Environmental Assessment

Home , Arnoglossum sulcatum, Burmannia (plant), Crupina, Cuscuta europaea, Geography of Alabama, Ischaemum

National Forests in Alabama June 2012

Enhanced Invasive Plant Control

National Forests in Alabama

Bibb, Calhoun, Chilton, Clay, Cleburne, Covington, Dallas, Escambia, Franklin, Hale, Lawrence, Macon, Perry, Talladega, Tuscaloosa, and Winston Counties, Alabama

For Information Contact: Ryan Shurette Supervisor’s Office 2946 Chestnut St Montgomery, AL 36107 334.241.8143

Bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor) infestation on the Talladega District. Bicolor displaces native herbaceous vegetation and can alter the fire regime in a stand, due in part to the properties of its leaf litter. This species currently threatens federally-endangered Red-cockaded woodpecker habitat on the NFsAL and is proving to be very difficult to eradicate.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call 202-720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Summary

All six Ranger Districts of the National Forests in Alabama (NFsAL) have individual district decisions in place to treat Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) infestations. The current decisions cover a variety of control methods, including mechanical, hand-pulling, and some herbicide treatments. However, during the past several years of fighting invasive species issues on the districts, each of these decisions has been identified to have some specific limitations with regards to which invasive species, herbicides, and applications are covered for use. These limitations vary widely and therefore there is a need to revisit the Forest’s needs holistically, in response to invasive plant threats. NFsAL proposes to incorporate additional Forest Service risk- assessed herbicides, additional application methods, and additional non-native and selected undesirable native invasive species into the existing strategies. The proposed alternative in addition to the current NNIS decisions will increase the effacy of treatment activities used to control invasive plants in terrestrial, aquatic, and rare community settings. The project area will encompass the Bankhead Ranger District of the Bankhead National Forest, the Conecuh Ranger District of the Conecuh National Forest, the Oakmulgee, Talladega, and Shoal Creek Ranger Districts of the Talladega National Forest, and the Tuskegee Ranger District of the Tuskegee National Forest. This action is needed because it will allow more timely response to threatening invasive species not covered under the existing decisions, and provide for more efficient herbicide applications, which in some cases should result in a reduction of the total herbicide volume per infestation applied. Further, the proposed alternative will improve long-term health of forest lands and will better achieve the NFsAL Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) forest-wide goals, objectives and standards with regards to invasive species and Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR).

In summary the proposed action is expected to improve the overall health of the forest, support the on-going, long-term process of replacing NNIPS-infested areas with native vegetation, reduce wildfire potential in some cases, provide protection for listed and/or rare plant populations, improve wildlife habitat, and meet the goals and standards of the RLRMP.

In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also considered the following alternatives:  No action – This alternative provides for no additional methods or herbicides in the management of nonnative and undesirable native invasive plants. This alternative continues current management, implementing existing decisions for NNIS treatment and control.  Non-native invasive species treatment only – Under this alternative only non- native invasive plant species treatment would be allowed within the project area. Under this alternative, no native terrestrial or native aquatic weeds would be treated, outside of those covered by other decisions.  No herbicide – Under this Alternative no herbicides would be used. Only non-chemical means would be used for this alternative and no herbicides would be used outside of those covered by existing decisions.

iii

Figure 1: Kudzu infestation on FSR 930, Tuskegee Ranger District

Chapter 1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts plus appendices: (1) Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. (2) Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. (3) Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by Alternative. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. (4) Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. (5) Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment.

Additional documentation including more detailed analyses of project-area resources and annual treatment areas can be found at the respective Ranger District offices.

1.2 Background

Southern forest systems, both public and private are currently being threatened by Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS). 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, and cost the United States billion of dollars 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.

On February 3, 1999, Executive Order #13112 was issued establishing the National Invasive Species Council. This order also directed Federal Agencies 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 former 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. All six Ranger Districts of the NFsAL currently have individual district decisions in place to treat NNIPS infestations. The current decisions cover a variety of control methods, including mechanical, hand-pulling, and some herbicide treatments. To date, several infestations have been successfully treated and have now been eradicated from some locations. Although NFsAL continues to actively treat invasive species annually, there are still many extant infestations on stands. The past several years of fighting invasive species threats on the districts has brought to light specific limitations in each of the existing district decisions, with regards to which invasive species, herbicides, and applications are covered for use. These limitations vary widely and therefore there is a need to revisit the Forest’s needs holistically, in response to invasive plant threats. The Tuskegee NNIPS Control EA (2009) was the latest and most inclusive decision and will serve as the general the template for this analysis. NFsAL proposes to incorporate additional Forest Service risk-assessed herbicides, application methods, and additional non-native and selected undesirable native invasive species into the existing strategies. The proposed alternative will incorporate additional tools used to control invasive plants in terrestrial, aquatic, and rare community settings. This Environmental Assessment will address the environmental effects from the management activities associated with these additional elements of invasive plant infestations across the entire NFsAL.

1.3 Purpose and Need for Action

The National Forests in Alabama are comprised of approximately 667,000 acres. There are a number of invasive plant species occurring within the NFsAL, including, but not limited to, cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Nepal grass (Microstegium vimineum), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), 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 (Figure 1). 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.

Figure 2. Cogongrass infestation on the Conecuh District in summer. This species eventually displaces all native vegetation and destroys wildlife habitat.

The purpose of this project is:  To supplement current invasive plant species control programs by allowing the treatment of any species on the National Forests in Alabama Non-Native Invasive Plant Species “list” (Included in Appendix A).  To supplement current invasive plant species control programs by allowing the use of additional herbicide formulations (active and inert ingredients) and additives registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency and approved by the Forest Service, as deemed appropriate by District and SO personnel, to treat priority invasive plant infestations (See Chapter 1.5).  To supplement current invasive plant species control programs by allowing the use of additional application methods necessary to treat priority invasive plant infestations (See Chapter 1.5).

 To protect existing rare plant communities by allowing select, strategic treatments of non-native and undesirable native invasive vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the site-specific rare community. This action is needed because there are many species on the National Forests in Alabama Non- Native Invasive Plant Species Control “list” that are not currently covered under existing district decisions for treatment (with the exception of the Tuskegee). In some cases, there are documented occurrences of NNIPS that are not currently covered. Most of these are not considered “high priority” for treatment due to their location or invasiveness. However, there are many (>100) species on the “list” that are not currently known from NFsAL lands, but are extremely invasive. It is critical that the Forest Service be prepared to quickly treat these high priority threats (Category 0, 1, and 2 species; See NFsAL NNIPS Treatment Prioritization System in Appendix B) as they arrive on NFsAL lands.

The proposed action is needed because there has been new innovations in herbicide development, use, and application since some of the district decisions were signed. For example, Metsulfuron Methyl has been shown to more efficiently control kudzu in certain forestry and Right of Way settings than other herbicides like Clopyralid. Only two districts currently have decisions that cover the use of Metsulfuron Methyl. In addition, there are also existing and potential future aquatic threats to NFsAL waters. For most districts, aquatic applications were not addressed in their original NNIS decisions. There is a legitimate need to include the herbicides and application methods necessary to respond to these species in priority situations, to protect fisheries, sensitive aquatic ecosystems and water quality.

Finally this action is needed to allow strategic herbicide use in and around rare plant communities to prevent displacement of the rarer species population(s) by the non-native and undesirable native vegetation. For example, in some NFsAL glades and bogs, advanced woody encroachment is threatening Sensitive plant populations, to the extent that the natural fire regime has been altered. Injection or other strategic herbicide application is needed to open these systems to allow sunlight to penetrate to the herbaceous understory and help restore natural fire regimes. Selective herbicide application is often the least intrusive and least disruptive means of restoring these habitats.

The proposed action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Revised National Forests in Alabama Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP), and helps move the project area towards desired conditions as described in the Plan (pgs 4-24 through 4-25). The Plan contains specific standards concerning Non-native species, including Forest-Wide Standard 79, “Invasive non-native species are controlled, with priority given to areas where they are causing adverse effects to federally listed species or Regional Forester’s sensitive species.” and Standard 82, “Invasive non-native species are not intentionally introduced near these species.”

Table 1.3: Project actions and supporting goals and objectives.

Action Goal(s) Objective(s) Pages Control of Inventory and map priority areas with non- 2.1, 16.1 – 2-10, 2- non-native native, invasive plant species. 16.6 49, 2-53, invasive Provide habitats to support desirable levels of 2-56, 2- species selected species. 72 Minimize adverse effects of invasive non- native species. Control such species where feasible and necessary to protect National Forest Resources. Use fire to restore and maintain fire dependant and associated communities. Encourage cooperation and partnerships with individuals, non-profit organizations, other agencies, special interest groups, clubs and others to achieve the Forest’s interpretive activities.

1.4 Desired Condition

NNIPS threaten virtually every ecosystem type found on the NFsAL. The following description summarizes general Desired Future Conditions (DFC) for the ecosystems associated with the areas of this analysis. Additional detailed information about DFC for each ecosystem can be found in the 2004 RLRMP.

Existing non-native invasive species infestations are reduced or eliminated within the priority areas. New Infestations are found and controlled according to priority. Native plant communities and natural wildlife habitats and fire regimes are restored in time. In fire- maintained upland pine systems, the desired native systems would typically include diverse herbaceous components such as wiregrass (Aristida spp.), bluestem grasses (Andropogon spp. and Schizacharium spp.), various legumes (Fabaceae) and composites such as bonesets (Eupatorium spp.) and asters (Aster spp.).

Native riparian and hardwood lowland habitats would typically include shade-tolerant native ground covers. Roadside vegetation would be present to prevent soil erosion and ideally consist of native or desirable non-native vegetation. Aquatic habitats in streams, creeks, and ponds would be free of NNIPS and would support the appropriate local aquatic wildlife species.

Figure 3. Open longleaf stand on the Shoal Creek District representing desired future conditions of upland ecosystems. Desirable native species are abundant in the understory.

1.5 Proposed Action

The NFsAL proposes to incorporate additional Forest Service risk-assessed herbicides, additional application methods, and additional non-native and selected undesirable native invasive species into the existing strategies. Treatment areas would generally include, but may not be limited to roadsides, recreation areas, trails, trailheads, old roadbeds, fire lines, stream banks, streams or bodies of water, wildlife openings, rare communities and other areas of infestations within the Forest. Approximately 1200 infestations have been named and mapped in the NFsAL corporate invasive species database (the National Resource Information System, or NRIS) however there are many more that have not been found and/or mapped yet. Many of these are currently undergoing herbicide treatments under previous decisions, and many are in (or are near) the “eradicated and monitoring” phase. It is unlikely that all of these infestations will ever be treated due to several factors. Actual treatments would be based on available funding and would target high priority infestations over lower priority infestations. The priority of an infestation would be determined by using the National Forests in Alabama NNIPS prioritization system, which is based on species present, retreatment priority, and the threat of the

infestation to specific local resources (See Appendix C). There is simply not enough funding and/or staffing to treat all NNIPS we find on NFsAL lands.

Map 1.5. Vicinity map for Alabama of National Forest Lands by unit.

The following types of herbicide treatment methods are proposed:

o Directed Foliar Sprays A selective pesticide application, generally applied using a portable backpack sprayer or mobile pump sprayer with hand controlled wand(s). The pesticide is aimed at the target plant foliage to cover all leaves to the point of runoff. Direct herbicide application may also be conducted using wand, boom, or boom-less equipment (mounted on a UTV, truck/spray trailer, or a wheeled tractor) where the operator has on/off control of the spray, and the target infestation forms a monoculture along a roadside, wildlife opening, or similar area and has essentially displaced native plant communities. Impacts to non-target vegetation from mounted spray equipment applications are expected to be similar to those of backpack or hand-directed foliar sprays.

o Cut Surface Treatment . Stem Injection (including hack-and-squirt) – herbicide mixtures or concentrates applied into downward incision cuts spaced around wood stems made by an ax, hatchet, machete, brush ax or tree injector. Injection is a selective method of controlling trees and shrubs, which are typically greater than 2 inches in diameter.

. Cut Stump – herbicide concentrate or mixtures applied to the outer circumference of freshly cut stumps or the entire top surface of cut stems. Cutting the woody stems is usually accomplished by chainsaw or brush saw, but may be accomplished by handsaws or other hand-held cutting equipment. Herbicide is applied with a backpack sprayer, spray bottle, wick applicator or paintbrush.

o Basal Applications . Full Basal Sprays – herbicide-oil-penetrant mixtures sprayed or daubed onto the lower portion of woody stems of trees or shrubs. They are applied using a backpack sprayer or a wick applicator, and are effective in controlling woody stems up to 6 inches in diameter.

o Aquatic Applications . Emergent/Floating Vegetation Foliar Sprays – approved aquatic labeled herbicide mixtures are applied directly to floating or emergent species vegetation. They are typically applied with backpack or mobile pump sprayers with hand-controlled wands.

. Submergent Vegetation Dilutions – herbicides approved for low concentrations dilutions into standing water bodies are used when the target species is not treatable by foliar spray, typically because it is submergent in habit, growing below the surface of the water.

Table 1.5.1: List of herbicides (with product name examples) expected to be used for this project, either individually or in combinations thereof.

HERBICIDE CHEMICAL PRODUCT NAME EXAMPLE Garlon  Triclopyr (both amine and ester forms) Accord, Aquaneet  Glyphosate Transline  Clopyralid Arsenal  Imazapyr

Velpar  Hexazinone Escort  Metsulfuron Methyl Milestone  Aminopyralid Banvel  Dicamba Sonar  Fluridone

All herbicide use would follow the standards specified in the forest plan.

Most invasive plants are perennials, having extensive tough roots and runners. This means that effective herbicides applications offer the best means of containment or eradication because herbicides can kill roots and do so without baring soils for reinvasion or erosion. To be successful with herbicides, it is important to use the most effective herbicide for the species to be treated. Only herbicide formulations (active and inert ingredients) and additives registered by the US Environmental Protection Agency and approved by the Forest Service for use on National Forests would be used. Should herbicides other than those listed in Table 1.5.1 become available in the future, are approved, and are needed, the herbicide(s) would be evaluated at a local level and utilized in accordance with the Forest Plan and the product label. The herbicides to be in this project are registered for forestry, right-of-way or aquatic use. Forest Plan Standards regarding herbicide applications in aquatic environments would be followed and additional site- specific analysis would be conducted prior to herbicide treatment of infestations occurring within riparian areas or aquatic sites. Several aquatic infestations (including Alligatorweed, Parrot’s feather, and Uraguayan water primrose) are currently known from across the NFsAL.

Table 1.5.2: Typical herbicide solutions used to control specified non-native invasive species found on the National Forests in Alabama (from General Tech. Report SRS-131, Miller et. al., 2010).

NONNATIVE SPECIES HERBICIDES (and rate if applicable) Cogongrass Accord – 5%, Arsenal – 1%, (or tank mix of both) Kudzu Transline – 0.5 %, Escort XP – 4 oz./ac, or Milestone VM – 7 oz./ac Non-native Wisterias Garlon 4 – 4%, Transline - 0.5%, or Accord – 4% Tallowtree Garlon 3A (injection of large trees) Garlon 4 – 4%, Arsenal – 1% Multiflora rose Escort XP – 1 oz./ac, Arsenal AC -1%

Japanese climbing fern Accord – 4%

Chinese privet Accord – 3%, Arsenal AC – 1%, or Escort XP – 1 oz./ac Mimosa / Silktree Garlon 3A (injection of large trees) Escort XP - 1 oz./ac plus 2% Accord

Princess Tree/Royal Paulowina Arsenal AC (Large trees) Garlon 4 – 20% Saplings Arsenal AC - .75 % or Garlon 3A/Garlon 4 – 2% (resprouts/seedlings) Bicolor lespedeza (and other non-native Milestone VM - 0.1%, Garlon 4 – 2%, Escort XP lespedezas) – 1oz./ac, or Velpar L - 2%

Over the past 5 years NNIPS treatments on the NFsAL have been administered almost exclusively via herbicide applications (rather than ground-disturbing activities such as disking, mowing, blading, etc.). No new site-specific ground-disturbing activities are proposed in this alternative and any planned ground-disturbing actions associated with invasive plants treatment would be submitted to the District or Forest Archeologist for site-specific analysis, with regards to cultural resources, prior to action. Any ground-disturbing mechanical treatment would follow the standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan.

Target plants will be treated with selective herbicides while minimizing application to desirable plants. It is anticipated that many of the areas with invasive plants would need to have an initial treatment with one or more follow-up treatments. The number of follow-up treatments depends upon how well the plants are established and the persistence of the plants. The treatment method depends upon the physical location of the plant including surrounding vegetation, the physical size of the plant, and the vigor of the plant, the plant species, and the time of year the treatment is applied. All herbicide use would follow the standards specified in the forest plan. A list of herbicides expected to be used (but not limited to) in this project are listed in Table 1.5.1. No aerial or stand-level broadcast application methods would be utilized for this project.

In addition to NNIPS treatments, herbicide treatment of native encroaching vegetation in and around selected rare communities and aquatic resources is also proposed in this alternative. These applications would be limited to the same methods and herbicides described for NNIPS control. Forest aquatic systems (streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds) that become infested with non-desirable native invasive species (where the infestation is determined to be a threat to natural aquatic systems, water quality, or recreational fisheries) may be treated using appropriate aquatic-labeled herbicides. Native aquatic weeds to be controlled include (but are not limited to) water primrose, algaes, water milfoils, water lilies, fanwort, coontail, muskgrass, and pondweeds. Normal, non-threatening levels of these species would not be treated unless it is believed that this action would be necessary to prevent significant future infestation or threats to aquatic wildlife.

Rare community areas proposed for treatment are listed below along with general information about the site and associated invasive vegetation (Maps of these Rare Communities are included in Appendix D). No ground-disturbing activities (outside of existing decisions) are proposed for

Rare Community sites in this alternative. It is anticipated that no more than 30 acres of invasive vegetation in and around rare communities per year would be treated.

Nellie Pond (Conecuh District, Compartment 8) – Nellie Pond is a Coastal Plain pond in Compartment 8. This rare community provides habitat for the rare gopher frog (Rana capito). The surrounding area has been recently thinned to improve habitat for the gopher tortoises and, in turn, gopher frogs. However there is a need to reduce the hardwood encroachment around the margin of this pond. We propose using herbicide injection and natural decay of the standing hardwood snags around the pond to minimize the impact of this treatment to the pond and margin. Species to be treated will generally consist of sweetgum, red bay, titi, gallberry and other encroaching native trees and shrubs.

Indian Tomb Hollow Glade (Bankhead District, Compartment 25-26) – Indian Tomb Hollow is a limestone glade rare community that contains several rare plant species. These species require open sunny conditions and prefer moist shallow glade soils over weathered limestone bedrock. The glade is threatened by extensive encroachment of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), native eastern red-cedar, and other native shrubs and trees. We have strategically implemented privet foliar herbicide treatments with success (using a system that protects the rare species) but there is a need to treat some of the native shrubs and tree saplings as well. In addition to the non-native species treatments, we propose the use of herbicide for the native encroaching vegetation adjacent to the glade.

10 Bog Complexes included in the Draft Conecuh Bog Management Plan (Conecuh Ditrict, See Draft Bog Management Plan in Appendix E) – Over 50 known Conecuh bog sites are currently mapped in the NFsAL GIS Rare Communities database and there are many other small sites scattered across the Conecuh district. However, based on a combination of factors, (including size and location, current conditions, and rarity of plant species present), ten of these sites were selected as high emphasis bogs. These ten sites will be should receive priority for short (1-3 years) fire return, encroachment maintenance, and survey and monitoring. A list of these bogs and some of the associated rare plant species recorded in the past for the collective areas is provided below.

Crawford Bog, Anne’s Bog, Parker Springs Bog , Lisa’s Bog, Alex’s Bog, Pleaa Bog, Fish Trap Bog, Compartment 67 Bog, Wherry’s (Boggy Hollow) Bog, Wreck Bog

Rare species found collectively in the bogs listed above: Sarracenia luecophylla, Utricularia subulata, Calapogon pulchellus, Pogonia ophioglossoides, Cliestes divaricata, Panicum nudicaule, Platanthera nivea, Helinium brevifolium, Calopogon barbatus, Lilium iridollae, Arnoglossum suculatum, Ruella noctiflorum, Eriocaulon texense, Lachnocaulon digynum, Pityopsis oligantha, Rhynchospora macra, R. stenophylla Xyris. chapmanii, X. drummondii

At the moment, some of these bogs do not currently need herbicide treatments and are being adequately managed with prescribed fire. However several of the above-listed bogs have encroaching shrub, midstory, and canopy-level vegetation that could efficiently be controlled by strategic selective herbicide treatment. For example, Lisa’s Bog in Compartment 27 is a Coastal Plain seepage suppressed by woody shrubs and trees. This area is surrounded by upland pine

habitat that is slated to be thinned to more natural conditions in the near future as part of the Conecuh District’s Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration II Project. This bog was surveyed for that project and was found to support several rare plant species, including night-flowering petunia and several pitcher plant species. However these rare plant populations are currently suppressed and threatened by the shading and encroachment of shrub and tree species. Consistent prescribed fire is a challenge in this area because of surrounding private land and moist conditions of the site. Depending on the district’s ability to restore and maintain this area with prescribed fire, strategic herbicide treatments may be necessary to successfully deal with the encroaching yaupon, titi, bay, gallberry, tupelo and tulip poplar in this and the other named bogs. These herbicide applications would be carefully implemented so as to minimize risk to rare plant species. Furthermore, some of the “cleaner” bogs can quickly become degraded (within 3 years) if prescribed fire is not available (due to weather, etc.). Selective injection, cut-stump, and/or direct foliar applications would be the proposed application methods.

Turkey Beard Rare Community Site (Shoal Creek District, Compartment 50) – This area is found in compartment 50 on a xeric longleaf pine-dominated ridge. Here, a disjunct population of turkey beard grows on the top and north facing upper quarter of the slope. There are no non- native species issues here currently but the native pine and hardwoods pose a threat to the population. This area is burned regularly and there has been some mechanical treatment but the area is still encroached and needs further treatment with selective injection or direct foliar treatment.

Thunder Road Sandhill Site (Tuskegee District, Compartment 5) – This site on the Tuskegee District expresses sandhill community characteristics and flora. While fire is typically used to maintain the integrity of sandhill communities, selective herbicide treatments of the hardwood midstory may be necessary to restore the open canopy and enhance the herbaceous understory within the area. Species likely to be treated at this site would be red maple, blackgum, sourwood, and water oak, (and other oak species).

All rare community herbicide projects would be implemented through coordination with the Forest Botanist.

1.6 Scope of the Environmental Analysis

While priority NNIPS infestations may be treated anywhere they are found within the NFsAL Ranger Districts (within the limitations set in the Forest Plan), typically roadsides, recreation areas, trails, trailheads, old roadbeds, fire lines, stream banks, and wildlife openings would be the most likely areas of treatment. Examples of priority treatment situations might include: areas where rare communities or federally listed/Sensitive species habitats may be threatened by NNIPS, areas where upcoming management actions would increase the spread of existing infestations, and areas where new NNIPS arrivals (species not previously known to the district) threaten to become established. Prioritization of treatments could change based on District requirements or advances in technologies in NNIPS understanding and research. Total annual acreage treated by herbicide would likely vary, but is expected generally to be fewer than 2500 acres per year for the forest-wide total, based on past targets. Over the past few years, NFsAL

invasive plant treatment with herbicide has averaged about 600 acres per year. Total blading, mowing, disking, and grubbing (ground-disturbing activities) performed specifically for invasive plant control (non-wildlife opening acres) described by this action are expected to be less than about 25 acres per year as a total for the NFsAL. These types of activities have averaged less than about 1 acre per year over the past few years.

This EA also includes the Biological Assessment (BA) of Threatened and Endangered species and Biological Evaluation (BE) of the Regional Foresters Sensitive Species. Current conditions, potential affects of the alternatives are considered in detail, and mitigation measures are discussed in the following chapters of the document.

1.7 Public Involvement

As part of the public involvement process, the proposal was published in the Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions (Jan. 1 – Mar. 31, 2012) and was printed in the newspaper of record (The Montgomery Advertiser), on Feb. 23, 2012. Scoping notices were also published in the Anniston Star, Daily Home, Andalusia Star, and Tuskegee News between the dates of February 16, 2012 and March 6, 2012. In addition, letters describing the proposed project were mailed on February 3 and 5, 2012 to interested parties and individuals that had commented on district projects in the past. Several comments and communications were received via email, letter, and telephone. External communications included discussion with Alabama Power, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, representatives for Wild South, County Extension Specialists, and several private landowners from across the state. These comments, concerns, and discussions were documented and are located in the project file. Using the comments from these replies and input from within the agency, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues.

1.8 Issues

An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the projected environmental effects of an activity. Issues may arise at any time during the analysis and originate from any source. During the scoping process, issues are clarified, refined, and classified as to their relevance to the current analysis. Per CEQ and FS guidance, the key issues that are “significant” and deserving of detailed study must be identified. The other remaining issues, which are not as pertinent to the current analysis, may be dropped from further discussion once addressed or included in the analysis serving a lesser role than the key issues.

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations require this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” 5 non-significant and no significant issues were generated during the planning

process.

Non-Significant Issues

Issue 1 - Will the proposed activities have adverse effects on non-target vegetation?

Herbicide application would be conducted in accordance with the limitations provided in the Forest Plan. The application methods to be used are stem injection, basal spray, cut stem, and directed foliar spray. These methods of application will minimize the risk of drift and non-target vegetation impacts. There would be no soil spot, stand-level broadcast or aerial application methods used. While a limited amount of non-target vegetation is expected to be affected, it would be considered acceptable when compared to the amount that would be displaced by uncontrolled NNIPS infestations. Most herbicides that would be utilized in this project are semi- selective to selective. This means that the herbicides affect only certain types or groups of plants. For example, the herbicide clopyralid controls composites, legumes and smartweeds, while not significantly affecting pines, non-legume hardwoods, and grasses.

Alternatives 1 and 4 propose no herbicide use and therefore have no potential to affect non-target vegetation.The Proposed Alternative proposes activities that use Region 8-approved herbicides and will follow standards from the Forest Plan to minimize the impacts to non-target species (See pg. 11-17 of the EA).

Issue 2 - Will the proposed activities have adverse effects on adjacent private lands?

As discussed under Issue 1 the herbicide application methods to be used are stem injection, basal spray, cut stem, and directed foliar spray. These methods of application will minimize the risk of drift onto any adjacent private lands. No stand-level broadcast applications will be used. Under Wyden authority, there is the potential to treat infestations occurring on adjacent private land if it is beneficial to both the landowner and the District, with permission from the private landowner.

Alternatives 1 and 4 do not include herbicide applications and would not pose a risk of affecting adjacent private lands. The Proposed Alternative is designed to include activities and application methods that would minimize risk of leaching and drift onto adjacent lands and the effects are analysis in Chapter 3 of this document (See pg 11 and 12 of the EA).

Issue 3 - Will the proposed project impact soil and water resources?

The purpose of this Environment Assessment (EA) is to analyze and disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed actions and alternatives to that proposal. The disclosure of effects to soils, water quality and aquatic habitat is located in Chapter 3 of the EA (pgs. 26-39).

Issue 4 - Will the proposed project provide adequate protection to public?

The purpose of this Environment Assessment (EA) is to analyze and disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed actions and alternatives to the proposal (EA pg. 1). The disclosure

of effects to soil productivity and water quality is located in chapter three of the EA. (pgs. 26- 39).

Water quality effects (including treatments occurring near public water sources) are discussed in Chapter 3 of the EA. Standards and limitations set forth by the Forest Plan address herbicide use, exposure, and public health and safety, and would be followed during the proposed actions.

Issue 5 – Will the proposed herbicide treatments have adverse effects on fish and invertebrates?

The herbicides expected to be used for the proposed non-native invasive plant control will be used within the restrictions of their labels and at the lowest rate needed for control of the NNIPS infestation. The Forest Plan also places limits on application methods and timing that will further help prevent adverse effects on native aquatic organisms.

The purpose of this Environment Assessment (EA) is to analyze and disclose the environmental consequences of the proposed actions and alternatives to that proposal (EA page 1). The disclosure of non-target organisms and aquatic habitat is located in Chapter 3 of the EA, as well as in the BA/BE.

1.9 Decision to Be Made

The NFsAL Forest Supervisor is the public official responsible for deciding, based upon this analysis, what actions will be taken to meet the purpose and need for the action for the project area. The decision to be made is: to what extent, if any, should enhanced control of invasive vegetation be implemented in the project area. The options include, in whole or in part, the alternatives that have undergone analysis. Full descriptions of analyzed alternatives are provided in Chapter II. In summary, the four alternatives are:

Alternative 1 – No Action: This alternative provides for no additional methods or herbicides in the management of nonnative and undesirable native invasive plants. This alternative continues current management, implementing existing decisions for NNIS treatment and control. No additional herbicides, application methods, invasive species, would be included in control efforts. No rare community restoration work using herbicides would occur.

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action: Through an integrated approach that uses approved herbicides and/or mechanical treatments, treat invasive plant species in priority areas using the most efficient means available. This alternative would incorporate additional Forest Service risk- assessed herbicides, additional application methods, and additional non-native and selected undesirable native invasive species into the existing strategies. Herbicide use would follow procedures and guidelines established in the Forest Plan.

Alternative 3 - Non-native invasive species treatment only – Under this alternative only non- native invasive plant species treatment would be allowed within the project area. Under this alternative, no native terrestrial or native aquatic weeds would be treated within the context of rare community restoration, outside of those covered by other decisions.

This alternative was not analyized in detailed since the elimination of treatment of native invasive species within or near aquatic resources and/or rare communities does not achieve the purpose and need or Forest Plan objectives relating to protection of rare communities and aquatic habitats. Furthermore, hand removal of aquatic weed species will not be feasible in many cases, due to the propagule residues that would likely reinfest the water resources. In terrestrial rare communities, tillage or hand removal of undesirable native plants often will not be feasible due to the amount of resulting soil disturbace and/or lack of efficacy in removing roots or rhizomes. While terrestrial NNIPS infestations would be treated, native undesirable encroachment would continue to degrade open rare communities without treatment.

Alternative 4 - No herbicide Alternative – Under this Alternative no herbicides would be used. Only non-chemical means would be used for this alternative and no herbicides outside of those covered by existing decisions would be applied.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study due to the inherent biological characteristics which render NNIPS difficult to control with cultural or mechanical treatments alone. Many exhibit rapid growth rates, lack natural controls, are very good competitors, and produce abundant and early seed. Most NNIPS plants are perennials, with extensive tough runners or roots which readily re-sprout after cutting. Mechanical and cultural treatments usually do not sufficiently control the roots. Mechanical treatments may not be feasible in some infested areas due to terrain or hydrology and would in many cases result in significant soil disturbance and the risk of spreading the NNIPS to un-infested areas. Prescribed fire often results in rapid re-growth and spread of many Alabama NNIPS species (including cogongrass and bicolor lespedeza). Based on this, it would be impractical to rely only on cultural and mechanical means of control of priority invasive plant infestations that threaten the National Forests in Alabama.

Chapter 2

2.0 Alternatives

Range of Alternatives Considered

This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the NFsAL Enhanced Invasive Plant Control project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public.

2.1 Alternatives, Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Only those herbicide and/or mechanical NNIPS treatments for areas, herbicides, and invasive species previously tied to extant decisions would occur. While some of the more common invasive threats are covered under most of the current district decisions, many highly invasive species are not. For example, only the Tuskegee District currently has a signed decision to treat species such as “mile-a-minute vine” (Mikania cordata). There are no known occurrences of this species on the NFsAL presently but there is a reasonable possibility that it could become established here in the future. Without the option of selective herbicide treatment, native habitats and/or rare communities would be at a higher risk of displacement or extirpation by these aggressive invasive species.

Under this alternative, very few aquatic resources would be eligible for aquatic herbicide treatment under existing decision. Invasive species like water hyacinth, parrot’s feather, and hydrilla would be allowed to infest any Forest water resources they might become established in, except for those covered under previous decisions or located within administrative areas.

No native invasives would be treated in and around rare plant communities. Shading from encroaching native hardwoods and shrubs would continue to degrade rare communities. Mechanical treatments of these areas may still be available but would not be as effective as strategic herbicide applications.

This alternative is responsive to each of the five non-significant issues described in Chapter 1. However, it does not adequately address the protection of Forest resources from invasive species infestation.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

The NFsAL proposes to incorporate additional Forest Service risk-assessed herbicides, additional application methods, and additional non-native and selected undesirable native

invasive species into the existing strategies. Treatment areas would generally include, but may not be limited to roadsides, recreation areas, trails, trailheads, old roadbeds, fire lines, stream banks, streams or bodies of water, wildlife openings, rare communities and other areas of infestations within the Forest. Actual treatments would be based on available funding and would target high priority infestations over lower priority infestations. The priority of an infestation would be determined by using the National Forests in Alabama NNIPS prioritization system, which is based on species present and the threat of the infestation to specific local resources (See Appendix C). Target plants will be treated with selective herbicides (Table 1.5.1) while minimizing application to desirable plants. It is anticipated that many of the areas with invasive plants would need to have an initial treatment with one or more follow-up treatments. The number of follow-up treatments depends upon how well the plants are established and the persistence of the plants. The treatment method depends upon the physical location of the plant including surrounding vegetation, the physical size of the plant, and the vigor of the plant, the plant species, and the time of year the treatment is applied.

The following types of herbicide treatment methods are proposed:

Any ground disturbing mechanical treatment would follow the standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan and the Forest or District Archeologist would be consulted prior to the activity (See Heritage Resource Section in Chapter 3). Hand pulling and grubbing of small infestations is also a possibility.

A list of herbicides expected to be used (but not limited to) in this project are listed in Table 1.5.1. No aerial or stand-level (non-specific targeted) broadcast application methods would be utilized for this project.

In addition to NNIPS treatments, herbicide treatment of encroaching non-desirable native vegetation in and around selected rare communities and aquatic resources is also proposed in this alternative. These applications would be limited to the same methods and herbicides described for NNIPS control. Forest aquatic systems (streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds) that become infested with non-desirable native invasive species (where the infestation is determined to be a threat to natural aquatic systems, water quality, or recreational fisheries) may be treated using appropriate aquatic-labeled herbicides. Native aquatic weeds to be controlled include (but are not limited to) water primrose, algaes, water milfoils, water lilies, fanwort, coontail, muskgrass, and pondweeds. Normal, non-threatening levels of these species would not be treated unless it is believed that this action would be necessary to prevent significant future infestation or threats to aquatic wildlife.

The NFsAL NNIPS Treatment Prioritization System (Appendix C of EA) directs districts to give priority to treatment of invasive plant infestations that are near federally-listed, RF Sensitive, or otherwise rare plant populations. Native plants are susceptible to being displaced by the invasive species. Infestations (native or non-native) near rare plants should be treated cautiously and in coordination with the Forest Botanist to ensure the rare species are not accidentally impacted during treatment of the invasives.

All rare community herbicide projects would be implemented through coordination with the Forest Botanist.

Table 2.1: Summarized Comparison of Evaluated Alternatives.

Alt. 1 Alt. 2

No Action Proposed Action

Some potential for minor soil movement in treatment of Little to no soil movement. large infestations.

Soil, Water & Air Water quality remains the same. Water quality remains the same.

Prescribed burns continue. Prescribed burns continue.

Understories adjacent to NNIPS infestations are Major Habitat Highest opportunity for retention of diverse, native eventually displaced by the invasives. Open fire- Groups understories in open fire-maintained habitats. maintained habitats especially at risk.

Potential habitat displacement by NNIPS and Highest opportunity to maintain and improve rare Rare Communities encroaching native vegetation communities.

Loss from encroachment of competing invasive Highest opportunity to increase populations by T & E Species vegetation controlling or eliminating the ivasive species threats.

Not used. No effects except from existing Herbicide Use Some potential to affect individual non-target plants. decisions.

Non-native Invasive Continued expansion in quantity and coverage. Opportunity to eradicate and control. Species

Aesthetics are reduced. Hunting and/or fishing Aesthetics may be reduced slightly in the short term, but Recreation opportunities may be reduced by displacement of improved over time. Hunting and fishing opportunities wildlife habitat over time. increased.

Will continue. However, NNIPS infestations not Will continue. Prescribed fire used in conjunction with Prescribed Fire controlled. proposed treatments to control NNIPS.

Heritage Resources No effects. Probability of affecting a site is low.

The Proposed Action alternative addresses the purpose and need and is responsive to each of the five issues outlined in Chapter 1 through project design, adherence to Forest Plan Standards, and the mitigation measures listed in this section.

2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Of the 4 alternatives considered in the analysis, the following alternatives were eliminated from detailed study. Alternatives 3 and 4 were formulated to further address issues 1-5, however these alternatives did not meet the purpose and need of the Forest or meet the objectives of the project.

Alternative 3. Non-native invasive species treatment only – Under this alternative only non- native invasive plant species treatment would be allowed within the project area. Under this alternative, no native terrestrial or native aquatic weeds would be treated, outside of those covered by other decisions.

Alternative 4. No herbicide – Under this Alternative no herbicides would be used. Only non- chemical means would be used for this alternative and no herbicides would be used outside of those covered by existing decisions.

2.3 Design Criteria to be Included in the Project

 Forest wide standards 19-31 (RLRMP, pages, 2-12 – 2-13) provide mitigating measures to reduce herbicide contact with non-target vegetation. Additional measures such as timing herbicide applications and use of selective herbicides provide additional protection to non-target plants.

 Prior to treatment, specific areas planned for application would be analyzed for PETS or other resource concerns.

 Herbicide treatment(s) occurring within or adjacent to rare communities would be analyzed on a case by case, site specific basis to ensure the treatment would be conducted in a manner that would not cause adverse effects to the rare community and would be to the benefit of any rare or Sensitive species present in the long term.

 Herbicide use would follow directions and restrictions of the product label(s). Aquatic applications would be limited to aquatic-labeled products. Certain formulations (including some glyphosate products) have been shown to be toxic to some aquatic animals. A list of those glyphosate formulations and surfactants along with known aquatic organism toxicity levels is located in the project file. When treating invasives in or near water, applicator(s) should use formulations with surfactants and additives that have been shown to be safe to aquatic organisms.

 Any ground disturbing mechanical treatment would follow the standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan and the Secion 106 process would be completed prior to the start of the activity (See Heritage Resource Section in Chapter 3).

 Forest Service Pesticide guidelines and restrictions will be observed (including posting treatment area signage).

Chapter 3

3.0 Effects Analysis

This section summarizes the physical, biological, and social environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2.

3.A Physical Elements

3.A.1 Soil Resources

3.A.1.1 Issues

No issues identified.

3.A.1.2 Affected Environment Soils within the boundaries of the proposed project on the Bankhead National Forest are located primarily in the Sandstone Mountain Subsection with a smaller area, located to the south, being the Shale Hills and Mountain Subsection. The Sandstone Mountain Subsection is divided into five Landtype Associations (LTA); Tennessee Valley Escarpment, Tennessee Valley Plains, Sipsey Plateau, Moreland Plateau, and the Sandstone Hills. The Shale Hills and Mountain Subsection is in one LTA: Black Warrior Hills. The Tennessee Valley Escarpment and Plains LTAs have a geology made up of sandstone, shale, and limestone that weathered into sandy and clayey soils. Land surface form is characterized as strongly to moderately dissected plateau of moderate to low relief. Overstory vegetation is primarily Oak-Hickory-Cedar with pine located on sandstone derived soils. The Sipsey Plateau LTA, Moreland Plateau LTA, and the Sandstone Hills LTA have a geology made up of either sandstone or sandstone and shale that weathered into sandy or sandy and clay soils. Land surface form is strongly dissected to moderately dissected plateaus of moderately low relief. Overstory vegetation is a combination of Oak-Pine. The Black Warrior Hills LTA has geology of shale or shale and sandstone. Soils weathered into clayey soils with some sandy soils. Land surface form is upland hills with moderately low relief. Overstory vegetation is Oak-Pine. An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory of the Bankhead National Forest identified 13 soil map units within the proposed project boundary. Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each of these map units. Soils within the boundaries of the proposed project on the Conecuh National Forest are located in the Southern Loam Hills Subsection. Within this subsection, soils are located in five landtype associations (LTA): Conecuh and Yellow River Floodplains, Bays, Pine Hills, Dougherty Plain, and Wet Pine Flats. The Conecuh River is located along the northwest boundary of the forest. The Yellow River is located along the southeast boundary of the forest. The Bays LTA is generally located in the center of the forest. The Pine Hills LTA is generally found in the

western and south western third of the forest. The Dougherty Plain LTA is generally found in the central southern portion of the forest. The Wet Pine Flats LTA is generally found in the eastern and south eastern third of the forest. The Coneuch and Yellow River floodplains have relief that is generally smooth to slightly undulating. The terrain is subject to frequent flooding. The Bay LTA has a slightly convex landscape that is smooth and relatively flat resulting in frequent to permanent ponding of water. Both the Pine Hills and the Dougherty Plain LTAs consist of upland ridges of low relief that have long side slopes. Surface terrain is nearly level to gently sloping. The Wet Pine Flats LTA consists of broad, nearly level to flat uplands of very low relief. Surface terrain is nearly level to undulating. Soils in the Conecuh and Yellow River LTA formed in recent fluvial and low terrace deposits. The Bay LTA soils are forming in organic deposits accumulating on site. The Pine Hills LTA soils formed in sandy loam, loam, and clayey marine deposits. Soils found in the Dougherty Plain and Wet Pine Flats LTAs formed in marine sediments derived from solution and collapse of limestone and the slumping of sandy and clayey sediments. Typical soil characteristics of the Conecuh and Yellow River floodplains are deep, poorly, and somewhat poorly drained soils in low areas and moderately well drained to excessively drained soils along low terraces and river banks. Permeability is moderately rapid to rapid with soil textures ranging from sandy to sandy loam to sandy clay loam. The Bay LTA consists of deep, very poorly drained, moderately permeable soils with muck subsoils. Bay LTA soils are hydric and considered wetlands. Typical soil characteristics of the Pine Hills LTA are deep, well drained, moderate to moderately rapid to rapidly permeable soils with sandy loam or sandy clay subsoils. Typical soil characteristics of the Dougherty Plain are deep, well drained, slow to moderately permeable soils with sandy clay loam subsoils. Typical soils characteristics of the Wet Pine Flats LTA are deep, somewhat poorly to poorly drained, moderately permeable soils with sandy loam and sandy clay loam subsoils. Wetland soils are common in this LTA. Soils within all five LTAs are acidic and have pH values of strongly acid to very strongly acid. An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory of the Conecuh National Forest identified 57 soil map units within the proposed project boundary. Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each of these map units.

The following soils are either floodplain soils, wetland soils, or both. Use of herbicides within these areas will require aquatic labeling for use.

Soil Map Unit Soil Series Floodplain Wetland 3 Atmore silt loam No Yes 10 Muckalee, Bibb and Yes Yes Osier soils 16 Bruno loamy sand Yes No 21 Chewacla, Lenoir, Yes No Riverview Association 22 Coxville fine sandy loam Yes Yes 24 Dorovan muck Yes Yes 35 Grady sandy loam No Yes 38 Iuka-Bibb sandy loams Yes Yes 50 Plummer loamy sand No Yes 53 Ponzer muck Yes Yes

54 Rains sandy loam No Yes 68 Weston fine sandy loam Yes Yes

Soils within the boundaries of the proposed project on the Oakmupgee Division, Talladega National Forest are located in two subsections: the Upper Clay Hills and the Upper Loam Hills. Within each subsection, soils are located within Landtype Associations (LTAs). Under the Upper Clay Subsection, there are four LTAs: Cahaba and Big Sandy River Floodplains, Gordo Formation, Oakmulgee and Elliot’s Creek Floodplains, and Eutaw Formation. Under the Upper Loam Hills Subsection, there are two LTAs: Coker Formation, low relief and Coker Formation, moderate relief. The Cahaba and Big Sandy Floodplains LTA and the Oakmulgee and Elliot Creek Floodplains LTA have surface land forms that are smooth with very low relief. Slopes are generally 0 to 3 percent. Ponding of water during winter and spring is common. Both Coker Formation LTAs consist of moderately dissected uplands with one being of low relief, slopes averaging between 2 and 25 percent, while the other is of moderate relief with slopes averaging greater than 20 percent. The Gordo Formation LTA and the Eutaw Formation LTA also consists of moderately dissected uplands of moderate relief. Slopes range from 5 to 45 percent, averaging 15 to 30 percent. Soils in the Cahaba and Big Sandy Floodplains and the Oakmulgee and Elliot Creek Floodplains LTAs formed in recent fluvial and low terrace deposits. Both the Coker Formation LTAs and the Eutaw Formation LTA formed in marine sediments consisting of deposited layers of micaceous sands, and clays. The difference between the Coker and the Eutaw Formations is epic or period of deposition. The Gordo Formation LTA formed in marine sediments consisting of clays and sand. Typical soil characteristics of the Cahaba and Big Sandy Floodplains LTA are very deep to deep, poorly, somewhat poorly, and moderately well drained, moderately permeable soils along terraces and stream banks. Soil textures range from sandy to sandy loam surfaces and sandy loam to loam sub-surfaces. Wetland (hydric) soils are found in sloughs and minor drainages within the floodplain. Flooding is frequent to occasional. The Oakmulgee and Elliot Creek Floodplains LTA has soils that are very deep to deep, very poorly, poorly, and somewhat poorly drained, and moderately permeable. Soil textures in the surface and subsurface layers are fine sand, loamy sands, or sandy loams. Wetland (hydric) soils are common in sloughs and minor drainage ways within the floodplain. Flooding is frequent and ponding occurs for long periods of time. The soil characteristics of the Coker, Gordo, and Eutaw Formation LTAs are similar in that they consist of sandy and clayey textures. The Coker and Eutaw Formation are dominantly sandy soils whereas the Coker Formation is dominantly clayey soils. Depending on elevation and exposure thru geologic erosion determines which Formation and soil type can be found on the forest. The sandy soils are deep, well to excessively drained, moderately slow to moderate permeability. The clayey soils are deep, well drained, slowly to moderately slowly to moderate permeability. Soils within all six LTAs are acidic and have pH values of strongly acid to very strongly acid.

An on-going soil resource inventory of the Oakmulgee Division, Talladega National Forest has identified 32 soil map unit units within the proposed project area (Bibb, Hale, and Perry Counties). An existing soil resource inventory for Chilton and Dallas Counties has identified 16 map units within the proposed project area. Maps are available for viewing at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Montgomery. A total of twenty-seven primary soil series are identified within the map units found within the project area. Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each of these map units.

The following soils are either floodplain soils, wetland soils, or both. Use of herbicides within these areas will require aquatic labeling for use.

Soil Map Unit Soil Series Floodplain Wetland

4 Fluvaquents, ponded Yes Yes 8 Mantachie, Iuka, Yes Yes and Kinston soils 11 Myatt fine sandy loam Yes Yes 12 Ochlockonee-Riverview Yes Yes complex 28 Bibb-Iuka complex Yes Yes

Soils within the boundaries of the proposed project on the Talladega Division, Talladega National Forest are located primarily in the Schist Plains and the Quartzite and Talladega Slate Ridge Subsections. The Schist Plains Subsection is divided into one Landtype Association (LTA) on the Forest named the Piedmont LTA. The Piedmont LTA is located in the central east portion of the Forest. The Quartzite and Talladega Slate Ridge Subsection is divided into four LTAs: Talladega Hills, Horseblock Mountain, Hollins East, and Cheaha Mountain. These four LTAs make up a large portion of the Forest ranging from the town of Heflin south to the town of Sylacauga. The Piedmont LTA has a geology made up of mica and chloritic schists that weathered into loamy soils containing clay. Land surface form is characterized as upland hills with moderately low relief. Overstory vegetation is primarily pine-oak. The Talladega Hills, Horseblock Mountain, and Hollins East LTAs have geology derived from slate and phyllite. Soils weathered into loamy soils containing silt and clay. Land surface form ranges from upland hills of moderately low relief to moderate relief. Overstory vegetation is pine-oak. The Cheaha Mountain LTA derived form a geology consisting of sandstone and some shale. Soils weathered into sandy soils containing some clay. Land surface is described as low mountains with moderate relief. Overstory vegetation is primarily xeric oak-pine.

An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory of the Talladega Division, Talladega National Forest identified 24 soil map units within the proposed project boundary. Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each map unit identified.

The following soils are either floodplain soils, wetland soils, or both. Use of herbicides within these areas will require aquatic labeling for use.

Soil Map Unit Soil Series Floodplain Wetland

1 Chewacla Yes Yes State Yes No Wehadkee Yes Yes 2 Chewacla Yes Yes 10 Chewacla Yes Yes 13 Riverview Yes No

State Yes No 18 Chewacla Yes Yes

Soils within the project boundaries of the Tuskegee National Forest are located in the Upper Hills Subsection. Within this subsection, soils are located in two landtype associations (LTAs): Tuskegee Hills and Uphapee Creek. 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. Uphapee Creek LTA consists of floodplains and terraces of very low relief. Surface terrain is nearly level to gently sloping. Sediments from adjacent uplands can be found within floodplains. Wetlands (hydric soils) are commonly found. Soils derived from recent fluvial and low terrace deposits. Soils are deep, poorly to moderately permeable with sandy loam, sandy clay loam, and clay subsoils.

An Order 2 soil resource inventory identified 14 soil resource inventory map units within the proposed project boundary. Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each map unit identified above. Wetland soils are Bethera clay loam and Bibb-Chastain complex.

A description of the series and soil maps of the project area(s)/Natioanl Forests can be obtained at the Forest Supervisor’s Office in Montgomery.

Environmental Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects: the no action alternative will not have an effect on the soil resource.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

The proposed action proposes to control nonnative invasive plant species through the use of chemicals (herbicides), mechanical treatment, and prescribed fire or a combination thereof. Areas to be treated include: roadsides, recreation areas, trails and trailheads, old roadbeds, fire lines, stream banks, streams or bodies of water, wildlife openings, rare communities and select areas of infestations within the Forest. Herbicide treatment methods to be used include: Directed Foliar Spray, Cut Surface Treatments, Basal Applications and Aquatic Applications. No aerial or stand-level broadcast applications would be utilized for this project. Herbicides to be used are: Triclopyr, Glyphosphate, Clopyralid, Hexazinone, Imazapyr, Metsulfuron Methyl, Aminopyralid, Dicamba, and Fluridone.

The herbicides that would be used with this alternative 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 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 nine 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 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. Aminopyralid, Clopyralid, Dicamba, Hexazinone and Metsulfuron Methl are generally active in the soil. It is absorbed from the soil by plants. Aminopyralid is reported to have a moderate mobility in soil thus a moderate potential to leach into groundwater. Clopyralid, hexazinone and dicamba are absorbed by plants from the soil but the soil does not absorb these two chemicals making them highly soluble in water and easily leached from the soil. Review of the literature could not determine a rating of soil mobility for metsulfuron methyl. According to the EPA, aminopyralid dissipation studies (one in MS) found results indicating that aminopyralid is likely to be non-persistent and relatively immobile in the soil. Half-lives of 20 to 32 days were determined with minimal leaching below the 15 to 30 cm soil depth. Microbes and sunlight are the primary factors in breaking down this chemical. Clopyralid may be persistent in soils under anaerobic (no oxygen) conditions and in soils with a low microorganism content. The half-life in soil can range from 15 to 287 days. Soil microorganisms break down clopyralid. Hexazinone may remain in the soil at low concentrations for up to three years after application. Hexazinone is minimally absorbed by the soil with heavier textures such as clay loam and clay to absorb more than sandier soils.

Hexazinone has a half-life in soil of from 30 to 180 days. Presence of organic matter can extend the half-life. Microorganisms and light are the primary means of breaking down this herbicide. Dicamba rate of breakdown in the soil increases with temperature and increasing soil moisture and tends to be faster when soils are slightly acidic. Sunlight slowly breaks down this chemical. Typical half-life of dicamba in soils is 1 to 4 weeks. Under best conditions the half-life can be less than 2 weeks. The breakdown of metsulfuron methyl in soils is largely dependant on soil temperature, moisture content, and pH. The chemical will degrade faster under acidic conditions, and in soils with higher moisture content and higher temperature which is conducive of soils in the southeast. Half-life estimates range from 14 to 180 days with an overall average of 30 days. Clay soil has the longest half life with sand the least. Ultraviolet light assists in breaking down the chemical.

Fluridone is an aquatic herbicide and not applied to the soil resource. Discussion for this herbicide is included under the water resource section 3.A.2 of this document.

Non-herbicide treatments

The non-herbicide treatments proposed are mowing, bulldozing , prescribed burning, and hand tools. These treatments would be used in conjunction with herbicides as needed.

Use of hand tools will results in little to no soil erosion. Soil compaction will be slight resulting from foot travel. Use of equipment involving mowing can result in soil compaction from wheel or track pressure. Use of this type equipment usually does not involve multiple passes over the same ground. Soil compaction is expected to be slight. Surface debris is left on site aiding in reducing the effect of wheel or track pressure to the ground. Soil compaction is expected to be slight and temporary with recovery expected within one year. The potential for erosion is expected to be very slight due to the organic matter remaining on site providing protection from forces of water erosion. Use of a bulldozer involves heavy ground disturbance which has the potential for soil compaction and soil erosion. Use of such equipment is expected to be on a small scale. Purpose is for grubbing and piling heavy infestations of woody invasive plants such as privet. Implementation of soil standards will minimize the potential for erosion. Soil compaction is expected to last 3 to 5 years.

Soil compaction from fire management is primarily from fire line construction. Fire lines pose a risk for soil erosion. Placement of soil erosion standards such as waterbars, out sloping and seeding where necessary are mitigation measures for control of soil erosion. Soil erosion potential from the actual use of fire is on soils that are usually deep sands that tend to be droughty and are located on slopes exceeding 10 percent. Prescribe burning for wildlife, fuel reduction, mid-story reduction, or other purposes other than site preparation, following burning plans and mitigation measures, usually are low intensity burns that result in slight to very slight soil exposure, surface litter can be consumed with duff and organic matter and are usually unaffected.

Cumulative effects:

No long term loss of soil productivity is expected. Short term loss of soil from erosion is expected to be temporary. Re-vegetating treated sites with native vegetation will provide ground cover to protect the soil from erosion and reduce impacts from soil compaction over time. Implementation of soil standards on disturbed sites will assist with controlling soil erosion

3.A.2 Water Resources

3.A.2.1 Issues

No issues identified

3.A.2.2 Affected Environment:

The National Forests in Alabama for purposes of this EA have been divided into five management areas. The Bankhead Management Area comprised solely of the Bankhead National Forest, The Conecuh Management Area comprised solely of the Conecuh National Forest, The Oakmulgee Management Area comprised of the Oakmulgee Division of the Talladega National Forest, The Tuskegee Management Area comprised solely of the Tuskegee National Forest and the Talladega Management Area comprised of the Talladega and Shoal Creek Divisions of the Talladega National Forest. The National Forests in Alabama has ownership within 9 major drainage basins, 18 fourth level HUCS and 56 fifth level HUCS. The Bankhead Management area lies with 3 Basins: the Black Warrior, the Tennessee, and the Upper Tombigbee. Ownership on the Bankhead is within 18 fifth level HUCS over 6 fourth level HUCS. The Conecuh Management Area lies within the Perdido-Escambia Basin. Ownership on the Conecuh is within 9 fifth level HUCS over 4 fourth level HUCS. The Oakmulgee Management Area lies within 3 Basins: the Alabama, the Black Warrior, and the Cahaba. Ownership on the Oakmulgee is within 12 fifth level HUCS over 3 fourth level HUCS. The Tuskegee Management Area lies within the Tallapoosa Basin. Ownership on the Tuskegee is within 2 fifth level HUCS over 1 fourth level HUC. The Talladega Management Area lies within 2 Basins: the Coosa and the Tallapoosa. Ownership on the Talladega is within 15 fifth level HUCS over 5 fourth level HUCS.

Water Quality

Alabama is a well-forested state and this is reflected in the land use patterns of the watersheds. Forest cover is the predominant land use. Agriculture was the next leading land use practice, with urbanization (which includes commercial and industrial areas) a distant third. The quality of the waters flowing from National Forests lands is typically high. The state’s highest use designations cover many of the streams coming from National Forest lands within many watersheds. The highest state use designation, Outstanding National Resource Waters, was applied to streams entirely on National Forest lands. Point sources of pollution are generally downstream of National Forest lands and are relatively unaffected by Forest Service management. The Middle Choccolocco Watershed seems to be plagued by the most point sources. None of the streams on National Forest lands are listed as impaired and those

downstream of National Forest lands are impaired for reasons beyond Forest Service influence (i.e. organic enrichment and pathogens from pastures). (Kopaska-Merkel and Moore, 2000.)

The leading contributor to water quality degradation within the watersheds with Forest Service ownership is sedimentation. Forestry and agricultural practices are the leading causes for erosion and thereby, sedimentation. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has developed, in cooperation with the Forest Service, Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate the sedimentation caused by these activities. The Forest Service meets or exceeds all of the State’s BMPs, through the use of forest wide standards.

Groundwater

The groundwater on the National Forest is found in multiple aquifer systems. The yields of these various aquifers range from poor to high, depending upon the geology of the management area. The water taken from these aquifers is generally safe to drink with little or no treatment. Generally, groundwater is not used by the National Forest.

The groundwater on the Bankhead is contained in the Appalachian Plateaus aquifer system. The majority of the ground water can be found within sandstone and limestone fractures. Yields are generally low (10gpm) with only a few areas of high yields in fracture areas. Sandstone units generally provide adequately for domestic supply. Limestone formations provide sufficiently for some municipal and industrial supplies. Most water is suitable for most uses, but is highly mineralized. (Miller, 1990.)

The groundwater on the Conecuh is contained in a complex structure of aquifer systems. The Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system is the surface aquifer in the northern part of the Conecuh sloping away towards the Gulf of Mexico and becoming the underlying aquifer system for the all other aquifer systems. The next surface aquifer system, moving from north to south across the Conecuh, is the Floridan, which also slopes away to the Gulf and overlying the Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system. A confinement layer is present at the surface in areas on the Conecuh sloping away to the Gulf and overlying the Floridan and Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer systems. The Surficial aquifer system and the Sand and Gravel aquifer systems are the surface aquifers across the lower portions of the Conecuh, with the Surficial system on the west and the Sand and Gravel system to the east. Both of these systems are over the confinement layer, the Floridan system, and the Southeastern Coastal Plain respectively. There is hydrologic communication between these various systems and the surface, creating bogs, sinkhole ponds, springs, and perched water tables providing for various water-related rare communities. All of these aquifer systems are highly productive and suitable for municipal or industrial development (150gpm). (Miller, 1990.) The groundwater on the Oakmulgee and the Tuskegee is contained in Southeastern Coastal Plain aquifer system. The majority of the groundwater can be found within sand and gravel formations. This aquifer system can best be described as extremely stratified by silt and clay confinement layers. This aquifer system has lateral communication with the surface. The productivity of this aquifer system is generally good. (Miller, 1990.)

The groundwater on the Talladega is contained in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifer system, as well as the Valley and Ridge aquifer system. The majority of the ground water in the

Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifer system can be found in fractures within the metamorphic rock. The majority of the groundwater in the Valley and Ridge aquifer system can be found in sandstone, limestone and dolomite formations. Both systems have some lateral communication with the surface. The productivity of the Piedmont and Blue Ridge aquifer system varies with fracture size, but is generally inadequate for municipal supply. The productivity of the Valley and Ridge aquifer system is generally good. (Miller, 1990.)

Water Quantity Alabama is blessed with an abundance of surface water due to our abundance of annual precipitation. Precipitation averages about 56 inches per year with runoff rates averaging about 22 inches per year (Miller, 1990.). Much of the precipitation flows directly into rivers and streams as overland runoff or indirectly as baseflow from discharging aquifers where the water has been stored for a short time. Some of the precipitation that falls is returned to the atmosphere by means of evapotranspiration and evaporation from surface-water bodies such as lakes and marshes, and transpiration from plants. However, a substantial part of the precipitation is available for aquifer recharge. Direct/Indirect Effects:

No Action: The No Action Alternative would have little effect on the current status of water quality, however, the water resource will continue to be affected by NNIPS. The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the soil resource.

Proposed Action: The Proposed Action seeks to treat existing NNIPS sites and sites found in the future. The NFsAL proposes to control invasive plant species by treatment with chemicals (herbicides), mechanical treatment or with a combination of mechanical and chemical (herbicide) treatments.

Mechanical - The use of mechanical methods to treat the invasive plant species may be used in conjunction with the herbicide treatments. Examples would include, but are not limited to, using a chainsaw to cut stems for the cut stump treatment method or using brush saws or string trimmers to reduce infestation densities to improve herbicide uptake and effectiveness. Mowing and prescribe burning infestations will be used depending on species of plant, size and age of infestation and time of year the treatment will take place. In areas where invasive non-native species occur (i.e.kudzu, privet, etc.), long-term (3-5 years) measures such as herbicide applications, bulldozing, mowing, weed-eating and prescribed fire may be needed for control and/or eradication of these plants. Mechanical controls have the potential to affect the water resource through sedimentation. Chainsaws, brush saws, string trimmers and similar hand tools have little impact on the water resource. Mowing, bulldozing and the use of other heavy equipment can lead to erosion and thereby sedimentation. Under normal conditions prescribed burning has little impact on the water resource, however intense prescribed burning can result in hydrophobicity and erosion.

Chemical - Water pollution by herbicides can occur 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.

Herbicide application methods:

 Directed Foliar Sprays - Herbicide-water sprays, often with a non-ionic surfactant added, aimed at the target plant foliage to cover all leaves to the point of run off. They are usually applied with a backpack sprayer or mobile pump sprayer with hand controlled wand(s).  Cut Surface Treatment – Stem Injection (including hack-and-squirt) – herbicide mixtures or concentrates applied into downward incision cuts spaced around wood stems made by an ax, hatchet, machete, brush ax or tree injector. Injection is a selective method of controlling trees and shrubs, which are greater than 2 inches in diameter. Cut Stump – herbicide concentrate or mixtures applied to the outer circumference of freshly cut stumps or the entire top surface of cut stems. Cutting the woody stems is usually accomplished by chainsaw or brush saw, but may be accomplished by handsaws or other hand-held cutting equipment. Herbicide is applied with a backpack sprayer, spray bottle, wick applicator or paintbrush.  Basal Applications – Full Basal Sprays – herbicide-oil-penetrant mixtures sprayed or daubed onto the lower portion of woody stems of trees or shrubs. They are applied using a backpack sprayer or a wick applicator, and are effective in controlling woody stems up to 6 inches in diameter. Modified Basal Sprays (streamline or thinline) - herbicide-oil-penetrant mixtures sprayed onto the lower portion of woody stems of trees or shrubs with a diameter of 2 inches or less.  Aquatic Applications – Emergent/Floating Vegetation Foliar Sprays - approved aquatic labeled herbicide mixtures are applied directly to floating or emergent species vegetation. They are typically applied with backpack or mobile pump sprayers with hand- controlled wands. Submergent Vegetation Dilutions – herbicides approved for low concentrations dilutions into standing water bodies are used when the target species is not treatable by foliar spray, typically because it is submergent in habit, growing below the surface of the water.

Direct/indirect Effects of Herbicides to be used:

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.

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.

Clopyralid Solubility: Highly soluble. Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Clopyralid does not bind tightly to soil and thus would seem to have a high potential for leaching. While there is little doubt that clopyralid will leach under conditions that favor leaching—sandy soil, a sparse microbial population, and high rainfall—the potential for leaching or runoff is functionally reduced by the relatively rapid degradation of clopyralid in soil. A number of field lysimeter studies and a long-term field study indicate that leaching and subsequent contamination of ground water is likely to be minimal. This conclusion is also consistent with a monitoring study of clopyralid in surface water after aerial application. Surface Waters: Surface waters may be contaminated if Clopyralid is applied to areas where runoff is likely to occur. The half-life in water is 261 days. Soils: Clopyralid is very mobile in the soil, it is considered persistent in soil with a half-life of up to 11 months according to EPA.

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 significantly reduce the amount of offsite movement of imazapyr in stormflow. The half-life of imazapyr in water is about 4 days. 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.

Metsulfuron Methyl Solubility: Metsulfuron Methyl dissolves easily in water. Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Metsulfuron Methyl has the potential to contaminate ground water at very low concentration. Metsulfuron Methyl leaches through silt loam and sand soils. Surface Waters: Because Metsulfuron Methyl is soluble in water, there is a potential for surface waters to be contaminated if metsulfuron is applied directly to bodies of water or wetlands. Tests show that the half-life for metsulfuron methyl in water, when exposed to artificial sunlight ranges from 1 to 8 days. Soils: Metsulfuron Methyl is soil active. Unlike sulfometuron methyl, it is not strongly absorbed by acidic soils.

Aminopyralid Solubility: Aminopyralid has a relatively low solubility in unbuffered water but increased at a rate of 100 times in buffered water. Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Aminopyralid shows moderate mobility in the environment and with a moderate potential to leach through soils and contaminate groundwater. Surface Waters: Aminopyrolid is relatively stable in water and observed half-lives ranges from 462 to 990 days according to the EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet. Soils: Aminopyralid is weakly sorbed to soils. Half-lives in soil ranged from31.5 to 533 days according to the EPA Pesticide Fact Sheet.

Dicamba Solubility: Dicamba is readily soluble in water; its transport through soil is influenced substantially by precipitation. Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: There is a potential for dicamba to leach into groundwater. Surface Waters: There is a potential for dicamba to be transported to surface waters. Soils: Dicamba is easily transported through soil and does not readily bind to soils.

Fluridone Solubility: Fluridone is soluble in water. Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Fluridone has the potential to leach into groundwater via surface waters and/or hydrosoils. Surface Waters: Fluridone is applied to surface waters to control submerged and emerged aquatic plants. It is moderately persistent in water with a half-life of 21 days. Soils: Fluridone is strongly adsorbed to organic matter in soil. Microorganisms appear to be the major factor responsible for the degradation of fluridone in terrestrial soils. The half-life in hydrosoil is 90 days.

Hexazinone Solubility: Powder and granule formulations dissolve well in water. The liquid formulation disperses in water.

Potential For Leaching Into Groundwater: Hexazinone is persistent and mobile in soils and therefore could contaminate groundwater. It is not likely to leach beyond the root zone, however. Surface Waters: Hexazinone does have some potential to move through buffer zones and into surface streams. However, hexazinone degrades rapidly in natural waters. Soils: Hexazinone is soil active with soil mobility being relatively low, it can remain active in the soil from 1 to 6 months after application. Hexazinone is broken down primarily by soil organisms and may be degraded from exposure to light.

Cumulative effects:

The cumulative effects for water are changes in water quality. The analysis area for the cumulative effects for water is the groundwater and the watersheds for those surface waters found within the National Forest in Alabama and the downstream designated uses thereof. The temporal boundary for the cumulative is the duration of this EA. However; the cumulative effects for water should be revisited every five years to capture changes in designated uses, watershed conditions, and evolving information about pesticides and their applications.

Evaluation of the alternatives has resulted in the determination that they all pose little risk to the water resource. However, it is very difficult to determine the cumulative effects of the continued propagation of NNIPS under the No Action Alternative. Alternative 1 does nothing to control or severely limit the potential to successfully control NNIPS. NNIPS have the potential over an extended period to alter the entire vegetative composition of a given watershed. Alteration of the vegetative composition at the watershed level will interrupt the natural hydrologic dynamic of these watersheds, resulting in changes in water yield and/or geomorphological changes to streams within these watersheds.

Increased sedimentation is expected to be minimal and temporary. The potential for water pollution is considered slight, provided all mitigations and management strategies (EPA Guidelines, Land Management Plan Standards, State BMP’s and manufacturer’s label directions are followed. When compared to other activities across the National Forests that may affect soils and hydrology (road maintenance and construction, timber harvesting, trail construction and maintenance, etc. The effects from treating NNIPS across the National Forest would pose little cumulative risk to soils and water. Overall, the potential cumulative effects incurred in the management of NNIPS are minimal and should pose no risk to the water resource providing continued downstream designated uses.

3.B Biological Elements

3.B.1 Major Habitat Composition

Affected Environment

The closest measure of community types the Forest Service maintains is an inventory of forest types. This inventory has been cross-walked to the community types described in the Guidance for Conserving and Restoring Old growth Forest Communities on National Forests in the Southern Region (USDA 1997). In order to evaluate management effects to wildlife habitats, forest types and communities have been categorized into habitat groups. Habitat groups represent a niche or condition relevant to wildlife species. A complete description of each community type is located in the FEIS RLRMP, Chapter 3 and beginning on Page 3-75.

Overstory (canopy) forest types are quite diverse across the landscape. The mosaic of forest types are represented in the tables and discussions below. The presence of NNIPS within these areas varies, however there are certain species that are more likely to be an issue in certain habitat types. For example, sun-loving NNIPS like bicolor lespedeza are a significant issue in upland pine and mixed pine hardwood stands due to the fact that these areas are generally more open and sunny, allowing them to spread quickly. Others like Nepalese stiltgrass and privet are usually more prevalent in bottomlands and mesophytic habitats.

Table 3.B.1: Relationship of Community to Forest Type and Major Habitat Group and Composition by Management Area

Management Area 1 - Bankhead % % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Group Forested community Acres Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine 49% shortleaf/oak (12) <1 Oak and Oak Forest yellow pine (25) 3 Pine loblolly pine (31) 80 southern red oak/yellow pine (44) 3 white oak/black oak/yellow pine (47) 2 northern red oak/yellow pine (48) 16 Dry Mesic Oak Forest 26% post oak/bear oak (51) <1 Oak and Oak chestnut oak (52) <1 Pine white oak/red oak/hickory (53) 98 white oak (54), scarlet oak (59) <1 chestnut oak/scarlet oak (60) <1 Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest 11% loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 45 Pine and Pine and Woodland Virginia pine/oak (16) 9 Oak shortleaf pine (32) <1 Virginia pine (33) 33

% % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Group Forested community Acres chestnut oak/scarlet oak/yellow pine (45) 10 bear oak/southern scrub oaks/yellow pine 1 (49) Mixed Mesophytic Forest 8% white pine-upland hardwood (10) <1 Mesic cove hardwoods-white pine-hemlock (41) 15 Deciduous upland hardwoods-white pines (42) <1 yellow poplar (50) <1 yellow poplar-white oak-Northern Red Oak 82 (56) <1 beech-magnolia (69) <1 sycamore-pecan-American elm (75) <1 black birch (83) <1 American chestnut (95) <1 brush species (99) River Floodplain Hardwood 2% bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 86 Mesic Forest sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 12 Deciduous sweet gum/nuttall oak/willow oak (62) 2 sugarberry/American elm/green ash (63) <1 laurel oak/willow oak (64) <1 sweet bay/swamp tupelo/red maple (68) <1 Upland Longleaf Pine Forests 1% longleaf pine (21) 94 Upland and Woodland longleaf pine/hardwood (26) 6 Longleaf Cedar Woodlands 1% eastern red cedar/hardwood (11) 66 Cedar eastern red cedar (35) 11 Woodlands oak/eastern red cedar (43) 23 Conifer Northern Hardwood 1% eastern white pine (3) 16 Eastern Forest hemlock/hardwoods (8) 82 Hemlock white pine/cove hardwood (9) 2 Forests

Management Area 2 – Conecuh % % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Group Forested community Acres Upland Longleaf Pine Forests and 52% longleaf pine (21) 98 Upland Woodland longleaf pine/hardwood (26) 2 Longleaf Wet Pine Forests, Woodlands, and 21% slash pine (22) 93 Wet Pine Savannas slash pine/hardwood (14) 7 Forests River Floodplain Hardwood Forest 19% bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 9 Mesic sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 1 Deciduous sweet gum/nuttall oak/willow oak (62) 1 laurel oak/willow oak (64) 21 sweet bay/swamp tupelo/red maple (68) 68 beech/magnolia (69) <1 undrained flatwoods (98) <1 Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine 4% yellow pine (25) 51 Oak and Oak Forest loblolly pine (31) 25 pine sand pine (34) 1 southern red oak/yellow pine (44) 19

% % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Group Forested community Acres white oak/black oak/yellow pine (47) 4

Coastal Plain Upland Mesic 2% loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 15 Mesic Hardwood yellow poplar (50) 4 Deciduous post oak/black oak (51) 16 white oak/red oak/hickory (53) 65 Dry and Xeric Oak <1% (57) Scrub oak 100 Oak and Oak Pine

Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest <1% (49) Bear oak/scrub oak/yellow pine 100 Pine and Pine and Woodland Oak Cypress Tupelo <1% bald cypress (24) 33 Cypress Tupelo bald cypress/water tupelo (67) 67 Swamp

Management Area 3 – Oakmulgee Division % % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Group Forested communit Acres y Upland Longleaf Pine Forests and 40 longleaf pine (21) 97 Upland Woodland longleaf pine/hardwood (26) 3 Longleaf Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine 34 shortleaf pine/oak (12) 3 Oak and Oak Forest loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 18 Pine yellow pine (25) <1 loblolly pine (31) 70 shortleaf pine (32) <1 sand pine (34) <1 southern red oak/yellow pine (44) 5 white oak/black oak/yellow pine (47) 2 northern red oak/hickory/yellow pine (48) 1 Dry Mesic Oak Forest 10 post oak/bear oak (51) <1 Oak and Oak white oak/red oak/hickory (53) 99 Pine

River Floodplain Hardwood 9 bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 29 Mesic Forest sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 32 Deciduous sweet gum/nuttall oak/willow oak (62) 39 laurel oak/willow oak (64) <1 Mixed Mesophytic 4 yellow poplar-white oak-northern red oak 100 Mesic (56) Deciduous

Cypress Tupelo 3 sweet bay/swamp tupelo/red maple (68) 98 Cypress Tupelo bald cypress/water tupelo (67) 2 Swamp

Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest <1 Virginia pine (33) 72 Pine and Pine and Woodland Bear oak/scrub oak/yellow pine (49) 28 Oak

Management Area 4 – Talladega Division % % Major Habitat Community of Forest Types of Group Forested communit Acres y Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak-Pine Forest 29% shortleaf/oak (12) 4 Oak and Oak yellow pine (25) 5 Pine loblolly pine (31) 70 shortleaf pine (32) 16 southern red oak/yellow pine (44) 4 white oak/black oak/yellow pine (47) <1 northern red oak/yellow pine (48) <1 Dry Mesic Oak Forest 29% post oak/bear oak (51) <1 Oak and Oak chestnut oak (52) 17 Pine white oak/red oak/hickory (53) 80 white oak (54), <1 chestnut oak/scarlet oak (60). 2 Mountain Longleaf Pine Forests 20% longleaf pine (21) 99 Mountain and Woodland longleaf pine/hardwood (26) 1 Longleaf

Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest and 14% loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 16 Pine and Pine Woodland Virginia pine/oak (16) 4 Oak Forests Virginia pine (33) 30 chestnut oak/scarlet oak/yellow pine (45) 49 bear oak/southern scrub oaks/and yellow pine 1 (49)

Mixed Mesophytic Forest 6% yellow poplar (50) 1 Mesic yellow poplar/white oak/northern red oak (56) 99 Deciduous

River Floodplain Hardwood Forest 2% bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 28 Mesic sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 71 Deciduous willow (74) 1

Management Area 5 – Tuskegee % % Major Community of Forest Types of Habitat Forested community Group Acres Dry and Dry-Mesic Oak- 36% loblolly pine/hardwood (13) 8 Oak and Oak Pine Forest loblolly pine (31) 90 Pine shortleaf pine (32) <1 southern red oak/yellow pine (44) 1 bear oak/southern scrub oaks/yellow 1 pine (49) River Floodplain 34% bottomland hardwood/yellow pine (46) 24 Mesic Hardwood Forest sweet gum/yellow poplar (58) 33 Deciduous Swamp chestnut oak/cherrybark oak 1 (61) 41 sweet gum/nuttall oak/willow oak (62) <1 sugarberry/American elm/green ash 1 (63) sweet bay/swamp tupelo/red maple (68) Upland Longleaf Pine 20% 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

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No action alternative could have an overall negative effect on major habitat types, although this effect would be slow. Most of the existing district decisions cover treatment of the common NNIPS species but do not address some of the more aggressive NNIPS that have yet to arrive on NFsAL lands. Without herbicide treatment, existing invasive species such as kudzu, privet, and others would continue to spread across the landscape, eventually displacing diverse native plants and even forests in some extreme cases. For example, non-native tree species like Chinaberry and tree-of-heaven can displace native forest trees, kudzu can overtop and kill overstory trees, and dense cogongrass infestations prevent tree seed germination, so that eventually entire forest structures and fire regimes are changed.

Although prescribed burning will continue, many NNIPS are not discouraged by fire and many actually spread quickly in response to fire. Considering the existing infestations and the potential for new invasions, prescribed fire alone will not successfully maintain diverse native understories and protect rare communities without the use of herbicide as a tool.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would probably cause an overall decrease in the health and function of native forest habitats on the NFsAL over time. Invasive species will continue to cover more acres displacing the natives through physical, biological, and allelopathic strategies.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Control and eradication of non-native invasive species will allow native tree and plant species to persist. Natural fire regimes will be maintained under the native forest canopies, with native leaf litter and needle cast.

Forested rare communities could be restored by treating encroaching native and non-native woody competition, without disturbing the soil or impacting the hydrology of the sites.

Cumulative Effects

Selection of Alternative 2 will likely have a positive long-term effect on native forest habitats. Control of shrub and tree NNIPS will release native saplings, diverse native grass and forb communities. Prescribed burning will continue with increasing emphasis placed on growing season burns.

3.B.2 Understory Vegetation

Affected Environment

The vegetative conditions of the understory plant communities vary greatly across the NFsAL. Many complex factors affect the composition and structure of the forest understory. Overstory species and density, the presence, frequency and intensity of fire, chemical and physical properties of forest soils, hydrology, wildlife browse, and past management practices combine to influence the condition of forest understory of an area.

Many of the Forest’s conifer stands have the characteristics of the traditional fire maintained longleaf pine/bluestem/wiregrass communites. These stands have occasional, scattered upland oaks, dogwood, common persimmon, sweetgum and water oak midstories. The understories are composed of low lying native grasses such as threeawns (Aristida spp.) and bluestems (Andropogon/Schizachyrium spp.), herbs, wildflowers and shrubs. Blueberry, yaupon, bluestem, and bracken fern can be found in most of the pine stands to varying degrees.

Moist shaded bottoms typically contain a varied assemblage of vines, herbs, and sparse shade- tolerant grass species including lilies and trilliums (Liliaceae), wood oats (Chasmathium spp.), panic grass (Panicum), and muscadine (Vitis), among many others.

The abundance of native grasses, herbs, and wildflowers typically has an inverse relationship to

existing overstory density. Crown density has a direct relationship to Basal Area (BA) measurements. As measurements of BA increase, the presence of shade intolerant native grasses and wildflowers decrease. Shade tolerant shrubs/small trees, such as dogwood and wax myrtle, often dominate the understory of stands with higher basal areas. In open fire-maintained stands abundant diverse native herbaceous vegetation is generally present, unless it has been displaced by NNIPS encroachment.

Although only a very small percentage of the total NFsAL system lands are currently infested, a significant number of NNIPS occur on the NFsAL Districts. Privet is especially prevalent across the state and infests some of the major drainages. This NNIPS does not require open conditions to spread and is often dispersed via seed by passerine birds. Cogongrass is known from at least four districts so far but has been eradicated on all but the Conecuh and Oakmulgee. District personnel and the Forest Botanist have compiled the list below as some of the most common NNIPS within the National Forest (Table 3.B.2) and the majority of treatments are expected to address these species. Actual eradication prioritization will tier to the NFAL NNIS Prioritization System (Appendix A).

Table 3.B.2: Priority Invasive Species Found on the National Forests in Alabama

Common Name Scientific Name Cogongrass Imperata cylndrical Kudzu Pueraria lobata Chinese Wisteria Wisteria sinensis Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Japanese climbing fern Lygodium japonicum Chinese Privet Ligustrum sinense Mimosa/Silktree Albizia julibrissin Princess Tree/Royal Paulownia Paulownia tomentosa Serecia lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata Bicolor lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor Tallow tree Triadica sebifera

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

The No action alternative would have an overall negative effect on understory vegetation. Existing invasive species such as kudzu, privet, and others included in Table 3.B.2 will continue to spread across the landscape, displacing diverse native plant communities and wildlife habitats. Rare communities would be also threatened without the ability to treat non-native and native invasive plants that threaten to shade out or otherwise displace the communities. In addition to the existing non-native plant infestations, new arrivals are a real concern and are likely as well.

Although prescribed burning will continue, many NNIPS are not discouraged by fire and many actually spread quickly in response to fire. Considering the existing infestations and the

potential for new invasions, prescribed fire alone will not successfully maintain diverse native understories and protect rare communities without the use of herbicide as a tool.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would probably cause a slight decrease in the diversity of native grasses, legumes, and forbs on the NFsAL over time. Invasive species will continue to cover more acres displacing the natives through physical, biological, and allelopathic strategies.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Selection of Alternative 2 will have a positive long-term effect on understory vegetation, although some small amount of non-target damage to native understory plant species is expected. Control of shrub and tree NNIPS will release diverse native grass and forb communities. Prescribed burning will continue with increasing emphasis placed on growing season burns

Cumulative Effects

Control and eradication of non-native invasive tree and brush species, will allow light to reach the ground on sites where these species are located. As control is achieved, and other management (such as burning) occurs, native plants will re-colonize the area. Overall, the Proposed Action will more easily allow native understories and rare communities to be maintained over time.

Protection of Non-target Vegetation

Forest wide standards 19-31 (RLRMP, pages, 2-12 – 2-13) provide mitigating measures to reduce herbicide contact with non-target vegetation. Additional measures such as timing herbicide applications and use of selective herbicides provide additional protection to non-target plants.

3.B.3 Aquatic Habitats

Affected Environment

The State of Alabama is a world leader in aquatic biodiversity. The Mobile River basin supports more aquatic species than any other river drainage in North America. Although the National Forests encompass less than 3% of the Alabama land base, over 40% of the State’s freshwater aquatic species are represented therein. Five distinct physiographic provinces and three major river basins are represented across the State as well as within the five National Forest management units in Alabama. As compared to other National Forests, Alabama National Forests rank first in the nation for the diversity of mollusks, fish, and turtles, and second in the diversity of crayfish and amphibians. Consequently, at all scales of consideration,

the National Forests in Alabama hold a unique opportunity for the conservation of aquatic species and ecosystems.

Within the National Forests of Alabama, aquatic habitats are primarily associated with over 7,700 miles of streams and rivers and over 3,000 acres contained in 38 reservoirs, lakes, and ponds (Chapter 3, Section 2.0: Water). The unique geologic history, productive climate and diverse geography of Alabama contribute to the diversity of aquatic habitats and species represented on the five management units of the National Forests in Alabama. The Bankhead and Talladega National Forests are primarily within the Cumberland Plateau and Ridge and Valley physiographic sections of the Appalachian Highlands. The Oakmulgee Division, Tuskegee, and Conecuh National Forests are considered to be within the East Gulf Coastal Plain for purposes of Forest Plan analysis. Each management unit has a substantial subset of aquatic species endemic to that particular physiographic area, river basin, or watershed. Aquatic environments differ among the five management units, further contributing to overall aquatic biodiversity.

All watersheds in the National Forests in Alabama support high aquatic diversity and relatively large numbers of endemic species. The Oakmulgee Division of the Talladega National Forest ranks first for aquatic biodiversity (species richness); the Talladega Division of the Talladega National Forest ranks second. The Talladega Division ranks first in “endemic” aquatic species (i.e. species unique to the river basin or management unit). Exceptional watersheds for aquatic diversity and inclusion of high numbers of listed, sensitive, or rare species include the Cahaba, Lower Conecuh, Middle Choccolocco, Upper Choccolocco, and Five Runs (in descending order). The Cahaba, Middle Choccolocco, Upper Choccolocco, and Upper Sipsey watersheds support the greatest number of species endemic to only those watersheds or river basins.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the No Action alternative, no herbicide (outside those covered by previous decision) would be applied to native or non-native aquatic invasive plant species. No direct effects would be anticipated from the No Action Alternative. Indirect effects may include the potential degradation of some lotic habitats by infestation from exotic species.

Cumulative Effects

Although current aquatic invasive infestations are relatively uncommon on the districts, there are a few areas where aquatic weeds are now a problem and are negatively affecting the native plants and animals of the stream and ponds. Over time, these infestations would continue to spread if left untreated and would negatively impact native aquatic organisms in time.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Aquatic invasives would be treated with the appropriate aquatic-labeled herbicides as necessary.

Emergent and bankside vegetation would be typically treated using foliar treatments and submergent weeds would likely be treated with dilutant applications. Based on previous threats and treatment efforts, generally only a small percentage (less than approximately 5%) of the annual NFsAL invasives treatment progam would likely involve aquatic applications.

Cumulative Effects

Control and eradication of aquatic weeds using approved aquatic-labeled herbicides would improve aquatic habitats and maintain natural water flow and chemistry. Overall, the Proposed Action will have a positive impact on Forest aquatic resources over time.

Herbicide Formulations

Certain herbicide formulations (some glyphosate products for example) have been shown to be more toxic to fish and other aquatic organisms than others containing the same active ingredient. An effort should be made by the applicator(s) to select formulations with surfactants and additives that have been shown to be safe to aquatic organisms.

3.B.4 Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, & Management Indicator Species

3.B.4.1 Federally-listed Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species

Affected Environment

A Biological Analysis (BA), sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, was completed to evaluate the Proposed Action potential effects to Federally-listed Proposed, Threatened (T), and Endangered (E) species known or likely to occur within the project area. Two main sources were consulted to determine the federally-listed species that needed to be evaluated for this project. The Daphne Ecological Services Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains and annually updates a County listing of federally-listed species with known or potential occurrence. The second source consulted for species to be evaluated with regard to potential Proposed Action effects was the Biological Analysis completed for the Revision of the Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USFS, RLRMP BA, 2004.) Based on these two sources, the following federally listed species were evaluated, and are listed below with their respective determinations from the BA:

Table 3.B.4.1: Determinations of Proposed Action effects from the Biological Assessment of Federally listed or proposed species.

Species Analyzed Status Determination

Gray bat E No Effect Indiana bat E No Effect Wood stork E Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Species Analyzed Status Determination

Red-cockaded woodpecker E Not Likely to Adversely Affect Mitchell’s satyr E Not Likely to Adversely Affect Eastern indigo snake T Not Likely to Adversely Affect Flatwoods salamander T No Effect T Not likely to adversely affect or modify Flattened musk turtle critical habitat T Not likely to adversely affect or modify Gulf sturgeon critical habitat No Effect Pygmy sculpin T Not Likely to Adversely Affect Blue shiner T Not Likely to Adversely Affect Cahaba shiner E Not Likely to Adversely Affect Goldline darter T No Effect Alabama sturgeon E E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Upland combshell critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Southern acornshell critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Southern combshell critical habitat T Not likely to adversely affect or modify Fine-lined pocketbook critical habitat T Not likely to adversely affect or modify Orange-nacre mucket critical habitat T Not likely to adversely affect or modify Alabama moccasinshell critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Coosa moccasinshell critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Southern clubshell critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Warrior pigtoe critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Southern pigtoe critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Ovate clubshell critical habitat E Not likely to adversely affect or modify Triangular kidneyshell critical habitat Not likely to adversely affect Lacy Elimia T No Effect Round rocksnail T Not likely to adversely affect Painted rocksnail T No Effect Flat pebblesnail E No Effect Cylindrical Lioplax snail E

Species Analyzed Status Determination

Not likely to adversely affect Tulotoma E No Effect Price’s potato bean T E No Effect Alabama leather flower E No Effect Leafy prairie-clover E No Effect Louisiana quillwort T No Effect Lyrate bladderpod E No Effect Pondberry T Not likely to adversely affect Mohr’s Barbara’s buttons E No Effect Harperella T Not likely to adversely affect or modify Kral’s water-plantain critical habitat E No Effect Green pitcher plant Alabama canebrake pitcher E No Effect plant No Effect American chaffseed E Not likely to adversely affect Alabama streak-sorus fern T No Effect Relict Trillium E No Effect Tennessee yellow-eyed grass E

T and E surveys for many of the Forest’s existing infestations (many of which are currently being treated under previous decisions) have been conducted thus far. Although several of the current treatments are, by design, near Candidate, Sensitive, or otherwise rare plant populations (for habitat protection and/or restoration), no immediate invasive threats are known to occur near T and E plant species. There are, however, known invasive species issues that threaten the habitat of T and E animal species on NFsAL lands. For example, heavy bicolor infestations currently occur in managed red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) habitats on the Talladega and Oakmulgee Divisions of the Talladega National Forest. And cogongrass is currently being treated in RCW habitat on the Oakmulgee and Conecuh. Herbicide treatment is needed in these areas to restore native herbaceous understory vegetation described in the RCW Recovery Plan. Walking meander surveys for the Tuskegee NNIPS Control EA (signed 2009) also resulted in no PET species found in proposed NNIPS infestation locations. Although no federally listed plants have been observed during NNIPS surveys completed to date, a site-specific survey or analysis for the likelihood of PET species presence and/or effects should be conducted for new treatment areas prior to treatment, since the proposed action is programmatic in nature. If PET plant species are found in or adjacent to a potential herbicide treatment area, FWS would be contacted and consultation would be re-initiated. More detailed information can be found in the BA.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

No Action Alternative Effects – Under the “No Action” alternative only the NNIS infestations covered by previous decisions could be addressed. Infestations on the remainder of the district lands and those consisting of species not covered under previous decisions would continue to spread via seed and vegetatively. Federally listed plant populations could be more at risk from being displaced by invasive species without the ability to treat newly detected infestations quickly, as the Forest Service is charged to do in the National and Regional Strategies and Executive Order direction. The “No Action” Alternative does not accomplish Forest Plan Objectives or Goals. Prescribe burning would continue; however prescribed fire alone, applied within Forest Plan Standards and prescribed thresholds, would not be effective in controlling many NNIS and would actually benefit some of the exotic species, like cogongrass.

As the existing District NNIPS decisions become outdated, the “No Action” Alternative would have the following potential effects on Federally-listed (Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened) Species:

 Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) would be at high risk from NNIPS species such as cogongrass and bicolor lespedeza, as these NNIPS spread quickly through and persist in open, burned upland habitats. These NNIPS currently occur in RCW areas. RCWs prefer frequently burned, open pine forest with abundant native herbaceous plant communities. NNIPS like bicolor alter fire regime and negatively affect insect production within the understory.  Indigo snake habitat could be degraded by upland invasive plants. Invasive encroachment stifles native plant communities, inturn, negatively affecting Gopher tortoises and fire regimes that support Indigo snake habitat.  Mitchell’s satyr habitats (rush/sedge communities) could eventually be at risk from wetland NNIPS such as Chinese privet or Giant Reed. These species would displace native wetland plant communities.  Aquatic federally listed species would probably not be affected in the short term by the No Action, but could be indirectly affected in the long term by habitat degradation caused by aquatic infestations. No aquatic infestations that pose an immediate threat to PET species are known at this time.  T and E plant species would be at risk from being displaced in the long term by invasive species. No known immediate threats to listed plants are known at this time however.  The “No Action” Alternative would not likely have a significant effect in the short term for the remaining species considered in the Biological Assessment. However, since NNIPS are so diverse and fill so many niches, and are now extremely mobile in modern society and trade, there is certainly the potential for any species of native flora and fauna to be directly or indirectly affected in the long term by NNIPS threats.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the No Action Alternative include the expansion of NNIPS infestations into forested areas and increased degradation of native terrestrial and aquatic habitats. This would be detrimental in the long term to Federally-listed, Sensitive, and other rare species. Other large-scale Forest Service activities (including burning and timber harvest) can significantly increase the rate of spread in many NNIPS and can create favorable conditions for both non- native and native invasive species to take hold. When combined with other Forest Service activities the No Action Alternative will have overall negative effects on Federally listed, Sensitive, and other rare species, and natural communities on Forest Service lands.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Herbicide applications would be by foliar, basal and/or hack and squirt methods. Proposed Action implementation would only take place in accordance with Revised Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Standards. Forest Plan standards are applied as mandatory mitigations to all management treatments. More detailed information on each individual species is included in the BA.

 Red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) would benefit from the Proposed Alternative. NNIPS species such as cogongrass and bicolor lespedeza spread quickly through and persist in open, burned upland habitats. These NNIPS currently exist in RCW areas. RCWs prefer frequently burned, open pine forest with abundant native herbaceous plant communities. Many NNIPS like bicolor can alter fire regime and negatively affect insect production within the understory.  No significant effects are expected for the proposed bat species.  Aquatic federally listed species would probably not be affected in the short term by the Proposed Action, but could be indirectly affected in the long term by habitat degradation caused by aquatic infestations. Therfore the Proposed Action would afford these species protection in the long term by allowing for Early Detection- Rapid Response (EDRR) in case infestations are found near known listed aquatic species. No aquatic infestations that pose an immediate threat to PET species are known at this time.  No known immediate threats to listed plants are known at this time. No proposed rare community treatment areas are known to have listed plant species in them. However in the long term, the Proposed Action is expected to provide protection from encroachment by NNIPS, by allowing (EDRR) in case infestations are found near known listed species.  The Preferred Alternative would not likely have a significant effect in the short term for the remaining species considered in the Biological Assessment. However, since NNIPS are so diverse and fill so many niches, and are now extremely mobile in modern society and trade, there is certainly the potential for any species of native flora and fauna to be directly or indirectly affected in the long term by NNIPS threats, so the Propsed Action would be expected to benefit most native listed specie in the long term by providing protection from existing and future invasive plant infestations.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of the Proposed Action are negligible 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. No cumulative effects are expected as a result of these Proposed Actions.

3.B.4.2 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species, Rare Communities, and Management Indicator Species

Affected Environment

Sensitive Species are species “identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern…” (FSM 2670.5(19)). The Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Species is periodically updated to reflect improved knowledge of species’ status and to focus on those species most at risk. 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 National Forests in Alabam are evaluated in the Biological Evaluation of Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species (in Appendix). 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.

The following table include RFSS and the respective determinations provided in the BE:

Table 3.B.4.2: Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species evaluated in Proposed Action Biological Evaluation

Species Analyzed Determination

No Impacts Southeastern myotis May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Bachman's sparrow viability; Beneficial Impacts No Impacts Peregrine Falcon May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Gopher frog May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability; Beneficial Impacts Gopher tortoise

May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Florida pine snake viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Diana fritillary May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Aneura maxima (= A. sharpii) viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Cheilolejeunea evansii viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Nardia lescurii viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pellia X appalachiana viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Plagiochila echinata viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Radula sullivantii viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Riccardia jugata viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Small-flowered buckeye May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pinelands false foxglove viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Incised agrimony viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pinewoods bluestem viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Georgia rockcress viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Indian plantain

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Scott's spleenwort May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Thistleleaf aster viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Georgia aster May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Sandhills milkvetch viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Spreading yellow false foxglove viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Appalachian wild indigo viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama grapefern viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Many-flower grass pink May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pale grasspink viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Bryson's sedge viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Cypress-knee sedge viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Ravine sedge viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Florida jointtail grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Whorled horsebalm viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern Lady's slipper viability

May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Alabama larkspur May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Riverbank bush-honeysuckle May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Mudbabies viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Large witchalder viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Longleaf sunflower viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Smith sunflower viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Harper's wild ginger viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Harper's heartleaf viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Carolina spider lily May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Taylor's filmy fern viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama jamesianthus viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Butternut viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pineland bogbutton viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama gladecress viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Fleshyfruit gladecress viability

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Duck River bladderpod May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Panhandle lily viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Bog spicebush May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Spring Hill flax viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Fraser's yellow loosestrife viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Flame flower viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Broadleaf Barbara's buttons May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Sweet Pinesap May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Loose watermilfoil viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Naked-stemmed panic grass viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Climbing fetterbush viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Chapman's butterwort viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern butterwort viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Coastal-Plain golden-aster viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Pineland plantain

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Yellow fringeless orchid viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of White fringeless orchid viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hooker's milkwort viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Arkansas oak viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Panhandle meadowbeauty viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Orange azalea viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hairy peduncled beakrush viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Large beakrush viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Coastal beaksedge viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Thorne's beaksedge viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Clammy locust viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Eared coneflower viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Sunfacing coneflower viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pinnate-lobed black-eyed Susan viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Night flowering ruellia

May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Appalachian rose gentian viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Crimson pitcherplant viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Wherry's pitcherplant viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Bay starvine May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama skullcap viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Nevius' stonecrop May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Blue Ridge catchfly viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Pineland Dropseed viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Menge's fameflower viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Piedmont meadowrue viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Little Mountain meadowrue viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Cutleaved meadow parsnip viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Carolina fluffgrass viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Lanceleaf trillium viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern nodding trillium viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Jeweled trillium viability

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Chapman's yellow-eyed grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Drummond's yelloweyed grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Quillwort yelloweyed grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Kral's yelloweyed grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Louisiana yelloweyed grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Harper's yelloweyed grass viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Black Warrior waterdog viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Escambia map turtle viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Loggerhead musk turtle viability No Impacts

Alabama shad May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Crystal darter viability May impacs individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Sipsey Warrior darter viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Florida sand darter viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Holiday darter viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Choctawhatchee darter

May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability Coldwater darter May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Tuskaloosa darter viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Goldstripe darter viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Rush darter viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama darter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Tuscumbia darter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Backwater darter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Lined chub viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Skygazer shiner viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Frecklebelly madtom viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern logperch viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Coal darter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Freckled darter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Longhead darter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Bronze darter viability

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Cambarus englishi viability No Impacts

Cambarus miltus No Impacts

Procambarus marthae May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Rayed creekshell viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama spike viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Purple pigtoe viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern sandshell viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama heelsplitter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Tennessee heelsplitter viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama pearlshell viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama hickorynut viability No Impacts

Georgia pigtoe No Impacts

Alabama clubshell May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern kidneyshell viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Ridged mapleleaf viability

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama creekmussel viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Southern creekmussel viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Choctaw bean viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alabama rainbow viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Coosa combshell (=creekshell) viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Cheumatopsyche bibbensis viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Helma’s net-spinning caddisfly viability No Impacts

Say’s spiketail May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Robust baskettail viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Twin-striped clubtail viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hodges’ clubtail viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Cocoa clubtail viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hydropsyche hageni viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hydroptila cheaha viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hydroptila choccolocco viability

May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hydroptila paralatosa viability No Impacts

Hydroptila patriciae May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Hydroptila setigera viability May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Smokey showdragon viability No Impacts

Morse’s Long-horn Sedge May impacts individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Alleghany snaketail viability No Impacts

Appalachian snaketail May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Carlson’s Polycentropus caddisfly viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Belle’s sanddragon viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Rhyacophila carolae viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Treetop emerald dragonfly viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of Laura’s clubtail viability No Impacts

Townes’ (bronze) clubtail

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, 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 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, the habitat element (or rare community) abundance, distribution, and condition effects adequately reflect potential species effects. Please see the BE for more information regarding sensitive species.

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 NFsAL include wetland communities, bogs, glades, rockhouses, 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.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under the “No Action” alternative only the NNIS infestations covered by previous decisions could be addressed. Infestations on the remainder of the district lands would continue to spread via seed and vegetatively. Rare communities, wildlife habitat, and recreational hunting and/or fishing opportunities would be degraded over time.

The “No Action” Alternative does not accomplish the Purpose and Need for this analysis. The “No Action” Alternative does not accomplish Forest Plan Objectives or Goals. Prescribe burning would continue; however prescribed fire alone, applied within Forest Plan Standards and prescribed thresholds, cannot move present ecosystem conditions towards desired future conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Under the No Action alternative, some level of adverse effect to sensitive or rare communities are expected when combined with the normal prescribed fire and timber management operations on the district, as these activities often act as a catalyst for NNIPS spread and establishment.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Determinations in Table 3.B.4.2 represent the overall expected effect of Proposed Action implementation on each Sensitive Species, with regards to the BE. Determinations in this document reflect the effect of National Forest management actions only. Because ecological sustainability, native ecosystem restoration, and species viability were one of the primary drivers used to define Forest Plan goals, objectives, and standards (implemented by the Proposed Action), it is expected that treatment effects to most Sensitive Species will be beneficial in the long term.

NNIPS Herbicide treatment(s) occurring within or adjacent to rare communities would be analyzed on a case by case, site specific basis to ensure the treatment would be conducted in a manner that would not cause adverse effects to the rare community and would be to the benefit of any rare or Sensitive Species present in the long term. All rare community herbicide projects would be implemented through coordination with the Forest Botanist.

Rare communities and locally rare species would not be expected to be negatively impacted in the long term and would ultimately benefit from the proposed protection against invasive plant invasions.

Cumulative Effects

3.B.3.4 Management Indicator Species

Affected Environment

The purpose and need for the Proposed Action originates when inventory results produce results different from desired conditions expressed in Forest Plan objectives and goals. Forest Plan objectives resulted from prioritized species (federally listed, Regional Forester’s sensitive species, locally rare species) and habitat needs, used to develop management objectives. Forest health and native ecosystem restoration and increasing landscape level diversity by restoring, protecting and enhancing rare communities, are main objectives of the Forest Plan.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

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. Of these, Northern bobwhite and Prairie warbler are indicators of quality native uplands and would be expected to remain stable through the protection and maintenance of the early-seral understory plant communities. These species would be expected to decline in an altered exotic landscape (No Action Alternative).

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

Table 3.B.3.4 Management Indicator Species chosen for the Enhanced Invasive Plant Control Project Common Reason for Selection Related Name Of Management Indicator LRMP For Proposed Action and Alternatives Objectives Northern To help indicate management effects on creating and 1.2, 1.4, 1.5, bobwhite quail maintaining early successional forest communities and other 16.1, 18.1 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 are declining across the Southeast due to habitat loss from fire suppression and the spread of invasive species. Breeding bird point count data (R8 BIRD) is collected annually on the NFsAL. In concept, a trend towards stability would be expected for these two species with the implementation of the proposed activities. This is likely to be the case. However, other more dramatic management activities such as thinning and burning over larger acreages would be more apt to affect local populations of the two selected MIS much more than would this project, because it is anticipated that, due to staffing and funding limitations, a relatively small amount of NNIPS infestation treatment would be expected annually.

Although the northern bobwhite is known to utilize some common upland NNIPS for food (including bicolor lespedeza), the No Action Alternative would be expected to result in a slight overall decrease in the density of both of the above MIS, although this would be over the long term. The Proposed Action would theoretically (also over a long period of time) maintain higher densities of the two MIS by protecting native herbaceous habitats on which they both rely.

3.C Other Elements

3.C.1 Recreation

3C.1.1 Dispersed and Developed Recreation Use

Affected Environment

A developed site is a discrete place containing a concentration of facilities and services used to provide recreation opportunities to the public and evidencing a significant investment in facilities

and management under the direction of an administration unit in the National Forest System. Recreation sites are developed within different outdoor settings to facilitate desired recreational use. Developed recreation sites include such facilities as campgrounds, picnic areas, shooting ranges, swimming beaches, visitor centers and historic sites. There are numerous developed recreation areas on the National Forests in Alabama (see tables below). NNIPS infestations (various species) currently exist at several of these developed sites at some level. None currently pose a health or safety risk to the public but some do represent aesthstic and agency image issues. Some exotic species were actually planted by the Forest Service in some developed sites (including Lake Chinabee and Tsinia Viewing Area) many years ago and now are over-running the rec. site, spilling into the adjacent forest lands.

Type of Day Use Developed Areas Total Number of Areas Total Capacity (PAOT)

Picnic Areas 13 1500 Beaches & Swimming Areas 6 938 Shooting Ranges 7 280 Wildlife Viewing 1 52 Shelters 9 301 Total Day-Use Capacity 36 3071

Level of Campground Total Number of Total Capacity Campgrounds (PAOTs) Level 3 Campgrounds 8 1277 (2 horse camps) Level 4 Campgrounds 2 810

Level 5 Campgrounds 2 1212

Total Overnight Capacity 12 3299

Dispersed recreation is defined as those activities that occur outside of developed recreation sites such as boating, hunting, fishing, hiking and biking. Every developed recreation site facilitates dispersed use of the forest, but some sites such as trailheads and boat ramps are constructed strictly to provide access for dispersed recreation use. The table below summarizes the dispersed recreation facilities on the NFsAL. As described earlier in this document, many dispersed areas currently have extensive NNIPS infestations.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

Under the No Action alternative developed recreation areas and dispersed recreational opportunities would continue to degrade through the spread of existing infestations and establishment of new ones. Developed areas like trailheads would continue to be a source of spread for NNIPS infestations. Dispersed opportunities such as hunting and wildlife viewing would also decline over the long term without the ability to treat the NNIPS infestations, as wildlife and their habitats would be displaced or degraded. Forest aesthetics are currently an issue at some of the developed and dispersed recreational facilites and will continue to be negatively influenced over time without NNIPS treatment. Cumulative effects of the no action would likely be possible at some of the developed areas due to public use increasing mobility of NNIPS and bringing in new species. Normal vegetation maintenance and prescribed burning may also benefit some NNIPS and contribute over time to new infestations.

The Proposed Action would allow for continued treatment of the above areas if funding was available and would be expected to help maintain fish and wildlife habitats and visual characteristics of the various ecosystems on the NFsAL in the long term. There may be some short term aesthetics issues with dead or dying vegetation that has been treated with herbicides under the Proposed Action, however.

3.C.2 Prescribed Fire

Affected Environment

Prescribed fire is a major tool in ecosystem restoration efforts. Prior to landscape fragmentation brought by human habitation, fire was a frequent, natural occurrence across much of the Southeast and maintained once-extensive longleaf pine and grass communities (Christensen 1981). Dead needles and grass furnished fuel that carried fire and maintained healthy stands (Landers 1991). Without fire, plant community composition and structure changed. Woody species increased, and grasses and forbs declined (Lewis and Harshbarger 1976, Myers 1985). Fire is also known to control brown-spot needle blight (Scirrhia acicolu), which can severely limit the growth and survival of longleaf seedlings (Boyer 1975). Burning encourages the production of flowers and seeds by native grasses and forbs (Christensen 1981, Platt et al.1988, Clewell 1989, Outcalt 1994). It is therefore necessary that resource managers, conservation groups, and others promote the use of fire to maintain longleaf community health (Landers et al. 1995), (Outcalt 2000).

Condition classes are a function of the departure from historical fire regimes, resulting in alterations of key ecosystem components such as species composition, stand structure, successional stage, stand age, and canopy closure. One or more of the following activities may have caused this departure: fire exclusion, timber harvesting, grazing, introduction and establishment of exotic plant species, insects and disease (introduced or native), or other past management activities. Fire condition classes are found and explained on pages 3-474 and 3-475 of the FEIS for the RLRMP for the National Forests in Alabama.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

Many NNIPS that are currently found on the district are capable of significantly changing condition class and fuel models in a relatively short period of time (ie, over a few years) if left unchecked. Species like cogongrass can even become a serious fire hazard and produce extreme fire behavior. Other NNIPS like bicolor and privet can shade out natural fuels and make achieving a functional prescribed burn impossible. By treating these infestations and maintaining native understories and plant communities, the natural burn regime can be mimicked and native plant communities can persist. Under the No Action, fire regime alteration from NNIPS and invasive native shrubs and vegetation adjacent to rare communities can be expected to occur. Cumulative effects of the are expected to be negligible under both alternatives.

3.C.3 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

Bankhead Management Area

Current Situation - The Bankhead Management Area has a rich and wide variety of heritage resources. The archeological sites range from prehistoric sites, approximately 9,000 to 10,000 years old, to early 20th historic sites, which include pre- national forest settlement and early national forest sites. The bluff shelters on the forest have been occupied from the earliest periods of prehistory, and occupied again during the Civil War. The bluff shelters contain some of the most fragile of heritage resources, particularly the petroglyphs and other rock art. The bluff shelters have been the targets of illegal digging for artifacts and other vandalism since long before the creation of the national forest. Upland lithic scatters occur along the narrow ridges, particularly on ridge saddles. Prehistoric travel routes, later used historically, are known to have remnants on the forest. Early historic house sites from the early 19th century occur on terraces, close to water sources. Later, the house sites move higher on the ridges and wells were dug to provide water. Historic sites from the first half of the 20th century include bridges, fire towers, and other elements of the infrastructure and are associated with the Civilian Conservation Corps and the early national forest history. There are three study areas on the Bankhead that fall under Prescription 4.E. They are Indian Tomb Hollow, Kinlock, and Hightown Path. These areas contain a high density of archeological sites as well as being the locations of traditional cultural activities for local people of Native-American descent.

Conecuh Management Area

Current Situation - The Conecuh Management Area has a relatively light scattering of heritage resources. The prehistoric sites, dating back to 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, represent the short- term occupations of small groups of people traveling from the Gulf Coast to the Tallahatta quartzite lithic sources that outcrop north of Andalusia. These sites occur along the first and second terraces overlooking streams and creeks, and on the higher ridges overlooking the larger sinkholes. Historic sites, the earliest being from the mid-19th century, represent the settlement of the area and the logging industry prior to the creation of the national forest. Historic sites from the first half of the 20th century include fire towers, recreational facilities, and other elements of

the infrastructure and are associated with the Civilian Conservation Corps and the early national forest history.

Oakmulgee Management Area

Current Situation - The Oakmulgee Management Area has a moderately dense distribution of heritage resources. Prehistoric sites, dating back to 8,000 or more years ago, occur on almost any level landform near water. Sites situated on ridge lines tend to have a higher degree of disturbance due to the severe erosion that occurred across the forest historically, but sites on the first and second terraces tend to be intact if they were not later subjected to farming. Historic sites, representing the 19th century settlement of the area and the logging industry, are scattered over the forest. Sites from the early 20th century include fire towers and other sites associated with the early forest development. The western portion of the Oakmulgee, west of the Cahaba River, was initially acquired into federal ownership through the West Alabama Resettlement Administration program, a New Deal program. Payne Lake, originally called Lake Margaret, and other infrastructure and administrative sites associated with this program exist.

Talladega Management Area

Current Situation - The Talladega Management Area has a density of heritage resources similar to that of the Oakmulgee. Small prehistoric sites can be located on most level landforms near water sources. Past erosion on the steeper slopes has disturbed most of the upland sites, but some small intact lithic scatters are found on the lower terraces near water sources. Historic sites, representing the 19th century settlement of the area and the logging industry, are scattered over the forest. Sites from the early 20th century include fire towers, recreational areas, and other infrastructure elements associated with the early forest development and the Civilian Conservation Corps. Two known historic transportation routes are of interest on the management area. The McIntosh Trail runs east/west across the management area south of Interstate-20. This early historic trade route connected the Creek Nation to South Carolina Colony. The Oxford-Cheaha CCC Road is an early 20th century road, built by the Civilian Conservation Corps that provided the route from the CCC camp at Oxford to the top of Cheaha Mountain.

Tuskegee Management Area

Current Situation - The Tuskegee Management Area has a relatively high density of heritage resources. Small lithic scatters, representing various periods of prehistory, can be found on level landforms in the uplands. However, most of the upland settings have been severely disturbed from past erosion and subsequent land management activities. Historic Creek Indian sites, including small villages or extended hamlets, have been located along Choctafaula Creek. Some of these sites may date to the early 19th century, just prior and during the Creek Civil War. The Tuskegee Management Area was initially acquired into federal ownership through the East Alabama Land Resettlement Administration. Early 20th century infrastructure elements, fire towers, recreational facilities associated with the resettlement administration can be found on the management area.

Cultural Resources

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the Alternatives

Prior to decision making for planned land management undertakings on the National Forests in Alabama, heritage resource inventories of the proposed area of potential effect (APE) are conducted, and consultation with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) are conducted. If any heritage resources are identified as being eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, protective or mitigative measures are developed through consultation with the Alabama SHPO.

The discussion of direct, indirect, or cumulative effect is based on the assumption that although the required inventories have been conducted, including field survey, some smaller heritage sites or light artifact density sites may have been missed, and may be revealed during or subsequent to the project implementation. The amount of cumulative effects to known heritage sites considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places from all management activities should be slight as inventory, assessment, protection and mitigation measures would be implemented prior to the initiation of the land management activities. In addition to potential effect from land management activities, there is also potential effect from natural activities such as erosion, natural weathering, and wildfire. These natural occurrences could contribute to heritage resource deterioration through time. Cumulative effects from illegal artifact hunting and archeological vandalism occur on certain types of sites, primarily bluff shelters. Law enforcement may stem some of the activity if the perpetrators are apprehended and prosecuted. Public education as to the intrinsic values of heritage resources is also needed. Prior to 1975, no heritage resource inventories existed. No records pertinent to the potential resource database were maintained. Therefore, the cumulative effects of Forest-related projects occurring on that resource base prior to the mid 1970’s must be added to current measured effects. When compared to private lands, cumulative effects on national forest lands are comparatively fewer. This is due to little or no resource base inventory is systematically conducted on private lands, and because currently, protective or mitigative measures are rare unless federally funded projects are being planned on these private lands.

Alternative 1 proposes no ground-disturbing activities or herbicide applications and therefore would have no effects on cultural resources. The Preferred Alternative at the programmatic level includes activities that could have an effect on archeological sites (cultural resources) primarily by the disturbance of the ground surface and topsoil layer. No specific ground-disturbing activities are proposed at this time. Any ground disturbing that are deemed necessary would be required to undergo Section 106 processes. Most of the herbicide applications involve the use of backpack sprayers rather than the use of machinery. The herbicides are being applied to foliage or stumps that have been cut with hand tools. The use of chainsaws, lawn mowers, string trimmers or other hand-held tools used to cut vegetation do not pose a threat to cultural resources.

Hand pulling and grubbing of the non-native invasive plants, could have an effect on the upper layers of archeological sites within the root layer of those plants. This could lead to the displacement of artifacts as well as increase the potential for illegal collecting of artifacts from

the surface once disturbed.

Prescribe burning may also be used as part of the eradication of the NNIPS. The primary concern with prescribe burning is the plowing of fire breaks. In many cases natural breaks and existing fire lines may be used, but small areas to be burned may require new fire break construction. These activities would be covered under separate decisions.

Once the areas of NNIPS have been treated, re-vegetation is a possibility. This activity could include site preparation followed by discing and hand broadcasting of seed, or plugging native species with a dibble bar. The site preparation, discing and plugging could all have an effect on cultural resources.

Site-specific maps and a description of any ground-disturbing activities will be provided for the Forest or District Archeologist to review and the Section 106 process will be completed prior to implementation. Any ground disturbing mechanical treatment would follow the standards and guidelines established in the Forest Plan.

Chapter 4 Consultation with Others

List of Preparers

The Forest Service consulted individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes and non- Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment. Interdisciplinary Team members are listed below.

Table 4.1 ID Team Name Title Agency/Forest/ Location Ryan Shurette Forest Botanist, ID Team Forest Service, NFs in AL Leader Willie Humphrey Forester / NNIS Forest Service, Tuskegee Allison Cochran Wildlife Biologist / NNIS Forest Service, Bankhead Tim Jones Timber / NNIS Forest Service, Conecuh Debbie Foley NEPA Forest Service, Conecuh Joe Koloski Recreation / NNIS Forest Service, Oakmulgee Daniel Wagner Silviculture / NNIS Forest Service, Talladega Jonathan Stober Wildlife Biologist / NNIS Forest Service, Shoal Creek Art Goddard Soil Scientist Forest Service, NFs in AL Eugene Brooks Forest Silviculturist Forest Service, NFs in AL

4.2 Consultation with others

Robert Pasquill, Archeologist/Historian, Forest Service, NFs in AL Jim Lochamy, Alabama power Bill Pearson, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Shannon Holbrook, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

4.3 References used in this Document

Beasley, R. S., Granillo, A. B., Zilmer, V. 1986. Sediment loses from forest management; mechanical vs chemical site preparation after clearcutting. J. Env. Qual. 15:413-416. Cornell University. EXTOXNET – Extension Toxicology Network. Dicamba. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet.

Belt, G.H., J. O’Laughlin and T. Merril. 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.

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

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

Cornell University. EXTOXNET – Extension Toxicology Network. Metsulfuron-methyl. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet

Cornell University Cooperative Extension. 2008. Online Pesticide Management Education Program website. Available: http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/

Delcourt, H. R. 1987. The impact of prehistoric agriculture and land occupation on natural vegetation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2:39-44.

Delcourt, P. A., H. R. Delcourt. 1988. The influence of prehistoric human-set fires on oak- chestnut forests in the Southern Applachains. Castanea 63:337-345.

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.

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.

Information Ventures, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Clopyralid methyl Pesticide Fact Sheet. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/choyrali.html

Information Ventures, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Glyphospahte Pesticide Fact Sheet. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/glyphos.html

Information Ventures, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Hexazinone Pesticide Fact Sheet. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/hexazinone.html

Information Ventures, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Imazapyr Pesticide Fact Sheet. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/imazapyr.html

Information Ventures, Inc. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Triclopyr Pesticide Fact Sheet. http://infoventures.com/e-hlth/pesticide/triclopy.html

Kopaska-Merkel, David C. and James D. Moore. 2000. Water in Alabama. Circular 1220. Geologic Survey of Alabama.

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.

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

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

Miller, James H. 2010. A Management Guide for Invasive Plants in Southern Forests. USFS Gen. Tech. Report SRS-131.

Miller, James H. 2003. Nonnative Invasive Plants of Southern Forests. USFS Gen. Tech. Report SRS-62.

NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application] 2008. Arlington, VA, USA: NatureServe. Available: http://NatureServe.org/explorer.

Neary, D. G.; Bush, P. B. Douglass, J. E. 1983. Offsite movement of hezazinone in stormflow and baseflow from forested watersheds. Weed Sci. 31:543-551.

Neary, D. G.; L. A. Morris, and B. F. Swindel. 1985. Site preparation and nutrient management in southern pine forests. Southfornet monthly alert Jan. 1986; item 183;24 p.

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.

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

US Federal Register. 2004. Designation of Critical Habitat for Three Threatened Mussels and Eight Endangered Mussels in the Mobile River Basin: Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 126 / Thursday, July 1, 2004 / Rules and Regulations

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Environmental Assessment: Forest Health and Longleaf Restoration, Tuskegee National Forest.

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

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

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment: Non-Native, Invasive Plant Species Control. National Forests in Alabama, Talladega National Forest, Talladega Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Environmental Assessment: Non-Native, Invasive Plant Species

Treatment Plan. National Forests in Alabama, Conecuh National Forest, Conecuh Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Environmental Assessment: Non-Native, Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project. Tuskegee National Forest, Tuskegee Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. National Forests in Alabama Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) Strategy. Unpublished documentation.

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

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Environmental Assessment: Non-Native, Invasive Plant Species Treatment Project. Bankhead National Forest, Bankhead Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Environmental Assessment: NonNative, Invasive Plants Advanced Control. Talladega National Forest, Oakmulgee Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Environmental Assessment: Non-Native, Invasive Plant Species Control Project. Talladega National Forest, Shoal Creek Ranger District.

Chapter 5 Appendices

APPENDIX A.

National Forests in Alabama Non-Native Invasive Plant Species “list”

National Forests in Alabama

Noxious Weed List (9-22-07 original, updated 2-29-2012)

The following plant species are 1) listed as Noxious in the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, Administrative Code Chapter 80-10-14 Noxious Weed Rules (Table 1.) or they are 2) noxious weed species of concern to the National Forests in Alabama because of their invasive nature (Table 2). These species should not be intentionally planted and efforts should be taken to minimize their introduction or spread on Forest Service lands. This list will be updated periodically to include new non-natives that are found to pose a threat to Forest Service lands or resources.

Table 1. List of Alabama’s Noxious Weeds from USDA’s NRCS PLANTS Database (compiled from Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, Administrative Code Chapter 80-10-14 Noxious Weed Rules).

Scientific Name Noxious Common Name Aeginetia L. Ageratina adenophora (Spreng.) King & H.E. Robins. crofton weed Alectra Thunb. Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grande garlic mustard Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. alligatorweed Alternanthera sessilis (L.) R. Br. ex DC. sessile joyweed Asphodelus fistulosus L. onionweed Avena sterilis L. animated oat Azolla pinnata R. Br. mosquito fern Cardiospermum halicacabum L. balloon vine Carthamus oxyacanthus Bieb. Carthamus oxyacantha Bieb. [orthographic variant] wild safflower

Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Ag.1 Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retz.) Trin. pilipiliula Commelina benghalensis L. Benghal dayflower Crupina vulgaris Cass. common crupina

Cuscuta L.2 dodder Digitaria abyssinica (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) Stapf Digitaria scalarum (Schweinf.) Chiov. African couch grass Dioscorea bulbifera L. air-potato Digitaria velutina (Forssk.) Beauv. velvet fingergrass Drymaria arenarioides Humb. & Bonpl. ex J.A. Schultes [excluded] alfombrilla Egeria densa Planch. Brazilian elodea

Eichhornia azurea (Sw.) Kunth anchored waterhyacinth Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms floating waterhyacinth Emex australis Steinh. three-cornered jack Emex spinosa (L.) Campd. devil's thorn Fatoua villosa (Thunb.) Nakai hairy crabgrass, mulberry weed Galega officinalis L. goatsrue Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier giant hogweed Homeria Vent. Cape tulip Hygrophila polysperma (Roxb.) T. Anders. Miramar weed Hydrilla verticillata (L. f.) Royle hydrilla Imperata brasiliensis Trin. Brazilian satintail Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv. cogongrass Ipomoea aquatica Forssk. Chinese waterspinach Ischaemum rugosum Salisb. murain-grass Lagarosiphon major (Ridley) Moss oxygen weed Leptochloa chinensis (L.) Nees [excluded] Asian sprangletop Limnophila sessiliflora (Vahl) Blume ambulia Lycium ferocissimum Miers Lycium ferrocissimum Miers [orthographic variant] African boxthorn Lygodium japonicum (Thunb. ex Murr.) Sw. Japanese climbing fern Lygodium microphyllum (Cav.) R. Br. Old World climbing fern Lythrum salicaria L. purple loosestrife Melastoma malabathricum L. Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake melaleuca Mikania cordata (Burm. f.) B.L. Robins. [excluded] mile-a-minute Mimosa diplotricha C. Wright Mimosa invisa Mart., non Mart. ex Colla giant sensitive plant Mikania micrantha Kunth mile-a-minute Mimosa pellita Kunth ex Willd. Mimosa pigra auct. non L. [misapplied] catclaw mimosa Microstegium vimineum (Trin.) A. Camus Mary’s grass, Japanese grass Monochoria hastata (L.) Solms [excluded] monochoria Monochoria vaginalis (Burm. f.) K. Presl ex Kunth pickerel weed Myriophyllum aquaticum (Vell.) Verdc. parrotfeather, watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum L. Eurasian watermilfoil Najas minor All. spinyleaf naiad Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Hack. serrated tussock Opuntia aurantiaca Lindl. jointed prickly pear Oryza longistaminata A. Chev. & Roehr. red rice

Orobanche L.2 broomrape Oryza punctata Kotzchy ex Steud. red rice Oryza rufipogon Griffiths red rice Ornithogalum umbellatum L. star of Bethlehem

Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers. duck-lettuce Paederia foetida L. skunk vine Panicum repens L. torpedo grass Paspalum scrobiculatum L. Kodo-millet Pennisetum clandestinum Hochst. ex Chiov. kikuyugrass Pennisetum macrourum Trin. African feathergrass Pennisetum pedicellatum Trin. kyasuma-grass Pennisetum polystachion (L.) J.A. Schultes Pennisetum polystachyon (L.) J.A. Schultes [orthographic variant] missiongrass Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. phragmites, common reed Phyllanthus tenellus Roxb. longstalked phyllanthus Phyllanthus urinaria L. chamberbitter, niuri Pistia stratiotes L. water-lettuce Potamogeton crispus L. curlyleaf pondweed Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. & Zucc. Japanese knotweed, Japanese bamboo Polygonum perfoliatum L. mile-a-minute Prosopis alpataco Phil. mesquite Prosopis argentina Burkart mesquite Prosopis burkartii Muñoz mesquite Prosopis calingastana Burkart mesquite Prosopis campestris Griseb. mesquite Prosopis castellanosii Burkart mesquite Prosopis caldenia Burkart mesquite Prosopis denudans Benth. mesquite Prosopis elata (Burkart) Burkart mesquite Prosopis farcta (Banks & Soland.) J.F. Macbr. Syrian mesquite Prosopis ferox Griseb. mesquite Prosopis fiebrigii Harms mesquite Prosopis hassleri Harms ex Hassler mesquite Prosopis humilis Gill. ex Hook. mesquite Prosopis kuntzei Harms ex Hassler mesquite Prosopis palmeri S. Wats. mesquite Prosopis pallida (Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd.) Kunth kiawe Prosopis reptans Benth. tornillo Prosopis rojasiana Burkart mesquite Prosopis ruizlealii Burkart mesquite Prosopis ruscifolia Griseb. mesquite Prosopis sericantha Gill. ex Hook. mesquite Prosopis strombulifera (Lam.) Benth. Argentine screwbean Prosopis torquata DC. mesquite Prosopis velutina Woot. Prosopis articulata S. Wats. velvet mesquite

Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) W.D. Clayton itchgrass Rosa multiflora Thunb. ex Murr. multiflora rose Rubus fruticosus L. [excluded] wild blackberry complex Rubus moluccanus L. [excluded] wild blackberry Salvinia auriculata Aubl. giant salvinia Salvinia biloba Raddi giant salvinia Salvinia herzogii de la Sota giant salvinia Salvinia molesta Mitchell giant salvinia Sagittaria sagittifolia L. [excluded] arrowhead Saccharum spontaneum L. wild sugarcane Salsola vermiculata L. wormleaf salsola Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roemer & J.A. Schultes ssp. pallidefusca (Schumacher) B.K. Simon Setaria pallidifusca (Schumacher) Stapf & C.E. Hubbard [orthographic cattail grass variant] Solanum tampicense Dunal wetland nightshade Solanum torvum Sw. turkeyberry Solanum viarum Dunal tropical soda apple Spermacoce alata Aubl. [excluded] borreria Sparganium erectum L. non-native bur-reed Stratiotes aloides L. [excluded] water-aloe Striga Lour. witchweed Trapa natans L. water chestnut Tridax procumbens L. coat buttons Tussilago farfara L. coltsfoot Urochloa panicoides Beauv. liverseed grass 1 Mediterranean clone 2 other than native or widely distributed species

Table 2. Other noxious weed species of concern to the National Forests in Alabama because of their invasive nature.

Scientific Name Noxious Common Name Arundo donax giant reed Bacopa egensis Brazilian water-hyssop Bambusa sp Asian bamboo Brachiaria mutica para grass Callitriche stagnalis pond water-starwort Ceratopteris thalictroides water sprite Colocasia esculenta wild taro Didymosphenia geminata didymo algae Festuca elatior tall fescue Hydrocleys nymphoides water-poppy Iris pesudacorus Yellow iris

Landoltia punctata dotted duckweed Lespedeza striata Japanese clover Lespedeza sinense sericea Lespedeza bicolor bicolor Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet Ligustrum sinense Chinese privet Ligustrum vulgare European privet Lonicera japonicum Japanese honeysuckle Ludwigia hexapetala Uraguay seedbox Lysimachia nummularia creeping jenny Marsilea mutica nardoo Marsilea quadrifolia European waterclover Marsilea vestita hairy water-clover Murdannia keisak Asian spiderwort Nelumbo nucifera sacred lotus Nymphaea c. zanzibariensis Cape Blue water-lily Nymphaea mexicana banana water-lily Nymphoides peltata yellow floatingheart Paulownia tomentosa royal paulownia Paspalum dilatatum dallisgrass Paspalum urvillei vasey grass Other non-native Paspalum species Non-native Paspalums, including bahaia grass

Pueraria lobata Kudzu Rorippa nasturtium aquaticum watercress Rorippa sylvestris creeping yellowcress Rotala rotundifolia roundleaf toothcups Sagittaria montevidensis long lobed arrowhead Salvinia minima water spangles Sapium sebiferum tallowtree Scirpus mucronatus bog bullrush Sorghum halepense Johnsongrass Verbena brasiliensis Brazilian vervain Veronica beccabunga European brooklime Wisteria sinensis Chinese wisteria

APPENDIX B.

National Forests in Alabama Non-native Invasive Plant Species (NNIPS) Strategy 2008

The purpose of the National Forests in Alabama invasive species program activities is to reduce, minimize or eliminate the potential for introduction, establishment, spread and impact of invasive species across each of the six districts and the surrounding lands. A Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS) is defined as a species that is 1) non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health (from Executive Order 13112). Invasive species have been identified by the Chief of the Forest Service as one of the four significant threats to our Nation’s forest and rangeland ecosystems. Invasive species have already affected millions of acres of lands and waters across the nation, causing massive disruption in ecosystem function, reducing biodiversity, and degrading ecosystem health. NNIS pose a significant threat to the mission of the USDA Forest Service, the health of America’s ecosystems and the security of the nation. As a result of the increased awareness of NNIS and the threats they pose, both national and regional (Region 8) invasive species strategies have been built.

Four steps common to the regional and national NNIS strategies are:

1. Prevention—Stop invasive species before they arrive. 2. Early detection and rapid response—Find new infestations and eliminate them before they become established. 3. Control and management—Contain and reduce existing infestations. 4. Rehabilitation and restoration—Reclaim native habitats and ecosystems.

In addition to these four steps, the NFsAL should continue to promote NNIS awareness and training to the public, partners, and other organizations.

NFsAL General Direction and Guidelines

The Forest Botanist is currently the NNIS Coordinator for the National Forests in Alabama. District Rangers will assign a District NNIS Coordinator for each unit. NFsAL (with support from both the Forest and District levels) will build a Geospatial NNIS inventory database (to be housed at the corporate NRIS TESP-INV or latest database) as infestations are found and documented. Known rare communities, areas containing federally listed or Sensitive species, or areas where public safety may be put at risk by NNIS infestation will generally be priority areas for both inventory and treatment. Other special land allocations (including wilderness, botanical, research natural, etc) would be prioritized according the situation, level of infestation, species present, and by district needs. Wilderness NNIS issues and protocols are further addressed in a separate NFsAL Wilderness NNIS Strategy (Appendix A). During NNIS inventory, likely

locations for NNIS infestation (such as roadsides, other rights of way, private boundaries, trailheads, and recently disturbed areas would be surveyed. In permanently altered sites such as paved road rights of way, priority for treatment would generally be lower. NNIPS inventory for the National Forests in Alabama will follow the protocol outlined in the NRIS Data Recording Protocols for Invasive Species Management (Inventory and Mapping, April, 2008 or latest version). This document can currently be found at:

http://fsweb.wo.fs.fed.us/invasivespecies/data/documents/DataRecProtoc olsInvSppMgt_v040108.pdf

While there are numerous NNIPS that currently infest NFsAL lands, there are still many others that will likely become threats in the future. The Forest NNIS Coordinator will maintain a current list of NNIPS relevant to NFsAL (refer to Appendix B). As a general rule however, the National Forests in Alabama will follow prioritization guidelines consistent with those of the Alabama Invasive Plant Council (ALIPC), a state branch of the Southeastern Non-native Pest Plant Council (SEEPC). ALIPC published its “Alabama’s Ten Worst Invasive Weeds” brochure as an outreach to the public, listing ten weeds that have caused or are currently causing significant detrimental effects in the state. These species are considered to be priority species on National Forests in Alabama lands. These ten weeds and descriptions, and control summaries are listed below. Depending on the type of local forest management and risk to local resources, public safety, or rare communities, other species (such as bicolor lespedeza) may deserve treatment priority above some of the “top ten” species. The decisions regarding which species or individual infestations were to actually receive treatment would typically occur on a case by case basis where all pertinent factors could be weighed. Ideally however, districts should currently be working towards inventory, control and eventually eradication of priority NNIPS and infestations of other species if important local resources are threatened. Ideally, all district personnel would help in the inventory phase of the NFsAL NNIS program. Through daily district travels and observations priority species could be mapped, and depending on the situation, treated. A sample NNIS risk assessment (from the R8 NNIS Strategy) is included in Appendix C. A tool such as this can be used to gage and qualify the response of NNIS on proposed projects.

 Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) Cogongrass is known to have been present on four Ranger Districts in Alabama (Bankhead, Tuskegee, Oakmulgee, and Conecuh). It is highly invasive and displaces wildlife habitat and disrupts native ecosystems. It poses a risk for many federally listed and Sensitive species. This species spreads via tiny wind-blown seeds and movement of rhizomes and seeds by equipment and vehicles. It is a state and federally listed noxious weed. Cogongrass is currently considered to be the most critical of NFsAL NNIPS because of a) its highly aggressive nature and the threat it poses to all resource areas and b) the opportunity that currently exists to achieve its eradication on

federal lands. Any District personnel finding what is believed to be this species should immediately report the finding to the District NNIS coordinator.

Control: This species is most efficiently killed by growing season applications of glyphosate and imazapyr. Tillage has also been shown to be effective but care must be used not to spread the rhizomes to uninfested areas and is not generally recommended for Forest Service lands. Repeated applications are usually required.

 Kudzu (Pueraria montana var. lobata) This high climbing vine generally grows in areas of bright light in openings or along edges. The vine is an aggressive climber and can quickly smother one or more trees. It does not spread rapidly from place to place, but can quickly grow to cover a large area in any one spot. Seeds are infrequently produced and are not readily moved off-site. Kudzu is currently present on all NFsAL districts.

Control: Foliar applications of Clopyralid or Triclopyr in mid to late summer or cut stump treatment with Triclopyr (ester) or glyphosate. Repeated applications are usually required.

 Tallowtree (Sapium sebiferum) This tree’s colorful fall foliage and rapid growth made it a popular landscape tree. Prolific seed production and dispersal by birds and water has resulted in increasingly infested streambanks, riverbanks, and wet areas, as well as in upland forests. This is especially true in southern Alabama. This aggressive species is replacing bottomland hardwood forests. This species has been confirmed on Tuskegee, Conecuh, and Oakmulgee Districts is likely present on all districts.

Control: Foliar applications of imazapyr or triclopyr (ester) in late growing season or as stem injections or basal treatments.

 Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense) This shrub is predominately evergreen and infests roadsides, upland forests, bottmlands, and riparian areas. It grows prolifically in the shade as well as full sun. It is spread by seed and root suckers. Privet infestations are found on all districts and will be a challenging species to deal with. Like other NNIPS, this species displaces native understory vegetation.

Control: Foliar application of imazapyr or glyphosate in late summer to winter or cut stump treat with glyphosate or Trclopyr (amine). Repeated applications are usually required.

 Tropical Soda Apple (Solanum varium) No known infestation currently on NFsAL Districts. This species currently infests pastures and agricultural fields in Alabama. This species is a state and federally listed noxious weed.

Control: Apply triclopyr, glyphosate, or imazapry in growing season prior to fruiting. Destruction of seeds. Repeated applications are usually required.

 Japanese climbing fern (Lygopodium japonicum) This viney fern rapidly spreads through the southeast by wind blown spores and contaminated pinestraw. Although it is likely present on all districts, it has been generally observed at low levels of infestation. This species has not yet reached the point of infestation where it is almost impossible to control and should be reported when observed.

Control: Foliar applications of triclopyr, glyphosate, or imazapry in the late growing season.

 Invasive Roses (Rosa spp.) Forest edges, roadsides, and bottomland forests seem to be the most affected by these species. Invasive roses will likely be a constant challenge because of their ornamental desirability by much of the public on adjacent lands. Although they are present on all districts, infestations are only locally extensive.

Control: Metasulfuron methyl or imazapyr foliar applications in summer. Triclopyr (ester) basal treatments in late winter and summer. Repeated applications are usually required.

 Eurasian water milfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) This species is an aggressive invader of reservoirs, rivers, and lakes. It quickly forms dense mats of vegetation that displaces native habitats. None is known from the NFsAL, although it is likely to be present in one or more of the adjacent reservoirs.

Control: Fluridone dilution. Generally in smaller impoundments and very expensive.

 Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) Like non-native milfoil is spread by hitching rides on boats and trailers. Highly aggressive and crowds out native vegetation and fish. Causes oxygen depletion in high concentrations. This is a state and federally listed species.

Control: Aquatic copper-based algaecides are sometime used for control.

 Alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) Thick mats of this species replace native species, can result in fish kills, and significantly degrades drainage and recreational use. This species is often very difficult to eliminate from water bodies.

Control: Foliar glyphosate applications during the growing season. Repeated applications are usually required.

 Other Priority NNIS: Other species including bicolor lespedeza (Lespedeza bicolor), mimosa (Albizia julibrassin), and others may be considered priority NNIS in some situations depending on local threats. Species we do not have on FS lands at this time would also be a priority for treatment as they are found. This list is expected to be adjusted as new species are found on or around the NFsAL.

These priority NNIPS should be recorded electronically (preferably in the TESP INVASIVES database) and a systematic local plan for treatment should be completed and implemented at the district level.

Prevention:

Prevention of new infestations is the area where the most effort and money can be saved in the long term. Preventative measures to be followed include:

General Operations (All program areas)

-Ensure all contract, special use, and partner equipment entering the Forest is clean and not contaminated with NNIPS materials. All equipment and vehicles must be inspected before operating on federal lands. Unless the inspection reveals the equipment has been thoroughly cleaned, contractors would be required to wash equipment at a site off FS lands or at a concentrated designated location on FS property that can be easily monitored and treated (i.e. work center, etc.). Cleaning site(s) will be designated by the District Ranger. Incorporate these guidelines into timber sale, service, and construction contracts and special use permits.

-Ensure Forest Service equipment (including dozers, tractors, mowers, passenger vehicles, etc.) is cleaned (preferably at the same designated location as above) regularly and after any event where NNIPS contamination is likely. Such events include but are not limited to: after returning from a forest or other area with NNIPS infestations, after operating in a known NNIPS infestation, after operating over a large geographic area or traveling long distances.

-Work with partners and/or co-managers (such as Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources WMA personnel, County Road Departments, etc.), to ensure their equipment is cleaned and is not spreading infestations.

-Incorporate cleaning standards into any other contracts or agreements where there is potential for NNIPS spread. Road maintenance contracts (mowing, grading, etc.) are high risk activities and should incorporate these standards. Construction contracts that require off-site hauled fill should require the origin of the fill be free of NNIPS infestations (to the extent possible) and have mitigation for close monitoring of the site following completion of the project. Steps should be in place so that rapid treatment could be administered if an infestation was accidentally introduced.

-In construction or fire-line re-vegetation situations, use native species if possible. If native species will not provide the needed soil stabilization, non-invasive non-natives can be used if there is the potential for significant erosion and/or the site is a roadside or permanently-altered area. Work with the Forest Botanist and/or Forest Soil Scientist if you need help selecting the appropriate species.

Recreation

-When applicable and products are available, encourage the use of Certified Weed-free forage (hay, etc.) and animal care practices that discourage NNIPS introduction at horse camps and other applicable areas inside the Forest. Communicate to users the reasons for controlling NNIPS on federal lands. Note: Some NNIPS are potentially deadly if ingested by livestock.

-Provide educational materials at public use areas (trailheads, campsites, fishing lakes, etc.) illustrating the threats of NNIPS and ways to help prevent infestations. Contact the Forest Botanist if you need help preparing materials.

Wildlife

-In wildlife openings (WLO’s), plant only native or non-invasive non-natives that will not persist in the surrounding ecosystem.

-Provide educational materials for hunters at public use areas (trailheads, campsites, fishing lakes, etc.) illustrating the threats of NNIPS and ways to help prevent infestations. Contact the Forest Botanist if you need help preparing materials.

-Refrain from operating equipment in WLO’s infested with NNIS such as cogongrass, except for the purpose of control. If operation in infested area occurs, wash equipment on-site to prevent spreading to other WLO’s.

Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR):

In almost all situations, having a system in place for early NNIS detection and prompt treatment would save significant amounts of time and money over the long term by minimizing the potential for spread and/or establishment of NNIS infestations. The following guidelines address the initiation of an EDRR system.

-Through the help of all resource areas, build a District- and Forest-wide inventory database of NNIPS, giving priority to the species that represent more significant threats to federal lands and those species with known effective treatment strategies. District NNIS Coordinators should train and coordinate with staff in various resource areas

(including timber markers, fire personnel, recreation technicians, etc.) so that inventory data can be more efficiently generated.

-Utilize partners and co-operators to aid in the EDRR effort and to increase efficiency in identifying new infestations, treatment, and funding.

-To facilitate treatment once infestations are found, complete and maintain current NEPA decisions for management areas.

-Incorporate NNIS monitoring into project planning and NEPA for activities likely to introduce and/or spread NNIS. Ensure that these activities are examined at the appropriate schedule to provide early detection. Funding (KV, etc.) for treatment should be considered as a potential part of the project.

Control and management:

-Once new infestations of District priority species are identified, treat them as soon as possible within the limits of the districts’ NEPA decisions and available funding.

-Monitor treatment areas sufficiently to determine effectiveness of treatments. At least 50% of the current FY target acres must be reported as monitored in FACTS.

-Once treatment of a particular infestation is initiated, stick with the treatment until the target species is/are eradicated, if at all possible. Gaps in treatment often result in wasted effort as the target species recovers.

-Utilize Wyden Amendment opportunities if there is a legitimate benefit to the protection of federal lands. Use the appropriate process required.

-Through inventory and daily observation identify areas with NNIS issues. Where NNIS threaten important resources, complete the NEPA process so that treatment can occur at the needed level.

-Use appropriate PPE during mixing and application of herbicides.

-Report treatment accomplishments in the appropriate Database of Record (FACTS or current database). Complete Pesticide Use Forms.

Rehabilitation and restoration:

-After NNIPS treatment has been completed and residual herbicide ground activity is degraded (if applicable), re-vegetation may be needed to prevent erosion, etc. If the area is small and there are native species present that can effectively re-colonize the area, it may not be necessary. Re-vegetation will be accomplished using either native

or non-invasive, non-native cover species to stabilize soils and deter colonization of invasives. Consult the Forest Botanist if needed to determine appropriate species.

-Monitor as appropriate during the rehabilitation phase to ensure objectives are being met.

APPENDIX C.

National Forests in Alabama NNIPS Treatment Prioritization System * This system in draft at time of development of the Tuskegee NNIPS Control EA, however included here for illustration of treatment prioritization.

On-the-ground treatments of individual infestations would be based on 1) Species Rank, 2) infestation location, and 3) the potential effects of a project or FS management on NNIS introduction and/or spread. This ranking system considers vascular plants and vertebrate animals.

Species Ranking

This list was developed using the Federal Noxious Weed List as governed by the Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2801 et seq.), the Alabama State-listed Noxious Weed List (Alabama State Code 80-10-14-.04), current scientific literature and invasive species trends, and inventory data and field observations from National Forest District lands within the state.

0 = Not yet known on unit – eradicate new occurrences immediately 1 = eradicate wherever found 2 = control source populations and eradicate outliers 3 = prevent invasion of last areas not invaded; eradicate high priority areas 4 = status on unit “naturalized” or uncertain, control/eradication site specific

Category 0

All species included on the Federal Noxious Weed List (as of June 30, 2006) with the exception of cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) which is ranked as a category 1, are currently ranked as 0 (Not yet known on unit – eradicate new occurrences immediately). These species are listed below.

Aquatic/Wetland Azolla pinnata R. Brown (mosquito fern, water velvet) Caulerpa taxifolia (Vahl) C. Agardh, Mediterranean strain (killer algae) Eichornia azurea (Swartz) Kunth (anchored waterhyacinth, rooted waterhyacinth) Hydrilla verticillata (Linnaeus f.) Royle (hydrilla) Hygrophila polysperma T. Anderson (Miramar weed) Ipomoea aquatica Forsskal (water-spinach, swamp morning-glory) Lagarosiphon major (Ridley) Moss Limnophila sessiliflora (Vahl) Blume (ambulia) Melaleuca quinquenervia (Cav.) Blake (broadleaf paper bark tree). Monochoria hastata (Linnaeus) Solms-Laubach Monochoria vaginalis (Burman f.) C. Presl Ottelia alismoides (L.) Pers. Sagittaria sagittifolia Linnaeus (arrowhead)

Salvinia auriculata Aublet (giant salvinia) Salvinia biloba Raddi (giant salvinia) Salvinia herzogii de la Sota (giant salvinia) Salvinia molesta D.S. Mitchell (giant salvinia) Solanum tampicense Dunal (wetland nightshade) Sparganium erectum Linnaeus (non-native bur-reed)

Parasitic Aeginetia spp. Alectra spp. Cuscuta spp. (dodders), other than following species: Cuscuta americana Linnaeus Cuscuta applanata Engelmann Cuscuta approximata Babington Cuscuta attenuata Waterfall Cuscuta boldinghii Urban Cuscuta brachycalyx (Yuncker) Yuncker Cuscuta californica Hooker & Arnott Cuscuta campestris Yuncker Cuscuta cassytoides Nees ex Engelmann Cuscuta ceanothii Behr Cuscuta cephalanthii Engelmann Cuscuta compacta Jussieu Cuscuta corylii Engelmann Cuscuta cuspidata Engelmann Cuscuta decipiens Yuncker Cuscuta dentatasquamata Yuncker Cuscuta denticulata Engelmann Cuscuta epilinum Weihe Cuscuta epithymum (Linnaeus) Linnaeus Cuscuta erosa Yuncker Cuscuta europaea Linnaeus Cuscuta exalta Engelmann Cuscuta fasciculata Yuncker Cuscuta glabrior (Engelmann) Yuncker Cuscuta globulosa Bentham Cuscuta glomerata Choisy Cuscuta gronovii Willdenow Cuscuta harperi Small Cuscuta howelliana Rubtzoff Cuscuta indecora Choisy Cuscuta jepsonii Yuncker Cuscuta leptantha Engelmann Cuscuta mitriformis Engelmann Cuscuta nevadensis I. M. Johnston Cuscuta obtusiflora Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth Cuscuta occidentalis Millspaugh ex Mill & Nuttall Cuscuta odontolepis Engelmann Cuscuta pentagona Engelmann

Cuscuta planiflora Tenore Cuscuta plattensis A. Nelson Cuscuta polygonorum Engelmann Cuscuta rostrata Shuttleworth ex Engelmann Cuscuta runyonii Yuncker Cuscuta salina Engelmann Cuscuta sandwichiana Choisy Cuscuta squamata Engelmann Cuscuta suaveolens Seringe Cuscuta suksdorfii Yuncker Cuscuta tuberculata Brandegee Cuscuta umbellata Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth Cuscuta umbrosa Beyrich ex Hooker Cuscuta vetchii Brandegee Cuscuta warneri Yuncker Orobanche spp. (broomrapes), other than the following species: Orobanche bulbosa (Gray) G. Beck Orobanche californica Schlechtendal & Chamisso Orobanche cooperi (Gray) Heller Orobanche corymbosa (Rydberg) Ferris Orobanche dugesii (S. Watson) Munz Orobanche fasciculata Nuttall Orobanche ludoviciana Nuttall Orobanche multicaulis Brandegee Orobanche parishii (Jepson) Heckard Orobanche pinorum Geyer ex Hooker Orobanche uniflora Linnaeus Orobanche valida Jepson Orobanche vallicola (Jepson) Heckard Striga spp. (witchweeds)

Terrestrial Ageratina adenophora (Sprengel) King & Robinson (crofton weed) Alternanthera sessilis (Linnaeus) R. Brown ex de Candolle (sessile joyweed) Asphodelus fistulosus Linnaeus (onionweed) Avena sterilis Linnaeus (including Avena ludoviciana Durieu) (animated oat, wild oat) Carthamus oxyacantha M. Bieberstein (wild safflower) Chrysopogon aciculatus (Retzius) Trinius (pilipiliula) Commelina benghalensis Linnaeus (Benghal dayflower) Crupina vulgaris Cassini (common crupina) Digitaria scalarum (Schweinfurth) Chiovenda (African couchgrass, fingergrass) Digitaria velutina (Forsskal) Palisot de Beauvois (velvet fingergrass, annual conchgrass) Drymaria arenarioides Humboldt & Bonpland ex Roemer & Schultes (lightning weed) Emex australis Steinheil (three-cornered jack) Emex spinosa (Linnaeus) Campdera (devil's thorn) Galega officinalis Linnaeus (goatsrue) Heracleum mantegazzianum Sommier & Levier (giant hogweed) Homeria spp. Imperata brasiliensis Trinius (Brazilian satintail)

Ischaemum rugosum Salisbury (murainograss) Leptochloa chinensis (Linnaeus) Nees (Asian sprangletop) Lycium ferocissimum Miers (African boxthorn) Melastoma malabathricum Linnaeus Mikania cordata (Burman f.) B. L. Robinson (mile-a-minute) Mikania micrantha Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth Mimosa invisa Martius (giant sensitive plant) Mimosa pigra Linneaus var. pigra (catclaw mimosa) Nassella trichotoma (Nees) Hackel ex Arechavaleta (serrated tussock) Opuntia aurantiaca Lindley (jointed prickly pear) Oryza longistaminata A. Chevalier & Roehrich (red rice) Oryza punctata Kotschy ex Steudel (red rice) Oryza rufipogon Griffith (red rice) Paspalum scrobiculatum Linnaeus (Kodo-millet) Pennisetum clandestinum Hochstetter ex Chiovenda (kikuyugrass) Pennisetum macrourum Trinius (African feathergrass) Pennisetum pedicellatum Trinius (kyasumagrass) Pennisetum polystachion (Linnaeus) Schultes (missiongrass, thin napiergrass) Prosopis alpataco R. A. Philippi Prosopis argentina Burkart Prosopis articulata S. Watson Prosopis burkartii Munoz Prosopis caldenia Burkart Prosopis calingastana Burkart Prosopis campestris Griseback Prosopis castellanosii Burkart Prosopis denudans Bentham Prosopis elata (Burkart) Burkart Prosopis farcta (Solander ex Russell) Macbride Prosopis ferox Grisebach Prosopis fiebrigii Harms Prosopis hassleri Harms Prosopis humilis Gillies ex Hooker & Arnott Prosopis kuntzei Harms Prosopis pallida (Humboldt & Bonpland ex Willdenow) Humboldt, Bonpland, & Kunth Prosopis palmeri S. Watson Prosopis reptans Bentham var. reptans Prosopis rojasiana Burkart Prosopis ruizlealii Burkart Prosopis ruscifolia Grisebach Prosopis sericantha Gillies ex Hooker & Arnott Prosopis strombulifera (Lamarck) Bentham Prosopis torquata (Cavanilles ex Lagasca y Segura) de Candolle Rottboellia cochinchinensis (Lour.) W. Clayton Rubus fruticosus Linnaeus (complex) (wild blackberry) Rubus moluccanus Linnaeus (wild raspberry) Saccharum spontaneum Linnaeus (wild sugarcane) Salsola vermiculata Linnaeus (wormleaf salsola) Senecio inaequidens DC (South African ragwort)

Senecio madagascariensis Poir (Madagascar ragwort) Setaria pallide-fusca (Schumacher) Stapf & Hubbard (cattail grass) Solanum torvum Swartz (turkeyberry) Solanum viarum Dunal (tropical soda apple) Spermacoce alata (Aublet) de Candolle Tridax procumbens Linnaeus (coat buttons) Urochloa panicoides Beauvois (liverseed grass)

Category 1

Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica)

Category 2

Garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata) Air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera) Old world climbing fern (Lygopodium microphyllum) Mile a minute (Polygonum perfoliatum) Coltsfoot (Tussilago farfara) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) Skunk vine (Paederia foetida)

Category 3

Japanese Climbing fern (Lygopodium japonicum) Alligatorweed (Alternanthera philoxeroides) Balloon vine (Cardiospermum halicacabum) Brazilian elodea (Egeria densa) Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamgeton crispus) Floating waterhyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) Hairy crabgrass (Fatoua villosa) Parrotfeather (Myriophyllum aquaticum) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum) Star of Bethlehem (Ornithogalum umbellatum) Torpedo grass (Panicum repens) Phragmites, or common reed (Phragmites australis) Longstalked phyllanthus (Phyllanthus tenellus) Chamberbitter (Phyllanthus urinaria) Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum) Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) Spinyleaf naiad (Najas minor) Water-aloe (Stratlotes aloides) Water-lettuce (Pistia stratiotes) Water chestnut (Trapa natans) Kudzu (Pueraria montana) Giant reed (Arundo donax) Brazilian water-hyssop (Bacopa egensis) Asian bamboo (Bambusa sp.) Para grass (Brachiaria mutica)

Pond water-starwort (Callitriche stagnalis) Water sprite (Ceratopteris thalictroides) Wild taro (Colocasia esculenta) Didymo algae (Didymosphenia geminate) Water-poppy (Hydrocleys nymphoides) Yellow iris (Iris pesudacorus) Dotted duckweed (Landoltia punctata) Japanese clover (Lespedeza striata) Bicolor (Lespedeza bicolor) Privets (Ligustrum spp.) Uraguay seedbox (Ludwigia hexapetala) Creeping jenny (Lysimachia nummularia) Nardoo (Marsilea mutica) European waterclover (Marsilea quadrifolia) Hairy water-clover (Marsilea vestita) Asian spiderwort (Murdannia keisak) Sacred lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) Cape Blue water-lily (Nymphaea c. zanzibariensis) Banana water-lily (Nymphaea mexicana) Yellow floatingheart (Nymphoides peltata) Royal paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) Watercress (Rorippa nasturtium aquaticum) Creeping yellowcress (Rorippa sylvestris) Roundleaf toothcups (Rotala rotundifolia) Long lobed arrowhead (Sagittaria montevidensis) Water spangles (Salvinia minima) Tallowtree (Sapium sebiferum) Bog bulrush (Scirpus mucronatus) Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Camphor tree (Cinnamomum camphora) Trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata) Callery pear (Pyrus calleryana) European brooklime (Veronica beccabunga) Chinese wisteria (Wisteria sinensis) Asian bush-honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.) Nandina (Nandina domestica) Oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) Winter creeper (Euonymus fortunei) Chinese silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis) Russian olive Eleagnus angustifolia Silverthorn (Eleagnus pungens) Autunm olive (Eleagnus umbellata) Chinaberry (Melia azedarach) Silktree (Albizia julibrissin) Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Gaint reed (Arundo donax) Phyllostachys bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.) Wetland nightshade (Solanum tampicense)

Category 4

Tall fescue (Festuca elatior) Sericea (Lespedeza sinense) Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonicum) Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) Vasey grass (Paspalum urvillei) Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) Brazilian vervain (Verbena brasiliensis) Bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) English Ivy (Hedera helix) Periwinkle (Vinca major, V. Minor) Bermuda (Cynodon dactylon) Ryegrass (Lolium mulitiflorum) Other common non-native lawn or pasture grasses in the state

Infestation Location

Location of a particular infestation and/or its proximity to a local resource will be considered when determining whether or not a particular infestation would be treated. These issues would be analyzed at the local level but as a general rule of thumb the areas/resources would be protected in the following order, with the most critical at the top of the list.  TES locations and habitats / Rare Communities  Areas where basic Forest Service function or image is significantly degraded by the infestation  Areas with high potential for spread: gravel pits or fill sites trailheads parking lots native seed collection plots  Wild and Scenic River corridors  Wilderness  RNAs

To supplement this prioritization process, the following risk assessment tool (adopted from FS General Technical Report SRS-62, James H. Miller) for new projects and their effects on existing NNIPS should also be considered when if treatment should be part of the mitigation for a particular project, management program, or timber sale.

FACTOR 1: Likelihood of Undesirable Plant Species, Including Noxious Weeds Species, Spreading to Project Area:

Ranking Value Definitions NONE 0 Undesirable plants, including non-native invasive plant species not located within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Project activity is not likely to result in the establishment of undesirable weed species on the project area. LOW 1 Undesirable plant species present in areas adjacent to, but not within, project area. Project activities can be implemented and prevent the spread of undesirable plants into the project area. MODERATE 5 Undesirable plant species located immediately adjacent to or within project area. Project activities are likely to result in some areas becoming infested with undesirable plant species even when preventative management actions are followed. Control measures may be essential to prevent the spread of undesirable plants or noxious weeds within the project area. HIGH 10 Heavy infestations of undesirable plants are located within or immediately adjacent to the project area. Project activities, even with preventative management actions, are likely to result in the establishment and spread of undesirable plants on disturbed sites throughout much of the project area.

FACTOR 2: Consequence of Undesirable Plant Establishment in Project Area

Ranking Value Definitions

LOW 1 None. No cumulative effects expected. Possible adverse effects on site and possible expansion of infestation MODERATE 5 within project area. Cumulative effects on native plant community are likely, but limited. Obvious adverse effects within the project area and probable expansion HIGH 10 of undesirable plants, including noxious weed infestations to areas outside the project area. Adverse cumulative effects on native plant community are probable. Likelihood that NNIPS may enter an area where treatment options may be severely limited or logistically difficult.

Risk Rating Procedure

Step 1. Identify level of likelihood and consequence of adverse effects (Factors 1 and 2, previous page) and assign values. Step 2. Multiply level of likelihood times consequences (Factor 1 x Factor 2). Step 3. Use the value resulting in step 2 to determine Risk Rating and action as follows:

Risk Rating Value Action NONE 0 Proceed as planned LOW 1-10 Proceed as planned. Initiate control treatments on undesirable plant populations that get established in the area. MODERATE 25 Develop preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 3 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. HIGH 50-100 Modify project design and implement preventative management measures for the proposed project to reduce the risk of introduction or spread of undesirable plants into the area. Monitor the area for at least 5 consecutive years and provide for control of new infestations. Consider moving or dropping project to avoid impacts.

APPENDIX D.

Maps of Rare Communities Proposed for Allowing Herbicide Treatment to Encroaching Native Vegetation

10 Conecuh Bog Complexes (from Draft Bog Management Plan)

Nellie Pond (Conecuh Ranger District, Compartment 8)

Indian Tomb Hollow Glade (Bankhead District, Compartment 25-26)

100

Turkey Beard Rare Community Site (Shoal Creek District, Compartment 50)

101

Thunder Road Sandhill Site (Tuskegee District, Compartment 5)

102

APPENDIX E.

Coastal Plain Bog and Fire‐dependant Rare Community Management Plan Conecuh National Forest

Goal 13 of the National Forests in Alabama Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLMP) directs Districts to “protect or restore the composition, structure, and function of rare communities found on National Forest land.” 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 under this prescription 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 exhibit the composition, structure, and function necessary to support vigorous populations of species characteristic of the community, including relevant federally‐ listed threatened and endangered species, and species at risk of losing viability. Ecological disturbances are at the frequency and intensity needed to maintain desired composition, structure, and function. Sometimes natural forces are sufficient to maintain these conditions; however, in some cases environmental factors have changed to the extent that natural processes are prevented or hindered from maintaining the community. In these cases, management activities used to restore or maintain desired conditions, such as prescribed burning or vegetation cutting, may be evident. On the Conecuh Ranger District, Coastal Plain Seepage Bogs and Wet Pine Flatwoods are especially dependent on fire to reduce encroachment and maintain their diverse herbaceous understories.

Coastal Plain Seepage Bogs Coastal Plain seepage bogs occur in a pine flatwoods landscape, on very gently sloping to almost level topography, and often have a sparse canopy (typically 5%‐10% cover) of stunted longleaf (Pinus palustris) and slash (Pinus elliottii var. elliottii) pines. Characteristic species include wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana), feather bristle beaksedge (Rhynchospora oligantha), Florida dropseed (Sporobolus floridana) (rarely), crimson pitcher plant (Sarracenia leucophylla), and parrot pitcher plant (Sarracenia psittacina).

103

Patchy shrubs include wooly huckleberry (Gaylussacia mosieri), inkberry (Ilex glabra), wax myrtle (Morella carolinensis [= Myrica heterophylla]), fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), coastal sweetpepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), St. John’s wort (Hypericum spp.), buckwheat tree (Cliftonia monophylla), and laurel greenbriar (Smilax laurifolia). In the field, coastal plain seepage bogs can be distinguished from surrounding forests and woodlands by a drastic reduction in overstory density, the presence of wet or inundated soils, pitcherplants and other insectivorous plants, and stunted overstory trees. Good examples of coastal plain seepage bogs have a low incidence of non‐native species and include wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana) in the herbaceous layer. Occurrences are typically small in size, but may range up to twenty acres.

This community includes the following rare associations identified and defined by NatureServe1 (2001): 347‐10 – Southeastern Coastal Plain Herbaceous Seepage Bogs East Gulf Coastal Plain Wet Flatwood Bog – CEGL004154

Standards for Coastal Plain Seepage Bogs Protection and Enhancement: 9.F‐22. Prescribe burn on a 1‐4 year cycle to maintain coastal plain bogs. Monitor to determine if fire interval and season is adequate to maintain the desired condition (both structure and composition) for a particular site and adjust as needed. 9.F‐23. Where livestock grazing occurs near a bog, provide a buffer of sufficient size to prevent nutrient input from the livestock. Buffer size will be determined on a site‐specific basis based on soils, topography and vegetation. 9.F‐24. Where possible, provide a minimum 100‐foot buffer around bogs and associated rare communities. Activities that result in sedimentation or negative changes to site hydrology are prohibited. 9.F‐25. Remove encroaching vegetation in bogs either by mechanical means (in consultation with forest botanist), use of prescribed fire, or by mechanical hand tools only. 9.F‐26. Do not impound bogs to create ponds.

104

Figure 1. Fire‐maintained herbaceous bog on the Conecuh Ranger District. (Sarracenia leucophylla in foreground).

Wet Pine Flatwoods This woodland community occurs in the East Gulf Coastal Plain, on low, flat terrain. It is usually dominated by slash pine (Pinus elliottii). Wiregrass (Aristida stricta var. beyrichiana) is a frequent groundcover, with pitcher plant bogs imbedded sporadically throughout the community. Pools, ponds, and bogs occur in the depressions in this terrain. Only prime examples of these communities, as identified in the forest‐wide rare community database, are managed under the Rare Community Prescription. Provisions of the Rare Community Prescription apply only to prime examples of this community that support significant populations or assocations of species of viability concern. In the field, wet pine flatwoods can be distinguished from surrounding forests and woodlands by a reduction in overstory density, the presence of seasonally wet or inundated soils, a transition into low, relatively flat, poorly drained terrain. Good examples of wet pine flatwoods have a low incidence of non‐native species, and a high likelihood of imbedded bog communities and surface rutting or compaction has not affected drainage. Feral hog, cattle, and horse populations, if present, are managed to keep their effects to species composition and hydrology, minimal. Occurrences can range in size up to several hundred acres.

This community includes the following rare associations identified and defined by NatureServe1 (2001):

105

330‐20(in part) – Southeastern Coastal Plain Wet Slash Pine Savannas and Flatwoods Slash Pine/Saw Palmetto – Little Gallberry Woodland – CEGL003653

Standards for Wet Pine Flatwoods Protection and Enhancement: 9.F‐33. Prescribe burn on a 1‐5 year cycle to restore and maintain occurrences of Wet Pine Flatwoods structure and composition.

Maintenance of Existing Coastal Plain Seepage Bogs Over 50 known bog sites are currently mapped in the NFsAL GIS Rare Communities database and there are many other small sites scattered across the district. However, based on a combination of factors, (including size and location, current conditions, and rarity of plant species present), ten of these sites were selected as high emphasis bogs. These ten sites will be should receive priority for short (1‐3 years) fire return, encroachment maintenance, and survey and monitoring. A list of these bogs and associated rare plant species recorded in the past for the respective area is provided below:

Crawford Bog ‐ Sarracenia luecophylla, Utricularia subulata, Calapogon pulchellus, Pogonia ophioglossoides, Cliestes divaricata, Panicum nudicaule, Platanthera nivea

Anne’s Bog ‐ Cliestes divaricata, Ericaulon texense, Helinium brevifolium, Helianthus heterophylla, Sarracenia leucophylla, S. rubra wherryi

Parker Springs Bog ‐ Arnoglossum sulcatum, Asclepias rubra, Calopogon barbatus, Helenium brevifolium, H. vernale, Lilium iridollae, Peltandra sagifolia, Pityopsis oligantha, Polygala hookeri

Lisa’s Bog ‐ Ruella noctiflorum, Sarracinia spp., Xyris drummondii, (2010) Helianthus heterophyllus

Alex’s Bog ‐ Arnoglossum suculatum, Cliestes divaricata, Eriocaulon texense, Helinium brevifolium, Lachnocaulon digynum, Pityopsis oligantha, Rhynch. stenophlla, S. luecophylla, X. chapmanii, X. drummondii

Pleaa Bog ‐ Arnoglossum sulcatum, Panicum nidicaule, Macranthera flammea, Pleea tenufolia, Xyris drummondii

Fish Trap Bog ‐ Panicum nudicaule, Xyris drummondii

106

Compartment 67 Bogs ‐ Sarracenia flava, S. luecophylla, S. psittacinia, Drosera filiformis, D. capillaris, Xyris drummondii, Zigadenus glaberrimus, Polygala lutea, P. cruciata, P. cymosa, P. curtisii, Eriocaulon sp, Dichromena sp., Marshallia sp.

Wherry’s (Boggy Hollow) Bog ‐ Helianthus heterophyllus, Pityopsis oligantha, Ruella noctiflora, Sarracenia leucophylla, S. rubra wherryi

Wreck Bog ‐ Helianthus heterophyllus, Arnoglossum sulcatum, Burmannia capitata, Panicum nudicaule, Rhynchospora macra, R. stenophylla, Xyris drumondii, X. scabrifolia

Figure 2. General vicinity map of Bog Emphasis Areas.

Some of these sites were surveyed by the Forest Botanist in 2009 for the District’s Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration (Phase II) project for restoration needs and rare species presence. Most of the surveyed sites were in need of fire and some were in need of woody vegetation encroachment reduction. The district’s wet pine flatwoods communities, as a whole, usually burn fairly easily under the higher KBDI prescriptions. However, due to the extremely high moisture levels of the soils and high micro‐site humidity that is typically associated with the embedded coastal plain seepage bogs and wetter areas, it is often difficult to achieve a

107

consistent productive prescribed burn during normal burning conditions. The prescription parameters for Conecuh’s “artificial site preparation” burning (see attached table) will often produce an effective fire in a large bog. However, at other times conditions that are within this prescription still might not be enough to carry a desirable fire through the target bog. For this reason, it is very important that the district have the ability to burn these bogs when conditions might be outside of normal burning parameters. Mitigation within the project burn plans for these areas will account for the potential of holding or resource protection issues. Potential mitigation may include increased staffing of Rx burn personnel, burning only the bog(s) itself during favorable (dry) conditions, and /or burning surrounding areas prior to burning the bog(s).

Table 1. Conecuh’s control burn prescription parameters. 1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ Type Burn Flame 10 RH Mid- Max Max. Max BI Max Smoke Dispersion Length HR Minimum flame Temp Proba Middle KBDI Mixing Ht Transport (feet) FM Wind bility D (mph) Wind Mini speed Of (FM C) (ft) mum (mph) Igniti on

Fuel 2-8 7% 30% 7 80° 60 41 350 2700 7 Reduction (Dormant Season) Fuel 2-8 8% 35% 7 95° 60 41 450 2300 8 Reduction (Growing Season) Plantation 2-3 7% 30% 7 80° 60 41 350 2000 9 (1st Burn)

Site Prep 2-8 7% 30% 7 95° 60 41 500 Artificial Regen Site Prep 2-8 7% 30% 7 95° 60 41 450 Natural Regen TSI and 2-8 8% 30% 7 95° 60 41 450 Release

Weather and site conditions that affect fire behavior shall be monitored and recorded on the Prescribed Fire Burn Plan on 2 hour intervals, as a minimum, during the burning period. 1/ Except 25% when approved by Forest Supervisor on day of burn and documented on the burn plan. RO variance needed below 25%. 2/ 20 ft. wind speed shall not exceed 20 mph; wind gusts are considered part of the overall wind speed. 3/ Except standard does not apply when approved by Forest Supervisor on day of burn and documented on the burn plan. 4/ Do not burn when the combination of mixing height (above ground level) and transport wind speed are below the values shown, unless atmospheric dispersion modeling results clearly demonstrate no smoke sensitive targets are likely to be impacted.

108

APPENDIX F.

Response to Public Comments

The Forest Service has documented, analyzed, and responded to the public comments received on the Draft Environmental Assessment for the Enhanced Invasive Plant Control Project for the National Forests in Alabama. This appendix describes the public comments received and provides the agency’s response to those comments. This response complies with section 40 CFR 1503.4, Response to comment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations.

Agencies have a responsibility under the National Environmental Policy act (NEPA) to first “assess and consider comments both individually and collectively” and then to “respond… stating its response in the final statement.” The content analysis process considers comments received “individually and collectively” and equally, not weighting them by the number received or by organizational affiliation or other status of the respondent. Public concern statements and supporting quotes from public input form the basic summary of public comment and were the primary focus of our interdisciplinary team in considering comments.

The NEPA requires that after we consider comments, we formally respond to substantive comments. Non-substantive comments, or concerns identified from them, include those that simply state a position in favor of or against an alternative, merely agree or disagree with Forest Service policy, or otherwise express an unsupported personal preference or opinion. We have chosen to respond to all public concerns identified during analysis of public comment, within and out of scope, substantive and non-substantive alike.

Respondents

Agencies, organizations, and groups who responded to the Draft EA are listed below.

Hugh Mobley Dick Artley Hoyt and Dorothy Brown

Comments and Responses

The following is a list of public concern statements and the Forest Service response.

Public Concern: Support for the project and offer of assistance in Invasives Control.

Response: Thank you for your comment.

Public Concern: (Relating to Human and other animal exposure risks) The Forest Service should analyze an alternative in detail that applies only herbicides that contain no glyphosate, triclopyr and 2,4-D.

109

Response: The Forest Service utilizes risk assessments based on evaluations by the Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. Detailed analysis of the exposure scenarios can be found in Forest Service/SERA Risk Assessments. Effects of herbicide are described in Chapter 3 of the EA. Project design criteria to reduce risk are identified in the EA in Chapter 2 on pages 25-26.

Public Concern: The Forest Service should analyze an alternative in detail that applies no herbicides but requires one or more of the following weed killing methods; mechanical, controlled burning, grazing, or solarization.

Response: The No Herbicide alternative was eliminated from detailed study due to the inherent biological characteristics which render NNIPS difficult to control with cultural or mechanical treatments alone. Many exhibit rapid growth rates, lack natural controls, are very good competitors, and produce abundant and early seed. Most NNIPS plants are perennials, with extensive tough runners or roots which readily re-sprout after cutting. Mechanical and cultural treatments usually do not sufficiently control these roots. Mechanical treatments may not be feasible in some infested areas due to terrain or hydrology and would in many cases result in significant soil disturbance and the risk of spreading the NNIPS to un-infested areas. Prescribed fire often results in rapid re-growth and spread of many Alabama NNIPS species (including cogongrass and bicolor lespedeza). Solarization would be impractical for most of Alabama’s priority species like kudzu, bicolor, tallowtree, and others due to the upright habit and stature of the species. While in some cases non-herbicide treatments may be deemed effective and may be pursued, it would be impractical to rely only on cultural and mechanical means of control of priority invasive plant infestations that threaten the National Forests in Alabama.

Public Concern: (Relating to Human and other animal exposure risks) The Forest Service should not use herbicides because of potential effects to cattle drinking from nearby water sources.

110