upon conducting prescribed burns as soon as possible in compartments where proposed actions are conducted. Timing of the prescribed burn will be contingent upon obtaining desirable parameters to meet burn plan objectives and the ability to conduct operations in a safe manner.

3

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

Table 1. Comparison of Effects for the Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives, Hurricane Ivan- Red-cockaded Woodpecker Expansion, Conecuh National Forest, 2004. Proposed Action No Action Hurricane Ivan Concerns Hazardous Fuel Loading Reduced (Acres1) 8,000 0 Insect Threat Reduced (Acres1) 8,000 0

RCW Expansion Acres1 of nesting and foraging habitat moving 7,000 0 toward Desired Future Condition At 5% growth = +6 Limited and Increased Potential for active clusters in 5 years (#) At 10% growth = +13 unpredictable Young longleaf stands thinned for growth and future 1,100 0 RCW habitat (Acres1) Management Indicator Species (Acres1 of suitable 8,100 0 habitat improved) 1 Acres presented are approximations based on field surveys and mapping in GIS.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION This section summarizes the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action to provide the necessary information to help determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or a Finding of No Significant Impact. Resource specialist reports for this project contain further analyses and discussions and are available in the project file. As outlined in the following sections (particularly Hazardous Fuels, Health and Safety, Insect Threats, and RCW Expansion) and based on our experience with hurricane events (like Hurricane Opal on the Conecuh in 1995) we find that the current conditions pose a significant threat to the Longleaf Pine ecosystem in the Conecuh and to the continued viability and growth of the endangered RCW population in the Conecuh. Hazardous Fuels Routinely, upland pines on the Conecuh are generally in Fuel Model 2, which closely resembles the desired condition for RCW habitat. Hurricane damage increased fuel loading in many areas resulting in conditions changing to attributes of Fuel Model 114. Much of this area had been inventoried prior to the hurricane and determined to need thinning to provide more suitable habitat in an effort expand the red- Example of Fuel Model 11 cockaded woodpecker population. The intensity of hurricane damage is so varied, most of the previously identified thinning needs still exist. Land ownership on the Conecuh is intermingled with private lands with over 350 miles of boundary lines between National Forest and private ownership5. The Conecuh’s

4

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

ability to conduct its prescribed fire program has been seriously impacted by the addition of large amounts of heavy material to the fuel profile6. Construction of control lines will be much slower and more costly7. Implementing growing season burns is particularly hindered because it relies on firing on foot or ATVs8. The large amounts of downed and broken trees create enough of a hazard that some areas could not be burned safelty using standard firing techniques9. With current conditions, smoke production and subsequent smoke management demands will increase, thereby reducing windows of opportunity to burn10. The same reductions in fireline production will also effect the Forest Services ability to control wildfires11. Because current conditions threaten to reverse the Conecuh’s good and improving fire-regime condition class status, actions need to be taken to reduce fuel loading through removal of damaged trees on up to 10,000 acres. The proposed action to remove hurricane damaged trees would help facilitate the prescribed burning program, which would, in turn, improve the health of the fire- dependent longleaf pine ecosystem. This action, continued prescribed burning, and the proposed thinnings would improve the Conecuh’s fire regime condition class, as well as reduce the risk of destructive and catastrophic wildfires. Health and Safety Our ability to prescribe burn is critical to the restoration and maintenance of the longleaf pine ecosystem on the Conecuh. Reducing fuels changes fire behavior enough to allow direct suppression tactics by local firefighting resources. This increases the chances of suppressing a wildfire before it reaches adjacent private property. Smoke management would improve with the removal of the heavier fuels and lower fuel loading. This project would increase our efficiency in fire suppression and prescribed burning. By removing heavy fuels, residual smoke concerns would be lessened on public roads and nearby private residents. This project would reduce risks to firefighters and workers, local residents and the public, and natural resources. Improved smoke management would limit exposure of workers and local residents during prescribed burning activities. Insect Threats Historically, the Conecuh National Forest has the fewest number of SPB (southern pine beetle) infestations of any of the national forests in Alabama12. Of the southern pine species susceptible to the SPB, slash and longleaf are the least affected13. Historical data for southern Alabama counties shows that when the adjacent counties were in an SPB epidemic condition, then the Conecuh was either epidemic or near epidemic14. A likely causal reason for this was that many of the landowners adjacent to the Conecuh, both private and commercial, routinely plant loblolly or had loblolly planted over the

5

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

years since the 1930’s15. This area is historically a longleaf and/or slash pine site and loblolly in this area is more susceptible to the SPB16.

Ips Engraver Beetle Southern Pine Beetle Black Turpentine Beetle larva excavating Photographs from http://fhpr8.srs.fs.fed.us/idotis/insects.html#conifer_bark_beetles_borers

Statewide, SPB 2004 predictions indicated an increasing SPB population trend with low to moderate infestation levels17. Generally, when increasing SPB populations are predicted, then SPB populations in storm-damaged pine forests tended to increase, but if low populations were predicted, then little SPB activity was observed18. Escambia and Covington counties showed no SPB infestations as of late July 200419. Both counties do have large acreages planted to loblolly pine and of the two; the western half of Escambia County was the hardest hit by Hurricane Ivan20. Because there is no apparent SPB activity within the Conecuh NF or the adjacent counties, it is unlikely that any noticeable activity should be expected in these areas because of Ivan21. In order of damage to the trees, primary damage was wind thrown followed by root- sprung, slightly leaning, snapped boles and finally broken tops22. Ips beetles attack the downed pines as well as standing pines with the crowns snapped off or severely damaged. Eighteen days after Hurricane Ivan, field reviews of the Conecuh isolated and identified Ips attacking several of the wind thrown pines’ crowns23. By spring, most severely damaged pines, stump-pulled leaners, broken topped and wind thrown pines should be infested24. Due to the large amount of host material available, an increase in the population of Ips will occur throughout the storm-damaged stands25. Wind thrown pines on the ground and those with broken boles will become infested with Ips, wood borers, and blue-stain fungi first26. Many if not all pines with roots pulled (stump-pulled leaners) have become stressed and will likely succumb to BTB (black turpentine beetles), Ips, root feeding insects, and root pathogens over the next few years27. Extended drying periods will exacerbate the stress on these stump-pulled leaners28. This was the case with Hurricane Opal in 199529. Root-sprung trees may not die immediately, but may fall later or show decline symptoms over a period of several years30. These trees may be invaded by root rot organisms, be subjected to drought stress, or suffer insect attack31. Bark beetles, weevils, and blue stain fungi may invade root-sprung pines32. These pines can serve as prime habitat for the SPB and, if conditions become favorable, an outbreak could occur33. They can also harbor high populations of turpentine beetles34.

6

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, Sensitive Species No threatened or endangered species would be adversely affected by the proposed action35. There is no designated critical habitat within the project area36. Red-cockaded woodpecker expansion The project area contains red-cockaded woodpecker habitat where natural fire regimes are important for their habitat and recovery37. This project would provide enhanced protection from catastrophic wildfire for endangered species and its habitat. Actions proposed are consistent with the red-cockaded woodpecker recovery plan. The proposed action would advance this area toward the desired future condition of longleaf pine ecosystem restoration and red-cockaded woodpecker recovery38. Overall effectiveness in wildland fire suppression would be increased by removing and reducing hazardous fuel loading. This coupled with improved understory conditions resulting from thinning dense stands would improve our ability to prescribe-burn these areas. Short- and long-term benefits to RCW would be increased through salvage of hurricane-damaged pines, thinning of overstocked stands, and resumption of the Conecuh’s 1-3 year burning regime to achieve native grass and pyrophytic forb groundcovers39. The effects of taking no action would jeopardize existing RCW habitat by potential wildland fires, fire suppression, insect and disease risk, and increased tree mortality following Hurricane Ivan40. Failure to move RCW habitat toward Recovery Plan standards by the proposed thinning would seriously limit population growth and expansion and ability to recover from Hurricane Ivan impacts. Level or declining growth rates could be expected. Over the last ten years, the population has grown (from 13 active clusters in 1994 to 24 active clusters in 2004) at a rate averaging 6.5% per year41. From 1999 to pre-Ivan 2004, no translocation took place and population growth sustained an 11.4% average42. This success can be attributed to aggressive habitat management in the form of thinning, prescribed burning, and construction of artificial cavities. Currently, however, few additional cluster sites can be carried or supported in the existing high-quality habitat areas. An overall evaluation of the RCW population status, growth history, and growth projection reveals a need to increase quality nesting and foraging habitat availability and connectivity43. Even after Hurricane Ivan, many stands (about 7,000 acres) are still too densely stocked and need to be thinned to improve their suitability as foraging and nesting habitat to allow for continued RCW expansion in the short-term (10 years). The core project area is comprised of 25 compartments that either currently contain active red-cockaded woodpecker sites or are nearby compartments that could support population growth through this planning period. In addition, 22 young longleaf pine stands (1,100 acres) are proposed for a first thinning. These sites are scattered across

7

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

the Conecuh and are outside the core project area. Thinning these stands would improve stand vigor, help enhance native understories, and improve long-term habitat goals for the red-cockaded woodpecker. While not part of the Proposed Action, other components of the expansion strategy would be (1) construction of artificial cavities in active cluster sites and potential nest sites established for recruitment purposes, and (2) continued prescribed burning with frequent rotations and emphasis on growing season burns. Artificial cavity construction would be based on close monitoring of the existing population and a determination of where expansion is most likely to occur within the next one to two-year timeframe. Other Threatened or Endangered Species Removal of hurricane-damaged pines and thinning would have “no effect” on the following threatened and endangered species: wood stork (endangered), bald eagle (threatened), Eastern indigo snake (threatened), gulf sturgeon and its critical habitat (threatened), flatwoods salamander (threatened), and the American alligator (threatened)44. The 184-acre Leon Brooks Hines Lake is located in the far southwest corner of the CNF and has for many years supported a breeding pair of bald eagles45. Hurricane damaged trees are concentrated in this general area and proposed to be salvaged. The eagle pair that resides on the Lake is believed to be somewhat conditioned to moderate human activity because of the size and use of the state public fishing lake46 and ongoing Forest Service management activities. Because the resident eagles are conditioned to frequent human disturbance and mitigation measures will be taken, the District Biologist has determined the proposed actions will have no effect on the bald eagle47. Taking no action in the vicinity of the eagle nest area poses increased risks to their habitat from insects, disease, and wildfire from the increased fuel loads. The situation for eagle trees is analogous to RCW trees. Salvage operations and resumption of prescribed burning regimes represent protection of existing habitat48. Sensitive Species Sensitive species are species “identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern…”49 Since the project area is limited to upland pine habitat, the District Biologist considered 11 sensitive species with that habitat association50. One bird, one reptile, and nine plants (listed below) were evaluated to determine the effects of the Proposed Action51.

Common Name Scientific Name Status/Rank Taxa Community Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivalis SG3 Bird Upland Pines Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus SG3 Reptile Upland pine, Sandhills Pinelands false foxglove Agalinis divaricata SG3 Plant Upland Pine Incised agrimony Agrimonia incise SG3 Plant Flatwoods, Upland Pine Indian plantain Arnoglossum sulcatum SG2G3 Plant Flatwoods, Upland Pine Pineland plantain Plantago sparsiflora S? Plant Pinelands Night flowering ruellia Ruellia noctiflora SG2 Plant Upland pine Pineland hoarypea Tephrosia mohrii SG3 Plant Upland pine Smooth tofieldia Tofieldia glabra SG3 Plant Upland pine Carolina fluffgrass Tridens carolinianus SG3 Plant Upland pine Louisiana yelloweyed grass Xyris louisianica S? Plant Pinelands

8

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

The District Biologist has determined that the proposed action will have “no impact” to any of the selected sensitive species52. Management Indicator Species (MIS) MIS are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities and are therefore used to help compare effects of alternatives when planning action53. Five species were selected for this project: white-tailed deer, Northern bobwhite quail, and Eastern wild turkey (to help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand), red-cockaded woodpecker (to help indicate management effects to mid- and late-successional pine and pine-oak forest), and pine warbler (to help indicate management effects on creating and maintaining early successional forest communities and other early successional habitats)54. The Proposed Action would not directly affect any of the MIS55. All species would indirectly benefit from the Proposed Action due to improved habitats for each species56. Overall habitat would become less desirable or decrease by taking No Action to meet the Purpose and Need for this project57 Old Growth The project area contains existing and future old growth identified in the Forest Plan and adheres to Forest Plan old growth direction58. We are not proposing to change any existing or future hardwood old growth. The proposal takes action to protect potential longleaf pine old growth by reducing hazardous fuel loadings. Thinning would focus on removing smaller diameter trees, removal of off-site pine from longleaf sites, and would maximize the retention of large trees (as appropriate for the forest type), such that the remaining longleaf pine trees would promote more fire-resilient stands. Thinning stands to improve RCW habitat would promote longleaf pine old growth characteristics as described in the Forest Plan and the Region 8 Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old-Growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region (R8-FR- 62). Of the potential upland pine old growth, the areas are designated for red-cockaded woodpecker management, which would provide old growth characteristics59. Soil and Water Resources Proposed activities would occur within eight watersheds, but the majority of activity would occur within the two southwestern most watersheds of the district, the Blackwater and Sweetwater watersheds60. Waters within the analysis area are regarded as being high quality61. Project area analysis takes into account all upland soil types62. Soils found within floodplains and/or wetlands are not intended to be within the project area63. Small areas of floodplain or wetland soils identified by soil type within the project area will be avoided by location of sale area boundaries or by use of SMZ’s (streamside management zones). Work would occur in the riparian corridor but SMZ protections would be used where needed. Salvage and thinning operations would be performed using rubber-tired logging equipment (including low PSI as needed) and closely monitored to ensure that both soil and water resources are protected. Hazardous fuels left in these areas would limit the Conecuh’s ability to use streams as natural fire breaks and contribute to fuel loading concerns described in the Hazardous Fuels, Insect Threats, and Health & Safety sections of this EA.

9

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

The effects of salvaging trees damaged from Hurricane Ivan would be similar to the effects caused by silvicultural thinnings64. Erosion rates from silvicultural thinning have been shown to average approximately 0.122 tons per acre per year with a recovery period of 1 year for this area65. Sediment delivery ratios for this area calculate to 8- 9%66. The potential risk for a reduction in soil productivity from the proposed activities is slight67, but the avoidance of wet areas, use of low PSI equipment (when needed), and proper placement of temporary roads and primary skid trails on sensitive soils would be employed to help further protect the soil resource. Figures 1 and 2 summarize soils analysis for potential compaction and erosion hazards68.

Figure 1: Soil Compaction Hazard

15000

10000 Acres slight moderate 5000 severe

0 No Action Proposed Action Alternatives

Figure 2: Soil Erosion Hazard

14000 12000 10000 8000 Acres Slight 6000 Moderate 4000 Severe 2000 0 No Action Proposed Action Alternatives

Sediment from proposed actions would be minor without the implementation of state BMP’s (Best Management Practices); however implementation of Forest Plan standards, BMP’s, and design criteria incorporated in this project would further reduce sediment yields. The effects from the proposed actions in conjunction with the cumulative effects of previous decisions pose little or no threat to the continued sustainability of the down stream designated uses69. Further assurances for the protection of the water resources can be achieved through the strict adherence to BMP’s and Forest-wide standards70.

10

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

Scenic Integrity Scenery, being the general appearance of place, is then the means by which recreation settings are described71. Proposed activities in this EA will have both beneficial and adverse effects on scenery and thus recreational experiences72. Taking no action would not immediately affect visual resources, however the chaotic look of a hurricane blasted forest would be prolonged under this alternative73. Allowing overstocked stands to continue to remain overstocked is an invitation for insect or disease disasters74. The no action alternative does not provide emphasis or direction for improving longleaf and its associated fire dependent understory75. The visual result of this alternative would be the lost opportunity to speed up the restoration of a scarce and visually appealing ecosystem and slowing the healing time of a storm damaged forest76. The visual short- term effects from traditional logging are expected to be somewhat negative; however, the long-term effects of the Proposed Action are predicted to be positive77. The proposed thinning and salvage treatments are expected to result in healthier, more diverse, and therefore, more visually pleasing forests78. Diversity is the antidote for monotony; improving quality longleaf sites to their unique ecological character would increase biological diversity quicker than waiting on natural processes79. The proposed salvage treatment would lessen severe fuel buildup and that would allow prescribed fire to continue to be safely applied80. Prescribed fire would help remove the chaotic look of the hurricane-damaged sections of the forest81. Wildfire is a natural process and prescribed fires are designed to mimic the natural role of fire in this ecosystem82. Heritage Resources Heritage surveys have been conducted on 64-70% of the project area. The remaining area will be surveyed prior to implementation of the proposed actions. This project is designed to have no effect to scientific, cultural, or historical resources83. Within the project area, there are no districts, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Three sites potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP do exist within the project area84. These sites and any others identified in the future to be potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP will be designated with a painted boundary prior to salvage and thinning operations and excluded from activity during operations85. In the unlikely event that any additional heritage resources are inadvertently discovered during any project related activity, the District Archaeologist will be notified, and activity at that location will be suspended until an evaluation of the resource is made86. Avoidance of sites and compliance monitoring by the District Archaeologist will prevent any loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources as a result of this project87.

11

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this Environmental Assessment: Interdisciplinary Team Members and Contributors to this EA: Debbie Russell, NEPA/GIS Coordinator Tim Haley, FHP Entomologist Tim Knight, District Silviculturist Nolan Hess, FHP Pathologist John Townsend, Sales Forester Wood Johnson, FHP Forestry Technician Robert Holley, Sales Administrator Bruce Davenport, R8 Fire Ecologist Mark Garner, District Wildlife Biologist Art Goddard, Forest Soil Scientist Ronda Mullins, Wildlife Technician (RCW) Jay Edwards, Forest Hydrologist Maria Schleidt, District Archeologist Dagmar Thurmond, Forest Wildlife Biologist Rick Lint, NEPA/HFRA Support George McEldowney, Landscape Architect Felicia Humphrey, NEPA/HFRA Support

Federal, State, And Local Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alabama Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division (DNR) Alabama Forestry Commission Alabama State Historic Preservation Office Covington and Escambia County Commissioners Tribes: Poarch Band of Creek Indians Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Chickasaw Nation Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians

Others: Escambia County Soil and Water Conservation District supervisors Ray Vaughan, WildLaw Vernon Compton, Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership Mark Hainds, Longleaf Alliance Mark Bailey, Conservation Southeast

12

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Environmental Assessment Conecuh National Forest

ENDNOTES

1 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests in Alabama, 2004. Page 4-10. 2 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests in Alabama, 2004. Pages 4-11 and 4-12. 3 Knight, Tim. Vegetation Analysis. Pages 6-8. 4 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 1. 5 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 1. 6 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 2. 7 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 2. 8 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 2. 9 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 2. 10 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 2. 11 Davenport, Bruce. Fuels Report. Page 2. 12 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 4. 13 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 4. 14 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 4. 15 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 4. 16 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 4. 17 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 5. 18 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 5. 19 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 5. 20 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 5. 21 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 7. 22 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 3. 23 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 5. 24 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 7. 25 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 7. 26 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 7. 27 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Pages 7-8. 28 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 29 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 30 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 31 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 32 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 33 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 34 Haley, Hess, and Johnson. Forest Health Evaluation. Page 8. 35 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Pages 2-9. 36 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Page 7. 37 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 1. 38 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 1. 39 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 1. 40 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 1. 41 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 2. 42 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 2. 43 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 2. 44 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Pages 2-9. 45 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Page 5. 46 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Page 6. 47 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Page 6. 48 Thurmond, Dagmar. RCW Habitat Evaluation. Page 4. 49 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Page 9. 50 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Page 9. 51 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Pages 9-10. 52 Garner, Mark. Biological Evaluation. Pages 9-10. 53 Garner, Mark. MIS Analysis. Page 1.

13

Hurricane Ivan - RCW Expansion Conecuh National Forest Environmental Assessment

54 Garner, Mark. MIS Analysis. Pages 1-3. 55 Garner, Mark. MIS Analysis. Pages 3-10. 56 Garner, Mark. MIS Analysis. Pages 3-10. 57 Garner, Mark. MIS Analysis. Pages 3-10. 58 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests in Alabama, 2004. Pages 2-39 through 2-43. 59 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests in Alabama, 2004. Page 2-41. 60 Edwards, Jay. Water Resources Analysis. Page 1. 61 Edwards, Jay. Water Resources Analysis. Page 1. 62 Goddard, Art. Soil Resources Analysis. Page 1. 63 Goddard, Art. Soil Resources Analysis. Page 1. 64 Goddard, Art. Soil Resources Analysis. Page 2. 65 Edwards, Jay. Water Resources Analysis. Pages 1-2. 66 Edwards, Jay. Water Resources Analysis. Page 2. 67 Goddard, Art. Soil Resources Analysis. Page 3. 68 Goddard, Art. Soil Resources Analysis. Page 3 and 4. 69 Edwards, Jay. Water Resources Analysis. Page 3. 70 Edwards, Jay. Water Resources Analysis. Page 3. 71 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 1. 72 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 1. 73 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 74 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 75 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 76 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 77 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 78 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 79 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 2. 80 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 3. 81 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 3. 82 McEldowney, George. Scenic Integrity Analysis. Page 3. 83 Schleidt, Maria. Heritage Resources. Pages 1-3. 84 Schleidt, Maria. Heritage Resources. Page 1. 85 Schleidt, Maria. Heritage Resources. Pages 1-2. 86 Schleidt, Maria. Heritage Resources. Page 3. 87 Schleidt, Maria. Heritage Resources. Pages 2-3.

14