Boggy Hollow Longleaf Pine Management Project

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service January 2017 Environmental Assessment Boggy Hollow Longleaf Pine Management Project Conecuh National Forest, National Forest in Alabama Covington, Alabama Responsible Official: Tim Mersmann, District Ranger AL Highway 55 Andalusia, Alabama

2 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at or at any USDA office, or call (866) to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , by fax (202) or at program.intake@usda.gov. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) or (800) (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by . If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD).

3 Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION Background Purpose and Need for Proposed Action Proposed Action Other Decisions Affecting the Project Area Public Involvement Issues ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail Design Criteria Comparison of Alternatives ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Vegetation Soils Water Quality Climate Change Wildlife Air Economics Transportation and Recreation Heritage Resources Health Effects and Herbicides Civil Rights and Environmental Justice CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION REFERENCES CITED Appendix A PROPOSED VEGETATION TREATMENT MAP Appendix B PROPOSED MAINTENANCE OF WILDLIFE OPENINGS MAP Appendix C PROPOSED ROAD CHANGES MAP Appendix D HERBICIDE USE CONTEXT AND CONSIDERATIONS Appendix E HAZARD QUOTIENTS APPLICATION RATES LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1.1 PROPOSED ACTION: MATURE PINE THINNING TABLE 1.2 PROPOSED ACTION: YOUNG PINE THINNING TABLE 1.3 PROPOSED ACTION: LONGLEAF PINE RESTORATION TABLE 1.4 PROPOSED ACTION: NATURAL REGENERATION OF LONGLEAF PINE TABLE 1.5 PROPOSED ACTION: UNEVEN-AGED MANAGEMENT OF LONGLEAF PINE TABLE 1.6 PROPOSED ACTION: UNDERSTORY RESTORATION TABLE 1.7 PROPOSED ACTION: ROADS TO REMAIN OPEN WITH NO CHANGES TABLE 1.8 PROPOSED ACTION: ROADS TO CHANGE FROM OPEN ALL YEAR TO OPEN SEASONALLY TABLE 1.9 PROPOSED ACTION: ROADS TO CHANGE FROM OPEN ALL YEAR TO CLOSED TABLE 1.10 PROPOSED ACTION: ROADS TO ADD TO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

4 TABLE 1.11 PROPOSED ACTION: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED MILEAGE CHANGES TABLE 1.12 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS TABLE 2.1 LIMITING WEATHER FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE APPLICATION TABLE 2.2 CONECUH NATIONAL FOREST SMZ MINIMUM WIDTHS FOR STREAMS TABLE 2.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TABLE 2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES: ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS TABLE 3.1 ABUNDANCE OF FOREST TYPES, COMMUNITIES, AND MAJOR HABITAT GROUPS WITHIN THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.2 SUMMARY OF VEGETATION EFFECTS TABLE 3.3 THE SOIL MAP UNITS, SOIL SERIES, ACREAGE, AND HAZARDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.4 AFFECTED WATERSHEDS WITHIN PROJECT AREA TABLE 3.5 MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) LIST FOR CONECUH NATIONAL FOREST TABLE 3.6 EXPECTED EFFECTS OF MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO MIS ON THE CONECUH NATIONAL FOREST TABLE 3.7 PROPOSED, ENDANGERED, AND THREATENED SPECIES CONSIDERED AND EVALUATED FOR BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS TABLE 3.8 ESTIMATED STUMPAGE VALUE OF POTENTIAL FOREST PRODUCTS IF PROPOSED ACTION IS IMPLEMENTED TABLE 3.9 ESTIMATED COST FOR IMPLEMENTING PROPOSED ACTION TABLE 3.10 COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED HERBICIDE LABEL APPLICATION RATES VERSUS THE PROPOSED BOGGY HOLLOW HERBICIDE APPLICATION RATES HERBICIDE LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1.1 VICINITY MAP FOR BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA... 2 FIGURE 3.1 DISTRIBUTION OF FOREST TYPES WITHIN THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA, CONECUH NATIONAL FOREST IN FIGURE 3.2 DISTRIBUTION OF COMMUNITY TYPES WITHIN THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA, CONECUH NATIONAL FOREST IN FIGURE 3.3 DISTRIBUTION OF MAJOR HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA, CONECUH NATIONAL FOREST IN FIGURE 3.4 AGE CLASS DIVERSITY ACROSS ALL FOREST TYPES FOUND IN THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA (IN ACRES) FIGURE 3.5 CURRENT AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION OF LONGLEAF PINE FOREST TYPE FOUND IN THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT AREA (IN ACRES) FIGURE 3.6 PROJECTED CHANGES IN PROJECT AREA AGE CLASS DISTRIBUTION BASED ON THE PROPOSED ACTION OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS FIGURE 3.7 ACRES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN EACH SOIL EROSION HAZARD RATING CLASS FOR THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 ( NO ACTION) AND ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION) FIGURE 3.8 ACRES DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY SOIL DISTURBING ACTIVITIES IN EACH SOIL COMPACTION HAZARD RATING CLASS FOR THE BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 ( NO ACTION) AND ALTERNATIVE 2 (PROPOSED ACTION) FIGURE 3.9 BOGGY HOLLOW PROJECT PROPOSED ACTION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES BY 6TH LEVEL HUCS... 47

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background On March 11, 2016, the USDA Forest Service proposed management actions for the Boggy Hollow Project Area on the Conecuh National Forest. This Proposed Action for the Boggy Hollow Longleaf Pine Management Project is one of a series of proposals developed to provide ongoing and regular management of the Conecuh National Forest. This Proposed Action is part of the Forest Service s effort to examine conditions and propose management actions for each area of the Forest once every 10 years. It has been developed by an Interdisciplinary Team of Forest Service specialists selected for this project, and is based on recent field inventory of resource conditions within the project area. This Environmental Assessment documents and discloses expected environmental effects resulting from implementing the Proposed Action or alternatives. It has been prepared to meet requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, along with regulations and policy associated with these Acts. This document has been prepared by the Interdisciplinary Team. Public involvement is part of this analysis process; public input is used to identify issues that may drive development of alternatives, and to help focus environmental analysis. Records in support of this document are available for review upon request to the Conecuh Ranger District office. Based on the analysis documented here, the Responsible Official will decide whether to implement the Proposed Action or an alternative, whether additional environmental analysis is required, and whether selected actions are in compliance with the Forest Plan. The Boggy Hollow Project Area is located in Covington County, west of Wing, Alabama, and north and south of County Road 4. There are approximately 6,700 acres of Conecuh National Forest within the project area (Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1). This area is administratively identified as Compartments 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, and 59 of the Conecuh National Forest. ~ 1 ~

6 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Vicinity Map for Boggy Hollow Project Area 1.2 Purpose and Need for Proposed Action The Forest Service has proposed to implement management actions in the Boggy Hollow Project Area in order to: 1. Restore and maintain desired conditions of fire-maintained longleaf pine forest and improve habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers and other featured species dependent on these conditions, and 2. Improve efficiency and effectiveness in providing public access to national forest lands in the area. ~ 2 ~

7 The Boggy Hollow Longleaf Pine Management Project is designed to implement the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for National Forests in Alabama (2004). This Forest Plan describes desired conditions, goals and objectives, and management standards for the Conecuh National Forest, and assigns management prescriptions to areas of the Forest. The general desired condition of the Conecuh National Forest is described by the Forest Plan as: a mosaic of forest stands with species and age diversity; upland pine communities dominated by mature longleaf pine, an open grass and herbaceous understory, sparse mid-story, and a diverse hardwood component in small scattered clumps; wet pine flatwoods with sparse longleaf and slash pines, grasses and sedges; closed canopy bottomland hardwoods within the river floodplains characterized by numerous vines, rushes, sedges, and ferns; fire-dependent ecosystems with frequent prescribe fire intervals to imitate the natural role of fire in these ecosystems; water quality meets or exceeds state standards, providing biodiversity and beneficial downstream uses; provide a balance of motorized and non-motorized recreational opportunities for various users with a natural appearing character. These desired conditions provide habitat for a host of native species including red-cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise, northern bobwhite, Bachman s sparrow, and other fire-dependent, rare, woodland species. The desired condition also provides an open and park-like setting, which provides for a number of high-quality outdoor recreational opportunities, including hunting and hiking. Forest Plan goals relevant to this project are to: Goal 1: Manage forest and woodland ecosystems in order to restore and/or maintain native communities to provide the desired composition, structure, and function. Goal 3: Manage existing forest communities to reduce risks from insects and disease. Goal 4: Manage and/or restore watersheds to provide resilient and stable conditions to support the quality and quantity of water necessary to protect ecological functions and support intended beneficial water uses. Goal 11: Substantially contribute to the recovery of federally listed threatened and endangered species, and provide for the conservation of sensitive species. Goal 12: Contribute to the conservation and recovery of the red-cockaded woodpecker, a federally listed, endangered species through the implementation of forest and population management practices described in the Revised Recovery Plan and the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Record of Decision. ~ 3 ~

8 Goal 13: Provide habitats to support desirable levels of species with special habitat needs such as large, contiguous forested landscapes, species commonly trapped/hunted, or species of special interest. The entire Boggy Hollow Project Area is assigned in the Forest Plan to the Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Prescription due to the presence of one of two red-cockaded woodpecker population concentration areas on the Conecuh. This management prescription is designed to provide suitable to optimal habitat conditions in areas containing small red-cockaded woodpecker populations in a larger designated habitat management area. Populations of this endangered woodpecker are at risk of local extirpation and need of immediate management action to create and protect suitable habitat. This management prescription is compatible with multiple-use management that includes sustained yield of timber harvest and recreational uses including public hunting and motorized access. More specific descriptions of purpose and need for individual proposed actions are included in Section Proposed Action The Forest Service has proposed the following actions for the Boggy Hollow Project Area: 1. Mature Pine Thinning (Appendix A). Twenty-nine stands (approximately 1,450 acres) supporting mature longleaf and slash pine forest would be thinned through commercial timber harvest to achieve more open forest structure and favor longleaf pine on upland sites. Forest stands would be thinned to a basal area of ft 2 / acre using commercial timber harvesting. Proposed stands are generally years of age, and include a mixture of southern yellow pine species, but are primarily dominated by longleaf and slash pine with a minor hardwood species component. Hardwood trees would be thinned with pine where feasible and appropriate for achieving desired ecological conditions. The thinning is designed to improve health and vigor of residual trees, increase the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor, improve diversity and composition of the understory flora, and enhance beneficial effects of prescribed burning. These changes would improve habitat for many species featured in this area, including red-cockaded woodpecker, northern bobwhite, and gopher tortoise. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..1 Proposed Action: Mature Pine Thinning Compartme nt/stand Acres * Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Class Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) 54/ / / / / / / / ~ 4 ~

9 Compartme nt/stand Acres * Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Class Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) 54/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / Longleaf/15 Oak 54 21/ / / Total Acres* 1, Young Pine Thinning (Appendix A). Nine longleaf pine stands (approximately 330 acres) are proposed for a commercial thinning usually referred to as a first thinning the first thinning treatment these stands would receive since being established. Forest stands would be thinned to a basal area of ft 2 / acre using commercial timber harvesting. These stands are generally year old longleaf pine plantations. Hardwood trees would be thinned with pine where feasible and appropriate for achieving desired ecological conditions. The thinning is designed to improve stand health and growth of remaining trees by providing more space and resource availability. Doing so would reduce risk of a standreplacing fire and accelerate development of mature forest, which is preferred by redcockaded woodpeckers. This action would open the forest canopy, improve understory plant diversity and vigor, enhance effects of prescribed burning, and improve habitat for featured species of wildlife. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..2 Proposed Action: Young Pine Thinning Compartment /Stand Acres* Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Class Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) 54/ / / / / / / / ~ 5 ~

10 Compartment /Stand Acres* Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Class Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) 57/ / / / / / / / / / Total Acres* 333 *GIS acres, actual acres may vary. 3. Longleaf Pine Restoration (Appendix A). Six areas (approximately 120 acres) are proposed for restoring longleaf pine on suitable sites currently occupied by tree species less suited, or considered off-site. Stands are generally a mixture of slash and loblolly pine and hardwoods. Clearcut with reserves method is optimal because, although some stands have a small percentage of mature longleaf pine within them, none have enough to provide for natural regeneration. Proposed actions include commercial timber harvest of off-site species, with retention of well-spaced longleaf pine where they occur (clearcut with reserves). These trees would be retained indefinitely to provide structural diversity and presence of old trees within the young developing stand. Sites would be prepared using a combination of mechanical, herbicide, and fire treatments where needed, followed by planting of longleaf pine seedlings, and release of seedlings from competition if needed. Active ingredients in herbicides proposed for use in site preparation and release treatments for this action may include glyphosate, imazapyr, hexazinone, metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr. Appendix D details context and considerations for use of herbicides during project implementation. Where feasible and effective, fire would be the preferred and sole method of site preparation and release. This action is designed to increase the acreage of longleaf pine forest, which is the preferred habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker, and is more compatible with presence of periodic fire. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..3 Proposed Action: Longleaf Pine Restoration Compartme nt/stand Acres* Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Class 56/ (30 Pine/24 Hwd.) 77 13/8 10 (Oak spp.) 57/ /8 10 (Longleaf Pine) 58/ /11 10 (Longleaf Pine) 59/ (25 Slash Pine /10 10 (Oak Spp.) Hwd) 59/ Hwd 72 64/6 10 (Oak Spp.) 59/ /6 10 (Longleaf Pine) Total Acres* 121 *GIS acres, actual acres may vary. 4. Natural Regeneration of Longleaf Pine (Appendix A). Three sites (approximately 90 acres) would be naturally regenerated in longleaf pine. Two of these sites would be ~ 6 ~

11 regenerated using the shelterwood method, and one site would be regenerated using the seed-tree method. Stands selected for these treatments are years old and already support significant numbers of young longleaf pine in the understory. Proposed actions include commercial timber harvest of mature longleaf trees, retaining low densities to provide seed for additional natural regeneration and structure for red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Site preparation and planting of longleaf seedlings may be done where needed to fill large holes in natural regeneration if they occur. Prescribed fire would be the primary method for preparing sites and releasing seedlings; however, use of herbicides (active ingredients of glyphosate, imazapyr, hexazinone, metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr as conditions indicate) or manual treatments are included in this proposal in case they are needed. Appendix D details context and considerations for use of herbicides during project implementation. Removing much of the existing longleaf pine overstory on these sites would allow the younger cohort of longleaf to develop, increasing the age-class diversity of longleaf pine across the project area. Diversity of age-classes improves sustainability and resilience of the longleaf pine forest and red-cockaded woodpecker habitat over the long term. Low densities of mature longleaf pine would be retained long-term on these sites to provide old forest characteristics while young trees develop, enhancing their suitability as red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..4 Proposed Action: Natural Regeneration of Longleaf Pine Compartme nt/stand Acres* Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Class 57/ / / / / /06 20 Total Acres* 93 *GIS acres, actual acres may vary. 5. Uneven-aged Management of Longleaf Pine (Appendix A). A single site (approximately 90 acres) would receive initial treatment for establishing uneven-aged management of longleaf pine. This site already has a good start on uneven-aged structure due to past hurricane damage and related timber salvage. Proposed actions include commercial harvest of pine across age-classes within the stand using single-tree selection to create gaps for establishment and development of young longleaf. Regular fire is expected to provide adequate preparation for seedling establishment; however, herbicide use is included in case it is needed. Active ingredients in the herbicides proposed for use are glyphosate, imazapyr, hexazinone, metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr. Appendix D details context and considerations for use of herbicides during project implementation. This treatment is expected to provide the open forest conditions desired by key wildlife species as well as longleaf pine age-class diversity all in the same stand. This action would be the only ~ 7 ~

12 intentional uneven-aged management area on the Conecuh National Forest and represents a demonstration and learning opportunity for Forest Service staff and the public. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..5 Proposed Action: Uneven-aged Management of Longleaf Pine Compartme nt/stand Acres* Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Desired Basal Area range (ft 2 /acre) Class 58/ / Total Acres* 96 *GIS acres, actual acres may vary. 6. Understory Restoration (Appendix A). One site (approximately 70 acres) is proposed for beginning the process of understory or ground cover restoration in a low density stand of off-site slash pine. This area is characterized by sandy soil and has high potential for supporting gopher tortoise. This stand was heavily thinned several years ago and now supports high densities of undesired woody brush. Proposed actions include herbicide treatment of woody understory in combination with repeated fire to restore dominance by grasses and forbs. Active ingredients in the herbicides proposed for use in this action are glyphosate, imazapyr, hexazinone, metsulfuron methyl, and triclopyr. Appendix D details context and considerations for use of herbicides during project implementation. If needed, supplemental planting of native understory species would be done. Once understory is acceptably restored, remaining off-site slash pine would be harvested and longleaf pine planted on the site. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..6 Proposed Action: Understory Restoration Compartme nt/stand Acres* Current Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) Stand Age Forest Type/ Condition Class Desired Basal Area (ft 2 /acre) 58/ /09 NA Total Acres* 70 *GIS acres, actual acres may vary. 7. Temporary Road Construction Access for proposed timber harvest may require construction of temporary roads in a few instances. Therefore, this proposal includes construction of less than 2 miles of temporary roads. These roads would be rehabilitated and closed following use. 8. Hardwood Management Hardwoods are an important and desirable element of ecological diversity within the project area. They primarily occur on lower slopes and bottomlands, but may also occur as scattered clumps or individuals in upland pine forests. Where fire frequency in upland areas has been insufficient historically, some species of hardwood that inhibit fire (water and laurel oaks for example) can become established at densities that suppress understory development and effective use of fire. These areas ~ 8 ~

13 become unsuitable for red-cockaded woodpeckers and other featured species. This proposal includes reducing hardwood densities in areas proposed for upland pine management treatments only where needed to restore effective use of fire, understory composition, and red-cockaded woodpecker habitat suitability. Hardwood densities could be reduced using commercial harvest, manual cutting, or selective herbicide treatment (active ingredients of glyphosate, triclopyr, or imazapyr as best suited to conditions). Appendix D details context and considerations for use of herbicides during project implementation. Where such treatments are done, scattered clumps and individuals would be retained to provide ecological diversity. Hardwood species preferred for retention are post oak, southern red oak, turkey oak, and bluejack oak, due to their hard mast production and ability to withstand and support regular fire. Flowering and fruiting species such as eastern red bud, flowering dogwood, southern magnolia, and persimmon would also be preferred for retention. 9. Wildlife Opening Management (Appendix B). This project includes a proposal to restore and maintain 25 wildlife openings throughout the project area. Maintained wildlife openings have been an important habitat element on the Conecuh National Forest for many years. They are used by game species such as quail, deer, and turkey, and are valued by hunters. They also provide important habitat for gopher tortoise and song birds. The Boggy Hollow Project Area includes a number of permanent wildlife openings, some of which have been maintained regularly and some of which have not. Proposed restoration and maintenance activities may include mowing, disking, planting, and removal of encroaching trees. All of these openings will be burned during prescribed fire operations in the burn unit in which they are located. Approximately half of the openings will be managed primarily to benefit native game species. These openings will continue to be planted with a multi-year rotation of varying spring and winter food plot crops. Some of the openings will be restored and/or maintained to native warm season grasses, forbs, legumes and other understory plants. (Two existing wildlife openings were inadvertently omitted from the total number of wildlife openings as presented in the original Proposed Action for scoping. They are added to the total here and to the map in Appendix B.) 10. Road System Changes (Appendix C). The Forest Service makes periodic adjustments to the road system on the Conecuh National Forest in order to maintain the lowest-cost system that meets core visitor needs for access and safety, and does not create unacceptable environmental impacts. An analysis of all roads associated with the Boggy Hollow Project Area was done to identify proposed changes. Currently, there are approximately 23 miles of Forest Service roads in the project area that are open all year or seasonally (during deer hunting season). The Forest Service proposed to close to motorized vehicles approximately 4 miles of these roads, which are predominately short spurs or redundant sections. We propose to shift approximately 5 miles of these roads from open year-round to open seasonally only. We propose to open a closed but historical road that is the only access to a ~ 9 ~

14 large section of the project area. These actions are designed to provide savings in road maintenance costs while maintaining excellent motorized access to the entire project area. A. Roads to Remain Open with No Changes Based on historical use and needs, these roads are proposed to remain open at the current maintenance level (ML) and status (no change). They provide recreational opportunity to visitors throughout the year. These roads were identified as critical to maintaining and managing natural resources on the district, now and in the future. Road maintenance and repairs have been performed over the years on these roads to allow safe travel. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..7 Proposed Action: Roads to Remain Open with No Changes ROAD CURRENT PROPOSED NUMBER LENGTH* ML** STATUS LENGTH* ML** STATUS OPEN OPEN 374C OPEN OPEN 374F OPEN OPEN 374L OPEN OPEN 374M OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN OPEN 2 2 OPEN 321C OPEN OPEN 321G OPEN OPEN 307A SEASONAL SEASONAL 321A SEASONAL SEASONAL 321N SEASONAL SEASONAL SEASONAL SEASONAL Total Miles* *GIS miles, actual mileage may vary. **Maintenance Level B. Roads to Change from Open All Year to Open Seasonally These roads have historically been used at limited times throughout the year. Roads in this category have had little to minimal road maintenance work performed unless safety concerns were identified. Changing to Open Seasonally will provide motorized access to deer hunters during deer season, and more remote recreational opportunities throughout the rest of the year, including turkey season. A grass component should remain intact over the roadway, reducing soil erosion and sedimentation. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..8 Proposed Action: Roads to Change from Open All Year to Open Seasonally ROAD NUMBER CURRENT PROPOSED LENGTH* ML** STATUS LENGTH* ML** STATUS 374B** OPEN SEASONAL ~ 10 ~

15 ROAD NUMBER CURRENT PROPOSED LENGTH* ML** STATUS LENGTH* ML** STATUS 374D OPEN SEASONAL 374K OPEN SEASONAL 373A OPEN SEASONAL 321J OPEN SEASONAL 321M OPEN SEASONAL 307B OPEN SEASONAL 310A OPEN SEASONAL 310B OPEN SEASONAL 309E OPEN SEASONAL Total Miles* *GIS miles, actual mileage may vary. **FS 374B is proposed to be re-routed to avoid a wet and boggy area that would result in continual and costly repair and maintenance in the future. C. Roads to Change from Open All Year to Closed These roads are proposed to either close the entire road or a selected portion of the road. This proposal is based on the historical use and need for management. These roads typically have very limited public traffic throughout year. Road repairs and maintenance have not been performed on these roads unless a major hazard is identified; limited brush control limits ability to see the roadbed for safe travel. Many are short spurs or redundant with other open roads. Closing all or a portion of these roads will reduce long-term maintenance costs and increase opportunity for visitors to recreate without motor vehicle traffic disturbance. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..9 Proposed Action: Roads to Change from Open All Year to Closed ROAD NUMBER CURRENT PROPOSED LENGTH* ML** STATUS LENGTH* ML** STATUS 374D OPEN CLOSED 374F OPEN CLOSED 374H OPEN CLOSED 374M OPEN CLOSED 374N OPEN CLOSED 374P OPEN CLOSED 374R OPEN CLOSED 373A OPEN CLOSED 321D OPEN CLOSED 321E OPEN CLOSED 321G OPEN CLOSED 321H OPEN CLOSED 310C OPEN CLOSED 310D OPEN CLOSED ~ 11 ~

16 ROAD NUMBER CURRENT PROPOSED LENGTH* ML** STATUS LENGTH* ML** STATUS Total miles* *GIS miles, actual mileage may vary. D. Roads to Add to the Transportation System. One existing woods road was identified as needed for adding to the road system to provide for resource management and recreational access for visitors. Since this is not a system road at this time there is no road number associated with this unclassified road. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..10 Proposed Action: Roads to Add to the Transportation System ROAD NUMBER CURRENT PROPOSED LENGTH* ML** STATUS LENGTH* ML** STATUS N/A 0 N/A Unclassified SEASONAL Total miles* *GIS miles, actual mileage may vary. Summary of proposed mileage changes for each road status category in the project area: Table Error! No text of specified style in document..11 Proposed Action: Summary of Proposed Mileage Changes ROAD STATUS CURRENT MILEAGE PROPOSED MILEAGE MILEAGE CHANGE Open Roads Seasonal Roads Closed Roads Total Other Decisions Affecting the Project Area Other prior decisions are currently being implemented within the Boggy Hollow Project Area, and would continue to be implemented during the period covered by this proposed project. These are: 1. Conecuh National Forest Prescribed Burning On December 21, 2012, District Ranger Tim Mersmann approved continued implementation of a systematic prescribed burn regime on the Conecuh National Forest. This decision is designed to restore and maintain fire-dependent ecosystems on the Forest. It authorizes multiple prescribed burns on each area of the Forest on an average 3-year rotation, with shorter return times as site-specific conditions warrant. Regular prescribed burning under this decision is ongoing in the Boggy Hollow Project Area. 2. Enhanced Invasive Plant Control On June 21, 2012, Forest Supervisor Steve Lohr approved methods for controlling non-native invasive plan species on National Forests ~ 12 ~

17 in Alabama, including the Conecuh National Forest. This decision provides for quick and effective treatment of invasive plants using manual, mechanical, and herbicide methods. Native invasives that threaten rare communities or species may also be treated. Under this decision, non-native invasive plants (primarily cogongrass, Japanese climbing fern, privet, and Chinese tallow tree) are being treated, including with use of herbicides, in the project area. In addition, native woody species encroaching on pitcher plant bogs are also being treated. 3. Wildlife Opening Maintenance In January 2008, District Ranger Steve Lee signed a decision authorizing ongoing maintenance of 400 acres of wildlife openings on the Conecuh National Forest, including use of mowing, disking, prescribed burning, planting annuals and perennials, and the application of lime and fertilizer on a routine basis. Wildlife opening maintenance and restoration is included in the Boggy Hollow Proposed Action in order to renew the environmental analysis and NEPA decision for these actions in the Boggy Hollow area; however, this previous decision is deemed sufficient to support ongoing wildlife opening maintenance work. 4. Quail Focal Area Designation After public scoping of Proposed Actions for the Boggy Hollow Project was completed, the Boggy Hollow Area was identified for designation as a Quail Focal Area under guidelines established by the National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative. Objectives of this national program are to designate areas where habitat management, hunting regulation, and monitoring are especially focused on enhancing quail populations and the quail hunting experience. This designation is an administrative action that does not require environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. Anticipated short-term management actions for enhancing quail habitat are compatible with the Proposed Action and Forest Plan goals and objectives for the area. These actions may include fine-tuning application of prescribed fire, management of wildlife openings, and native plant seed mixes used for seeding log landings, skid trails, and temporary roads. Any additional actions needed to meet desired conditions objectives for quail habitat would be proposed and analyzed in the future using appropriate NEPA procedures. 1.5 Public Involvement This project was first listed in the quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions on July 1, 2015, and will appear in each subsequent edition until a decision is made. On March 15, 2016, the Forest Service provided the Proposed Action for public review online through the PALS database. Mail addresses were used to notify thirty-one individuals of the availability of the proposal. These individuals represent partner agencies and organizations, interest groups, local landowners and citizens, and Native American tribes. ~ 13 ~

18 From this solicitation of comments, the Forest Service received 6 responses. Comments received, and Forest Service response to these comments, are summarized in Table Error! No text of specified style in document..12. Once complete, this environmental assessment will be sent to the contact lists for the Conecuh National Forest to solicit review and comment; a 30-day comment period will be announced with a legal notice published in the Andalusia Star-News newspaper; and, this environmental assessment will be posted on the Project Planning website for Alabama ( for review. Once the 30-day comment period has closed, Conecuh specialists will review the comments, and revise the environmental assessment if needed. A pre-decisional administrative review process, pursuant to 36 CFR 218 Subparts A and B, will then take place if the submitted comments establish standing to file an objection. Only those who submit timely and specific written comments ( 218.2) regarding the proposal during a public comment period established by the responsible official are eligible to file an objection ( (b) (6)). Issues to be raised in objections must be based on previously submitted specific written comments regarding the proposed project or activity and attributed to the objector. ~ 14 ~

19 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..12 Response to Comments Commenter: Comment Summary Action/Resource Area Response Scoping Comments Mark Kolinski, Alabama Program Manager, Wild South Proposed use of herbicides is vague and could use some clarification to enable us to judge the appropriateness of chemical treatments. Herbicide use is indicated as possible or if needed for site preparation and/or release treatment. No indication of size class of the trees that might be the possible targets of such chemical treatment. Project description did not discuss type of application method for the chemical treatment. Vegetation Management The Responsible Official, Tim Mersmann, contacted Mr. Kolinski to discuss his concerns regarding herbicide use. They agreed that herbicide use should be limited and used only where necessary to meet management objectives within acceptable timeframes, and that extensive or repeated use of herbicide on a site likely indicates a need to re-examine management objectives. Clarification of intent, context, and considerations for operational use of herbicides has been added to this EA in Appendix D in response to this comment. A draft of this clarification was provided to the Mr. Kolinski with request for feedback. No further input was received. No discussion regarding the decision-making process on whether to use herbicide(s) to accomplish treatment objective. If management goals cannot be met with such limited herbicide use, consideration should be given to reevaluating desired future conditions and restoration objectives. Jordan Thomas, local landowner Concerned about road closures, but is unsure if his property is affected by Proposed Actions. His private property contains Wolf Bay Thicket and is accessed across national forest lands. Closing National Forest roads or spurs would cause devaluation of large parcels of his property. Road System Changes Mr. Thomas property is not in the project area and is unaffected by Proposed Actions. Deborah McKathan, local landowner Concerned that the project area boundary includes private lands and is interested to know if private land owners are aware that their property is incorporated into the Boggy Hollow project. Referenced RARE II project. Project Boundaries Boundary of the Boggy Hollow project area is defined broadly to encompass all national forest lands within this general area. This boundary includes some private lands simply due to mixed land ownership within this area. The goals, objectives, and Proposed Actions presented in this document have no application to or influence on private ~ 15 ~

20 property or the exercise of private property rights within the project boundary. They apply only to national forest lands. This project is completely unrelated to RARE II or any other similar project. Michael Older, Regional Forester, Alabama Forestry Commission Supports timber harvest and integrated methods of understory control using fire, mechanical, and herbicide methods. Residual basal area may need to be as low as 40 square feet in some circumstances to create appropriate openings for regeneration. Vegetation Management The staff on the Conecuh agree that within stands proposed for regeneration residual basal areas will be less than 40 ft2 /acre. This desired condition is part of the proposed actions. Thomas Salvage, Forester Supports timber harvest, and use of fire and herbicides to improve the ecological diversity and general health of the forest, and to also benefit the local economy, wildlife, and pitcher plant bogs. Vegetation Management No response required. Alvin Diamond, Asst. Professor and Arboretum Director, Troy University Wherry's pitcher plant bog site has been overgrown for several years and in need of regular fire. Rare Species This area has been regularly burned under previous decisions for many years. In 2016, the area in question received an intense fire for the expressed purpose of restoring this bog. It did very much good in achieving desired conditions, but will need to be maintained with regular fire in the future. Regular prescribed burning is ongoing in the Boggy Hollow Project Area under a 2012 NEPA decision. Pond Pine are locally rare pine trees found along Boggy Hollow Creek. Care should be taken that Pond Pine trees are not cut by mistake in the thinning. The area containing known locations of Pond Pine is not proposed for timber harvest under this action. Field review and marking of timber sale before proceeding will assure conservation of Pond Pine. Mark Bailey, Biological Consultant, Conservation Southeast, Inc. In full support of the project. Would like to see site of Wherry s sweet pitcher plant improved with some overstory removal and protected from rutting. Would like to ensure locally rare Pond Pine, located along Boggy Hollow Creek, are protected from timber harvest. Offered help in locating. Rare Species No overstory removal in the Wherry s pitcher plant bog is proposed at this time. However based on recommendation of the Forest Biologist/Botanist we will continue to improve habitat under previous decisions using selective removal of woody plants and prescribed burning. The area containing known locations of Pond Pine is not proposed for timber harvest under this action. Field review and marking of timber sale before proceeding will assure conservation of Pond Pine. ~ 16 ~

21 Daniel Rage Compliance Review Officer, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Requested notification if any Native American cultural materials or remains are encountered. Tribal Relations Dr. Ian Thompson was notified for the Choctaw Nation during the scoping period. Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma will remain on the mailing list and will be notified of the 30-day notice and comment period. If cultural materials or remains are found during implementation, all relevant tribes will be notified according to standard process. EA Review Comments Jordan Thomas, local landowner Mr. Thomas repeated concerns about any future road closures that may affect his property. Road System Changes Mr. Thomas property is not in the project area and is unaffected by Proposed Actions. He will be contacted before any proposals are made that affect access to his property. Deborah McKathan, local landowner Indicated support of project following Forest Service response to her scoping comments. No response necessary. Lindsey Bilyeu Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Replied with thanks for coordination with the Choctaw Nation, support for the project, and a request for notification if artifacts or remains are found during project implementation. Tribal Relations No response necessary. ~ 17 ~

22 1.6 Issues Based on public responses and Interdisciplinary Team discussions, the Responsible Official identified the following issues to be addressed in this analysis: 1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat The project area currently supports one of two population centers for this endangered species on the Conecuh National Forest, and is within the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Management Area Prescription as defined by the Forest Plan. The purpose and need for the Proposed Action is primarily driven and constrained by habitat needs for this species. Given this focus, do the Proposed Action and alternatives meet all Recovery Plan guidelines and meet goals for enhancement of habitat? 2. Age-Class Sustainability The project area supports a large acreage of forests in the year age class, similar to the rest of the Conecuh National Forest. This bulge in age-class distribution resulted from regeneration of areas cutover prior to the inception of the Conecuh National Forest in the late 1930s. Do the Proposed Action and alternatives make acceptable progress in balancing age-class distributions (creating equal amounts of young, mid-aged, and old forests) to enhance long-term sustainability and resiliency of Conecuh forests? In the process of balancing age-class distribution, is opportunity maintained for restoring old growth forest conditions? 3. Herbicide Use As a result of recent decisions, use of herbicides on the Conecuh National Forest has been limited to longleaf pine plantation release where needed, and treatment of non-native invasive plants. In most places on the Conecuh, prescribed fire is an effective and preferred method for managing vegetation structure and composition. However, in some cases, herbicides are a necessary to complement or replace prescribed fire in order to achieve desired conditions. It is Forest Service intent to limit herbicide use to situations where it is necessary to achieve desired conditions within acceptable timeframes. The Proposed Action includes the option for herbicide use for site preparation and release, understory restoration, and management of fire-inhibiting hardwood in upland longleaf pine stands. Do the Proposed Action and alternatives appropriately target herbicide use to situations where it is necessary? Is herbicide use constrained sufficiently to ensure acceptable environmental effects? 4. Road System The Conecuh National Forest has a long history of high open-road densities and recreation associated with these open roads. In addition, some roads have been maintained as open roads primarily to access private lands. Changes in Forest Service policy and reductions in road maintenance funding are requiring the Forest Service take a hard look at the minimum road system needed to maintain access for public use of the national forest. By policy, roads accessing private land should be managed as permitted private rights-of-way rather than open public roads. Do the Proposed Action and alternatives bring the road system in the project area into line with ~ 18 ~

23 policy and funding constraints, while providing public access for traditional recreational activities (primarily hunting)? 2.0 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes and compares alternatives considered for the Boggy Hollow Longleaf Pine Management Project. It presents the alternatives analyzed in detail in comparative form to provide a clear basis for choice by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the information is based upon the effects of implementing each alternative. 2.1 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail Alternative 1: No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Prescribed burning and treatment of non-native invasive species would continue. None of the actions listed under the Proposed Action would be implemented until a separate future analysis is conducted and decision made. Alternative 2: The Proposed Action Under this alternative, the Proposed Action as described in Chapter 1 would be implemented. 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail _ No Herbicide Alternative The No Herbicide Alternative was considered in response to concerns by some about the toxic effect of herbicides on non-target plants and animals. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because herbicides and methods included in the Proposed Action can be used with minimal and acceptable effects to non-target species. In addition, herbicides would be used under the Proposed Action on a limited number of acres and only where necessary to meet objectives within acceptable time frames. In response to public comments, description of herbicide use included in the Proposed Action has been made more specific to be clearer about when and where herbicides would be used (see Appendix D). No Road Closure Alternative The No Road Closure Alternative was considered in response to those concerned about changes in access to both public lands and adjacent private lands. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because closures included in the Proposed Action are for roads deemed redundant to roads retained as open, or are used primarily to access private land. National policy is to provide private land access through special use rights-of-way permits, not with roads open to the general public. Where needed, private rights-of-way will be considered and processed using special use policy. Affected landowners have been notified about proposed road closures as part of the Proposed Action. ~ 19 ~

24 Additional Forest Regeneration Alternative The Additional Forest Regeneration Alternative was considered as an option for making more progress in balancing forest-age class distribution across a 120-year rotation. This alternative was not analyzed in detail because the high densities of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project area constrain additional regeneration within Recovery Plan guidelines for providing foraging habitat. The Proposed Action includes sufficient regeneration to meet Forest Plan desired conditions. 2.3 Design Criteria A variety of project design criteria are included to reduce potential impacts of management actions on the environment. The following design criteria are forest-wide standards from the Forest Plan, included as part of the proposed action to provide for necessary levels of environmental protection or public safety. 1. Unless necessary for insect or disease control or to provide for public safety, den trees will not be intentionally felled during vegetation management treatments. (Forest-wide Standards 2 and 107) 2. When seeding temporary openings such as temporary roads, skid trails and log landings, use only native and non-persistent non-native species. (Forest-wide Standard 5) 3. Temporary roads will cross streams only on temporary bridges or low-water fords. Fords may be used only when stable channel conditions exist and downstream beneficial uses, including threatened and endangered species, are not jeopardized. Temporary bridges will be removed upon completion of use. (Forest-wide Standards 8 and 66) 4. Mechanical equipment is operated so that furrows and soil indentations are aligned on the contour (with grades under 5 percent). (Forest-wide Standard 15) 5. Mechanical equipment is not allowed in any defined stream channel except to cross at designated points, and may not expose more than 10% mineral soil in filter strips along lakes, perennial or intermittent springs and streams, wetlands, or water-source seeps. (Forest-wide Standard 17) 6. All trails, roads, ditches, and other improvements in the planning area are to be kept free of logs, slash, and debris. Any road, trail, ditch, or other improvement damaged by operations is promptly repaired. (Forest-wide Standard 18) 7. Weather is monitored and the herbicide project is suspended if temperature, humidity, or wind becomes unfavorable. (Forest-wide Standard 19) Table Error! No text of specified style in document..13 Limiting Weather Factors for Pesticide Application Treatment Type Temperatures Humidity Wind Speed Greater Higher Than Less Than Than (at target) Hand (cut surface) n/a n/a n/a Hand (other) ~ 20 ~

25 Mechanical (liquid) Mechanical (granular) n/a n/a A certified pesticide applicator supervises each Forest Service application crew and trains crew members in personal safety, proper handling and application of herbicide, and proper disposal of empty containers. (Forest-wide Standard 20) 9. Application equipment, empty herbicide containers, clothes worn during application, and skin are not cleaned in open water or wells. Mixing and cleaning water must come from a public water supply and be transported in separate labeled containers. (Forest-wide Standard 23) 10. Herbicide mixing, loading, or cleaning areas in the field are not located within 200 feet of private land, open water, or wells, or other sensitive areas. (Forest-wide Standard 25) 11. Herbicides and application methods are chosen to minimize risk to human and wildlife health and the environment. No class B, C, or D chemical may be used on any project, except with Regional Forester approval. Approval will be granted only if a site specific analysis shows that no other treatment would be effective and that all adverse health and environmental affects fully mitigated. Diesel oil will not be used as a carrier for herbicides, except as it may be a component of a formulated product when purchased from the manufacturer. Vegetable oils will be used as the carrier for herbicides when available and compatible with the application proposed. (Forest-wide Standard 27) 12. Herbicides are applied at the lowest rate effective in meeting project objectives and according to guidelines for protecting human and wildlife health. Application rate and work time must not exceed levels that pose an unacceptable level of risk to human or wildlife health. If the rate or exposure time being evaluated causes the Margin of Safety (MOS) or the Hazard Quotient (HQ) computed for a proposed treatment to fail to achieve the current Forest Service R-8 standard for acceptability (requires MOS>100 or an HQ <1 using the current SERA Risk Assessments found on the Forest Service website) additional risk management must be undertaken to reduce unacceptable risks to acceptable levels or an alternative method of treatment must be used. (Forest-wide Standard 28) 13. Nozzles that produce large droplets (mean droplet size of 50 microns or larger) or streams are used. Nozzles that produce fine droplets are used only for hand treatment where distance from nozzle to target does not exceed 8 feet. (Forest-wide Standard 29) 14. With the exception of permittee treatment of right-of-way corridors that are continuous into or out of private land and through Forest Service managed areas, no herbicide is broadcast within 100 feet of private land or 300 feet or private residence, unless landowner agrees to closer treatment. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can easily see and avoid them. (Forest-wide Standard 30) 15. With the exception of treatments designed to release designated vegetation selectively resistant to the herbicide proposed for use or to prepare sites for planting with such vegetation, no soil-active herbicide is applied within 30 feet of the dripline of non-target ~ 21 ~

26 vegetation specifically designated for retention (e.g. den trees, hardwood inclusions, adjacent untreated stands) within or next to the treated area. Side pruning is allowed, but movement of herbicide to the root systems of non-target plants must be avoided. Buffers are clearly marked before treatment so applicators can see and avoid them. (Forest-wide Standard 31) 16. Resource activities that may affect water quality will implement State Best Management Practices (BMPs) as a minimum to meet water quality objectives. Revised Forest Plan Standards that exceed State BMPs will take precedence. (Forest-wide Standard 39) 17. Soil disturbing activities (excluding roads and trails) will not take place on watersaturated soils. Standing water and puddling are evidence of a saturated condition. (Soil disturbing activities are not limited to timber harvesting.) (Forest-wide Standard 40) 18. Water control structures necessary for the control of surface water movement from disturbed sites will be constructed during or within two weeks following construction for temporary roads and within two weeks following the close out of the disturbing activity for skid trails. (Forest-wide Standard 43) 19. Timber harvesting activities are prohibited within sinkholes and within 200 feet of their defined boundary and within 200 feet of cave entrances. (Forest-wide Standard 48) 20. Herbicides will not be used within 200 feet of defined sinkhole boundaries. (Forest-wide Standard 49) 21. The maximum size of an opening created by even-aged or two-aged regeneration treatments is 80 acres for southern yellow pine types. These acreage limits do not apply to areas treated as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect or disease attack, or windstorm. Areas managed as permanent openings (e.g. meadows, pastures, food plots, rights-of-way, wood lands, savanna, and grasslands) are not subject to these standards and are not included in calculations of opening size, even when within or adjacent to created openings. (Forest-wide Standard 51) 22. Openings created by even-aged and two-aged regeneration treatments will be separated from each other by a minimum distance of 330 feet. Such openings may be clusters closer than 330 feet, as long as their combined acreage does not exceed the maximum opening size. An even-aged regeneration area will not long be considered an opening when the certified re-established stand has reached an age of 5 years. (Forest-wide Standard 52) 23. Regeneration harvests on lands suitable for timber production must be done under a regeneration harvest method where adequate stocking of desirable species is expected to occur within 5 years after the final harvest cut. A new stand of longleaf must meet the minimum stocking level of 400 trees per acre. (Forest-wide Standard 53) 24. Stream-side Management Zones (SMZs) will be established on both sides of any stream course that meets the following specifications: On all first and/or persistence of order stream courses that exhibit contiguous scour water (i.e. connected springs and seeps) On all second order or higher stream courses. ~ 22 ~

27 Minimum SMZs widths vary according to stream order. See table below. The SMZ can be extended beyond these minimum widths in response to special considerations. On stream courses that have a distinct bank or edge, the SMZ will start at the bank or edge. For braided streams, the SMZ starts where best professional judgment determines the edge of the outermost braid. On stream courses that do not have a distinct bank or edge, the SMZ will start at the approximate center of the stream course. (Forest-wide Standard 56) Table Error! No text of specified style in document..14 Conecuh National Forest SMZ Minimum Widths For Streams Stream Order Reserved Section (Feet) Special Section (Feet) Total (Feet) 1 Ephemeral Scoured Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial Mechanical equipment is not allowed in any scoured stream channel except to cross at designated points (Forest-wide Standard 62) 34. Remove treetops and logging debris dropped into a stream course or water body unless intended for fisheries habitat improvements and attainment of aquatic desired conditions. (Forest-wide Standard 63) 35. All sources of mineral soil exposure will not exceed 10% within the stream-side management zone except for hiking trails, fire lines, and designated crossings where mineral soil exposure will be kept to the minimum necessary to meet the management objectives and maintain desired future conditions. (Forest-wide Standard 64) 36. Temporary roads, skid trails, and plow lines are not permitted in a SMZ except at designated crossings. (Forest-wide Standard 65) 37. Ruts that are greater than 15 feet or that connect to a stream bank where water can flow into a stream will be smoothed to restore hydrology when conditions exist that does not result in further rutting. (Forest-wide Standard 67) 38. Log landings will be located outside the SMZs. (Forest-wide Standard 68) 39. All equipment used for harvesting operations, hauling operations or other work involving mechanical equipment will be serviced outside the riparian corridor and SMZs. (Forestwide Standard 69) 40. Aerial or ground applied treatments of pesticides will not be allowed in the riparian corridor/smz. Cut surface treatments of pesticides are allowed. (Forest-wide Standard 70) ~ 23 ~

28 41. On un-scoured ephemeral (order 1 and order 2) SMZs, aerial or ground applied treatments of pesticides or mechanical site preparation are not permitted within 15 feet, or each side, of the approximate center of the unscoured drain. Cut-surface treatments of pesticides are permitted. (Forest-wide Standard 74) 42. Limit restoration areas in off-site pine and pine hardwood stands to 80 acres in size. (Forest-wide Standard 90) 43. Retain on-site trees of highest importance to RCWs (very old, flat topped, potential cavity trees, and scarred old pines) regardless of Silvicultural system. (Forest-wide Standard 91) 44. The Forest Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) maps and the Scenic Integrity Objectives Table will govern all new projects. (Forest-wide Standard 145) 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives This section provides a summary of activities and effects of each alternative, displayed in two tables for easy comparison. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..15 Comparison of Alternatives: Management Actions Management Action (unit of measure)* Alternative 1: No Action Alternative 2: Proposed Action Mature pine thinning (acres) Young pine thinning (acres) Longleaf pine restoration (acres) Natural regeneration of longleaf pine (acres) 0 93 Uneven-aged management of longleaf pine (acres) 0 96 Potential site prep, manual or herbicide methods (acres) Potential site prep, mechanical method (acres) Potential release, manual or herbicide (acres) 310 Understory restoration, potential herbicide use (acres) 0 70 Hardwood management in upland pine stands, maximum potential (acres) Maximum likely herbicide use, all actions (acres) 0 < 570 Wildlife opening restoration and maintenance** (number of openings) (acres) Temporary road construction (miles) 0 < 2 Roads with no change in status (miles) Roads changed from open year-round to open seasonally (miles) Roads chanced from open year-round to closed (miles) New open year-round roads added to system 0.4 * Acres and miles are approximate. ** Wildlife opening maintenance is currently covered by a previous decision, and is being re-analyzed as part of the Proposed Action. Thus it shows under both alternatives. ~ 24 ~

29 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..16 Comparison of Alternatives: Environmental Effects Resource/Issue Alternative 1 No Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Vegetation: Within-stand structure Vegetation: Forest cover type diversity Vegetation: Forest age diversity Pine stands are unthinned and grow denser, reducing understory diversity and vigor. No change in forest cover types; off-site species occur where longleaf pine is better suited. Addition of acreage to early successional forest conditions is foregone; percent of area in early successional condition remains below Forest Plan desired conditions. ~ 25 ~ Pine stands are thinned, increasing growth and vigor of trees and understory plants. In regeneration stands, canopy is opened and composition managed to allow establishment of young longleaf pine to sustain this forest type on selected sites. Longleaf pine is restored to 121 acres currently occupied by offsite slash pine, loblolly pine, and hardwood. Longleaf pine restoration and regeneration areas add acres to early successional condition, meeting Forest Plan desired conditions for the next 10 years. Soil: Erosion No direct or indirect effects. Soil disturbing activities on 64 acres of severe erosion hazard soils; protective measures incorporated into proposal. Soil: Compaction No direct or indirect effects. Soil disturbing activities on 68 acres of severe compaction hazard soils; protective measures incorporated into proposal. Water: Sedimentation No direct or indirect effects. Cumulative effects model indicates slight elevation of sedimentation due to proposed actions; no adverse effects on downstream beneficial uses. Climate Change Wildlife: Management Indicator Species Wildlife: Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) Species Air Negligible effects to global climate change. Adaptation to changing climate not enhanced through restoration of longleaf pine and increasing forest growth and vigor. Negative effect to habitat in long term for 6 of 10 indicator species No effect on PETS species in short term; potential long-term negative effects to red-cockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise and terrestrial sensitive species due to foregone habitat improvements. No direct effects. Cumulative effects include smoke from Negligible effects to global climate change. Adaptation to changing climate enhanced through restoration of longleaf pine and increasing forest growth and vigor. Positive effect in short or long term for 7 of 10 indicator species No adverse effects on PETS species; positive effects to redcockaded woodpecker, gopher tortoise and potentially to terrestrial sensitive species from opening canopies and restoring longleaf pine. Negligible direct effects from equipment exhaust. Cumulative

30 Economics Resource/Issue Alternative 1 No Action prescribed burning, mitigated by smoke management measures. Roads and Recreation Heritage Resources Health and Herbicides Civil Rights and Environmental Justice No direct effects; economic benefits of natural resource use are foregone. No change to current road access; road maintenance costs not reduced. No effects because no soil disturbing activities would occur. No direct or indirect effects because no additional herbicide use is approved. Cumulatively, herbicide use would continue for invasive species control, but negligible risk is expected due to types, rates, and methods of application. No effects. Alternative 2 Proposed Action effects include smoke from prescribed burning, mitigated by smoke management measures. Vegetation management through timber sales and service contracts provides economic benefit to local citizens and communities. All primary road access maintained and one road added to maintain highly-roaded character. Road maintenance costs reduced through seasonal or permanent closure of roads that are redundant or little used. Walk-in access for turkey hunting and hiking improved by seasonal closures. No effects because all areas proposed for soil disturbance were surveyed and cleared through historic preservation process. Additional herbicide treatments increase the area treated, but direct, indirect, and cumulative risk is negligible due to types, rates, and methods of application. No adverse effects expected and potentially beneficial effects expected due to economic benefits of natural resource use and related jobs, which are available to all. ~ 26 ~

31 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic 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 the Section Vegetation Affected Environment Forest Composition Fourteen different forest types are found within the project area, including maintained wildlife openings (Table 3.1, Figure 3.1). Forest types are grouped into Communities and Major Habitat Groups to assist in describing and analyzing the current condition (Table 3.1, Figures 3.2 and 3.3). The majority of the project area is dominated by the Longleaf Pine forest type (70%). Table Error! No text of specified style in document..17 Abundance of Forest Types, Communities, and Major Habitat Groups within the Boggy Hollow Project Area. Major Forest Types Acres Percent Community Acres Percent Habitat Group Acres Percent Longleaf pine 4, Upland Longleaf Longleaf pinehardwood Pine Forests and Woodland Slash pine Wet Pine Forest, Woodlands and Savannas Bottomland hardwoodyellow pine Laurel oakwillow oak Sweetbayswamp tupelored maple River Floodplain Hardwood Forest Sweet gum-oak Loblolly pinehardwood Post oak-black < 0.1 Coastal Plain Upland Mesic Hardwood oak 4, Upland Longleaf Pine Wet Pine Forest Mesic Deciduous , , ~ 27 ~

32 Forest Types Acres Percent Community Acres Percent Yellow pine Southern red oak-yellow pine Dry and Dry- Mesic Oak-Pine Forest Scrub oak Dry and Xeric Oak Bear oaksouthern scrub oak-yellow pine Wildlife openings Xeric Pine and Pine-Oak Forest and Woodland Major Habitat Group Oak and Oak-Pine Pine and Pine-Oak Acres Percent Totals 6, , , ~ 28 ~

33 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..2 Distribution of Forest Types within the Boggy Hollow Project Area, Conecuh National Forest in ~ 29 ~

34 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..3 Distribution of Community Types within the Boggy Hollow Project Area, Conecuh National Forest in ~ 30 ~

35 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..4 Distribution of Major Habitat Types within the Boggy Hollow Project Area, Conecuh National Forest in Forest Age Diversity The majority of the forest found in the project area (70%) is older than 60 years regardless of forest type (Figure 3.4), including the most dominant forest type found in the project area, longleaf pine (Figure 3.5). No forests within the project area meet standards for classification as existing old growth. All River Floodplain Hardwood Forest (950 acres, or >14% of the project area) is classified as Potential Old Growth, with the exception of Stand 59/13 (8 acres), which is a small upland hardwood stand that is on a site suitable for longleaf pine restoration. These forests are classified as not suitable for timber management under the Forest Plan (page 2-40) and are expected to age and develop naturally toward old growth conditions. Potential old growth representation within the Upland Longleaf Pine community is provided by red-cockaded woodpecker cavity clusters and recruitment stands, which are unregulated for timber management and will be allowed to grow into old growth conditions. There are approximately 330 acres of upland longleaf pine forest under this classification, or approximately 7% of upland longleaf acres. ~ 31 ~

36 5,000 Current Condition: Successional Habitat Types Across All Forest Types (in Acres) 4,689 4,000 3,000 2,000 1, Regenerating Forest (0-10 years old) Young Forest (11-20 years old) 1,754 Mid-Succesional Forest (21-59 years old) Late Succesional (60 years and older) 35 Maintained Wildlife Openings Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..5 Age class diversity across all forest types found in the Boggy Hollow Project Area (in acres). Project area Longleaf pine stand age classes 3,500 3,000 3,157 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,192 1, Regenerating Forest (0-10 years old) Young Forest (11-20 years old) Mid- Succesional Forest (21-59 years old) Late Succesional (60 years and older) Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..6 Current age class distribution of longleaf pine forest type found in the Boggy Hollow Project Area (in acres). Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action alternative, there would be no change to forest cover types within the project area because no longleaf restoration conversion activities or other conversion activities would occur. Cumulatively, there is potential in the near future for restoring a recently acquired 40 acre tract of loblolly pine plantation to longleaf pine, but this activity has not been proposed or approved at this time. This activity, if implemented, would have marginal effect on forest cover type mix within the project area due to its small size and its maintenance in a pine type. ~ 32 ~

37 Currently there are 131 acres (2.8% of all pine forest types) of regenerating longleaf pine forest found in the project area. Developing more regenerating longleaf pine stands would not occur and this successional condition would remain below the desired range of 4% to 10% as described in the Forest Plan (page 3-36). Cumulatively, there is potential for 40 acres of regeneration within the project area from a recently acquired tract. This action, if it occurs, would have a marginal effect on age class distribution are no other past, present, or future actions that would increase acreage of regenerating forest. Mid-successional and mature pine forest would continue to grow and canopy densities would increase over time. This increase in tree density and leaf area would contribute to lower light levels reaching the forest floor and decreases in understory herbaceous development. Middle age pine stands would see an increase in tree mortality as stand density reach a point that all growing space is occupied (above and below ground) and overall tree vigor is reduced. The increase in standing dead trees represents a higher fuel loading and a greater likelihood of having a stand replacing crown fire. This scenario also provides plausible concern for increases in ladder fuels, southern pine beetle infestations, prolonged soil heating, and reduced soil productivity. Smoldering course woody debris has the potential to damage root systems and further degrade individual tree health and stand vigor. The ability to demonstrate and start the conversion process of going from an even-aged longleaf pine stand into an uneven age stand on 96 acres would not occur. Even-aged management would continue to be the only management strategy for longleaf pine stands found in the project area. Cumulatively, the continued use of prescribe fire under a previous decision would help in maintaining some open mature pine stands and assist in maintaining a herbaceous understory with very little hardwood midstory. However, this effect would be limited to the most xeric sites where soils nutrient levels and productivity are already suppressed. More productive sites would see an increase in shrub and hardwood development. The majority of the project area would quickly decreases in quality and quantity of open pine forest conditions as tree densities increased and these more productive sites saw a reduction in light levels reaching the forest floor. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Effects to Within-stand Vegetation Structure and Composition Natural Regeneration of Longleaf Pine After timber harvest, stands proposed for natural regeneration of longleaf pine would be very open and have direct sunlight reaching 70% or more of the forest floor. The few mature longleaf pine left behind would be scattered throughout the stand and widely spaced (roughly apart). The understory would be a mix of young longleaf pine, shrubs, saplings, grasses, and herbaceous plant species. In order to manage understory response to ensure development of longleaf pine regeneration two herbicide applications are proposed, if needed, during the first five years of the stand being developed. The first application would be a site preparation treatment in which some understory plants--mainly vines, saplings and shrubs--are treated with ~ 33 ~

38 herbicide in order to create ground conditions more conducive to successful germination of any longleaf pine seeds that fall. This herbicide application would focus on treating parts of the understory where longleaf pine seedlings were not already established and creating conditions more favorable to seedling development. The herbicide application method for the site preparation treatment will be either a directed foliar spraying and/or spot soil application. The likely active ingredient (a.i.) proposed for use in the site preparation treatment is hexazinone at a maximum application rate of 2.0 lbs. a.i./acre, although other options are included to ensure flexibility to apply the most effective treatment given future conditions. Between the two potential herbicide treatments there would likely be use of prescribed fire as part of the regular prescribed burning program (under previous decision). This prescribed fire would have two objectives: 1) it would provide reduction of logging slash and 2) would serve to further prepare sites for seed germination by reducing the leaf litter and allowing seeds to make direct contact with mineral soil. Having an understory dominated by grasses and other flash fuels is desirable as prescribed fire would continue to play an integral role in creating ground conditions that allow more seedlings to germinate, maintain vigorous growth in the established longleaf pine seedlings by reducing the occurrences of brown spot needle blight on young foliage, and by reducing competition by continually top-killing other understory vegetation. The second herbicide treatment would only be used if the release of the longleaf pine seedlings could not be accomplished with prescribe fire alone. In areas where longleaf pine seedlings are established, this herbicide treatment would focus on treating any surrounding vegetation that is overtopping or has the potential to overtake the newly developed seedlings. In many cases, hardwood saplings, shrubs, and vines have the competitive advantage of already having a developed root system compared to new longleaf pine seedlings. Application methods for this treatment would be stem injection, cut surface, and directed foliar spraying. The preferred herbicide for the release treatment is imazapyr (1.25 lbs. a.i./acre). However, on sites where certain desirable hardwood species have been identified as being reserved to meet other resource (scenic and wildlife) objectives, the use of triclopyr (1.25 lbs. a.i./acre) would be preferred. The effect to vegetation treated with herbicides is that during the growing season following treatment there will be dead and dying vegetation found in patches throughout the forest understory. This effect is short term, lasting less than two years before new plants capitalize on the open space created by the herbicide treatment. Naturally regenerated stands will have a range of ft 2 /acre of basal area of mature longleaf pine left in place to provide a continual input of longleaf pine seeds and needle cast for prescribed fire fuel. Many of these stands have a strong herbaceous and native grass understory that would benefit from the continued use of prescribe fire. Herbicide use maybe needed for site preparation and release treatments but most acres being regenerated in this manner will only need prescribed fire on a periodic basis to enhance seedling health, such as controlling brown spot needle blight. ~ 34 ~

39 Longleaf Pine Restoration (Artificial Regeneration) Longleaf pine restoration on sites occupied by off-site species would have an immediate effect on existing species composition and stand structure. A large portion (90%) of the canopy trees species would be removed. These sites have considerable variations in the amount of longleaf pine available for retention. Some stands (compartment 56 stand 16) have no longleaf pine currently found on the site while the other (compartment 57 stand 1) has scattered pockets of healthy mature longleaf pine that would be retained. Retaining health mature well-developed longleaf pine is part of the desired condition for these stands as to improve structural diversity, provide continual needle cast for better fuel/prescribed fire conditions, and to provide additional seedling development in the future. Proposed harvest would change the tree composition and stand structure by increasing the amount of young longleaf pine found on these sites and decreasing the amount of hardwoods and other southern yellow pine species found currently on these sites. These sites would be very open following treatment, having 90% or more direct sunlight reaching the forest floor. This direct sunlight is important for successful regeneration of longleaf pine seedlings, which are highly susceptible to root competition (Croker et al 1975). Some studies have shown that seedling growth under full pine or hardwood overstories averages only about half that achieved in the open (Boyer 1963a, 1976). Herbaceous understory development would increase over the first five years after the mechanical treatment due to the large amounts of space and sunlight now available. Initially these stands would have a large number of hardwood saplings and seedlings in the understory that would be released and may need to be controlled in order to allow the longleaf pine seedlings enough time to develop and compete. Site preparation treatments are designed to reduce this competition. Each site would be evaluated individually before and after the harvest treatment is conducted. Mechanical site preparation by roller drum chopping may be conducted on sites needing remedial treatment, where the hardwood densities are well established, trees have a large dbh (4 or greater) and height (5 or taller), and dense vegetation has impeded effective use of prescribed fire over time. Mechanical treatment would follow the herbicide treatment with the final site preparation treatment being a prescribe fire reduce the amount of woody debris generated and provide a good open surface for the tree planting to occur on. Within five years of tree planting, the site would be evaluated and a determination made on the need for an herbicide release treatment. Artificial regeneration sites would receive the same herbicide release treatment at the same application rates discussed for natural regeneration sites. Large patches of dead and dying vegetation would be evident for the first growing season following the herbicide treatment. These areas would be quickly invaded by other plant species and native plants would then dominant the site. Young Longleaf Pine Thinning On average, young pine stands proposed for thinning would see reductions in live basal area of about 50%. The average dbh for these stands is 7.5 with around 325 TPA. The proposed thinnings would leave around 160 TPA with an average spacing between leave trees of 17 feet. This average spacing is important because most logging equipment is between feet wide. ~ 35 ~

40 The proposed average spacing gives just enough room to operate logging equipment within the stand without damaging the residual trees. This spacing guideline is also because thinning too heavily would result in an understocked condition, diminishing the stand s long-term ability to produce a large number of mature longleaf pine for RCW habitat and future timber harvests. Other beneficial effects from the thinning include increased growing space and available resources for residual stand to increase vigor and provides resilience to many biotic and abiotic conditions (insect/disease outbreaks, stand replacing fires, wind firmness, and drought stress). Increased growth in residual stands decreases the time until these areas are suitable for RCW foraging. Understory conditions are less shaded and extends the benefits of free growing space and resources needed for herbaceous plant development and more conducive fuels lead to more effective prescribe burning conditions and better foraging habitat for RCW. Mature Pine Thinning Mature pine stands proposed for thinning are longleaf pine and slash pine stands over 50 years old with the average age of 75 years old. The range of basal areas is 65 to 100 ft 2 /acre. These stands have been thinned before and managed for RCW habitat. Past thinning, salvage harvest after large storms, and the long history of prescribed fire in the project area have resulted in little to no hardwood midstory and a fairly herbaceous understory in these stands. Proposed thinning is designed to remove a portion of the basal area (on average 1/3) in order to maintain an open canopy condition that will continue to provide high light levels reaching the forest floor. This condition would improve conditions that support RCW and gopher tortoise, increase pyrophytic ground cover that facilitates prescribed fire, and ultimately provide a high-quality, functioning, mature longleaf pine forest. Although not an objective of this treatment, this proposed action would release and enhance development of pockets of longleaf pine advanced regeneration. Some of these stands have longleaf pine in the understory in the grass stage of the lifecycle. Thinning around these regeneration groups will release the seedlings and initiate height growth. In areas where there currently is no longleaf pine regeneration in place providing the open canopy conditions and frequent use of fire will eventually aid in developing grass stage longleaf pine seedlings. as This advanced regeneration provides resiliency to change and allows more flexibility in the future such as managing for multi-aged stands, such as two-aged systems, group selection, individual/single tree selection, and modifications to the conventional shelterwood system of regeneration. Uneven-aged Management The stand proposed for management using uneven-aged methods would be thinned from a basal area of 80 ft 2 /acre to approximately 50 ft 2 /acre. This target basal area was chosen because it represents the average light conditions under which longleaf pine seedlings can become established, and herbaceous understory plant growth can flourish. It also provides enough forest ~ 36 ~

41 canopy and mature longleaf pines to provide new seed crops over the entire stand, and it provides key habitat components for maintaining high quality RCW foraging habitat. This stand would no longer go through an even-aged rotation with a starting and ending point. Instead the management regime would employ cutting cycles on a periodic entry (every years). The uneven-aged selection system works off the principle that continuous forest cover can be achieved in a regulated forest by never cutting more than the annual growth of the stand. The benefit of this approach is that after every harvest entry there is still a mix of tree sizes from the largest to the smallest diameter classes represented in the stand. This first cutting cycle will resemble a mature pine thinning, but over time as the younger longleaf pine seedlings grow into higher canopy positions the stand may resemble an irregular shelterwood, having pockets of regeneration interspersed with groups of mature longleaf pine. Herbicide use may be needed occasionally to prepare the site for longleaf pine regeneration or release it from hardwood competition. Effects to Forest Age Diversity Collectively, the proposed regeneration actions (regeneration of 214 acres of longleaf pine) would equates to roughly a 4% increase in early successional longleaf pine habitat, a 3% decrease in late seral southern yellow pine/slash pine habitat, and a 1% decrease in late seral upland hardwood habitat found in the project area. The first thinning and mature pine thinning proposed actions will not have any change to age class distribution. These stands will still be the same age they will just contribute to open pine acres and help decrease the amount of closed canopy pine acres found in the projects area. Figure 3.6 gives an overview of the projected changes to the age class distribution found within the project area if the proposed action was implemented. Based on the small change to age class distribution along with no spatial or temporal overlap of past, present, or reasonable foreseeable future vegetation management activities in the project area to see that the proposed actions do not have a cumulative effect on vegetation in the project area. The trend of the project area becoming an older forest will continue into the reasonably foreseeable future. The effects of small inputs of regeneration are transitory in nature and only last for a short time period (10 years) before contributing to older age classes. The other trend that will continue in the project area is that all young and regeneration forest acres will be longleaf pine and that hardwood stands will continue to mature and be classified as late successional. Cumulatively, an additional 40 acres of regenerating forest may be created in the next five years from recently acquired land. It would only contribute an additional 0.6% to the regenerating forest class. The amount of early successional habitat found in the project area would still be within the desired range of 4.0% - 8.3% described in the Forest Plan for the management prescription 8.D.1 Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Management Area (HMA) which the whole project area falls under. The number of acres classified as early successional would still be within the desired range of the Forest Plan, but that would only last over the next five years. ~ 37 ~

42 Mature pine forest will continue to be the most abundant structure type found over the next 10 years within the project area and the portions of the Conecuh National Forest that fall within the three 6 th level HUCs that contain the project area. 5,000 4,500 Changes in Age Class distribution based on the proposed actions over the next 10 years 4,6894,6114,654 4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,7541,7131,670 1,500 1, Regenerating Forest (0 - Young Forest ( years old) years old) Mid-Succesional Forest (21-59 years old) Late Succesional Forest (60 years and older) Maintained Wildlife Openings Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..7 Projected changes in project area age class distribution based on the proposed action over the next ten years. The first thinning and mature pine thinning proposed actions will not have any change to age class distribution. These stands will still be the same age they will just contribute to open pine acres and help decrease the amount of closed canopy pine acres found in the projects area. Figure 3.1 gives an overview of the projected changes to the age class distribution found within the project area if the proposed action was implemented This alternative would not negatively affect potential for restoration of representative old growth forest because areas currently classified as potential old growth are not proposed for regeneration harvest, and abundant acres would remain within the oldest age class of forest following implementation of the alternative. ~ 38 ~

43 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..18 Summary of Vegetation Effects Proposed Action Alternative 1 NO ACTION Mature Pine Thinning No thinning occurs. Mature stands become denser which decreases light levels reaching the forest floor, herbaceous development is reduced. Understory conditions favor shrub and woody plant development. Most natural regeneration of longleaf pine would remain suppressed. Overall a decrease in the effectiveness of prescribe fire use in the project area. Young Pine Thinning No thinning occurs. Pine stands continue to increase in density eventually leading to higher levels of tree mortality. Tree vigor is reduced leaving stands predisposed for insect and disease outbreaks and undesirable fire effect become more plausible. Understory conditions favor shrubs and woody plants while herbaceous plant development is reduced. Understory conditions become less conducive to effective prescribe fire use. Longleaf Pine Restoration No longleaf restoration or regenerating longleaf pine conditions would be developed. 121 acres of off-site pine and hardwood dominated stands occurring on soils more suitable for longleaf pine would remain. Forest plan direction on having 4.0% to 8.3% of the project area residing in regenerating forest would not be reached (2.8%). Age class diversity would not ~ 39 ~ Alternative 2 PROPOSED ACTION The canopy structure of these mature stands remains or increases into an open condition for at least ten years after treatment occurs. Herbaceous development flourishes and longleaf pine natural regeneration is mostly free to grow. Pyrophytic understory species expand in dominance across these stands which increase the effectiveness of prescribe fire in the project area. Thinning increases growing space and available resources for residual stand which increases individual tree vigor and provides resilience to many biotic and abiotic conditions (insect/disease outbreaks, stand replacing fires, and drought stress). Understory conditions are less shaded and extends the benefits of free growing space and resources needed for herbaceous plant development and more conducive fuels lead to more effective prescribe burning conditions. Longleaf pine restoration and development of regenerating longleaf pine forest would increase to 6.0% thereby; meeting the desired condition set forth in the Forest Plan for this project and prescription area. Longleaf pine age class diversity would be more balanced and reduce the number of off-site and hardwood dominant stands occurring on

44 Proposed Action Alternative 1 NO ACTION increase as more mature forest remained in place. This represents a reduction in habitat quality as longleaf adapted sites remain in another forest type. Natural Regeneration Longleaf Uneven-aged management Understory Restoration No longleaf regeneration treatments would occur. Longleaf age class diversity would not meet Forest Plan intent and remain under the desirable range. Longleaf pine advanced regeneration in place would continue to be suppressed providing more opportunities for mortality and less recruitment. The opportunity to incorporate uneven-aged management of longleaf pine into the project area would not occur. This would represent a loss to developing new strategies to manage for longleaf pine without using an even aged silviculture system. This stand would continue to mature most advanced longleaf pine regeneration would continue to be suppressed and not free to grow. This site would only receive periodic prescribe fire to improve understory conditions. This would yield marginal results and most likely would only improve understory conditions slightly over the next decade. This would represent a loss in the Conecuh National Forest ability to try innovative Alternative 2 PROPOSED ACTION soil more suitable for longleaf pine forest. A slight decrease (3%) in mature yellow pine and hardwood forest types found in the project area would occur as the percent of regenerating longleaf pine increases. Natural regeneration of longleaf pine would contribute to the overall balancing of age classes found in the project area. Longleaf pine regeneration would be released and free to grow. Mature longleaf pine decreases by 1% and regenerating longleaf pine increases by 1%. This would represent the first stand in the project area dedicated to uneven-aged management of longleaf pine. Longleaf pine would continue to be the dominant tree species found on this site. However, the distribution of age classes found in the stand would be much more diverse than surrounding longleaf pine stands. Large mature longleaf pine would dominant the site but still allow enough space for young longleaf pine to develop and prosper. Herbicide use would occur and reduce the amount of hardwood trees and shrubs occupying the understory. An increase in herbaceous plant life would occur and pyrophytic understory plants development would increase the effectiveness of prescribe fire on this site. This site would then be much more ~ 40 ~

45 Proposed Action Alternative 1 NO ACTION measures in restoring longleaf pine forest and the diverse understory flora they provide. Hardwood Management Hardwood trees found within the proposed actions would remain in place. Many of the larger hardwoods would not be killed by prescribe fire alone and would therefore continue to inhibit the effectiveness of fire on these longleaf dominant sites. Smaller hardwood trees would occasionally be top-killed by fire during dormant season prescribe burns but most have the capacity to vigorously sprout back. The only time hardwood species would most likely suffer from fire mortality would be during a growing season prescribe burn. This would represent a lost opportunity to provide meaning and context to hardwood management on the Conecuh National Forest. Generalization and treating of all hardwood species equally doesn t improve habitat or forest health conditions in a firedependent ecosystem such as longleaf pine. Alternative 2 PROPOSED ACTION conducive to restoring a new cohort of longleaf pine without intensive site preparation measures needed. Hardwood trees found within the proposed action sites would undergo a change in hardwood species composition and distribution. Hardwoods that facilitate the use of prescribe fire would increase or remain the same. While hardwood species that are fire inhibitors would decrease in abundance in these areas. A balance of hard mast and soft mast producing species would occur along with a better distribution of hardwood species based on soil conditions and site types. Hundreds of acres of bottomland and upland hardwood sites would still remain scattered throughout the project area since they are not part of this proposed action. This scenario would represent a more balanced approach to hardwood management found across the project area. 3.2 Soils Affected Environment The Boggy Hollow Project Area is within the Pine Hills land type association (PHLTA) of the Lower Southern Loam Hill Subsection of the Lower Coastal Plain and Flatwoods Section of the Outer Coastal Plain Mixed Forest Province (McNab & Avers 1994). This province is located in the Subtropical Division of the Humid Temperate Domain of North America (McNab & Avers ~ 41 ~

46 1994). The PHLTA formed from recent fluviomarine sediments consisting of sand and clay deposits dating back to the Miocene. All soils within this LTA and the project area are Paleudults made of sands and clays considered to be deep and low in natural fertility and organic matter. Soils range from acidic to very acidic, very poor to the opposite end for drainage, and slow to rapid variability for drainage and permeability (NFs AL Forest Plan, 2004). The landform consists of upland ridges with low relief, which historically was dominated by longleaf pine. Most of the project area supports second-growth timber that is predominately longleaf pine, and bay swamps, with minor coverage by slash pine and other native hardwood types. An Order 2 Soil Resource Inventory of the Conecuh National Forest at a 1:24,000 scale identified 24 soil map units consisting of 20 soil series along with their acreage within the proposed project boundary (Table 3.3). Inclusions of similar and dissimilar soils can be found within each of these map units. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..19 The soil map units, soil series, acreage, and hazards within the project area. Soil name (map unit #, slope %) Acres Hazards: Equipment Compaction Erosion BENNDALE (05, 2-5%) 6.2 slight slight slight BENNDALE (06, 5-8%) 15.8 slight slight slight MUCKALEE/BIBB/OSIER (10, 0-1%) severe slight slight BONIFAY (13, 0-5%) moderate slight slight BONIFAY (14, 5-10%) moderate slight slight COWARTS/DOTHAN (19, 2-5%) slight slight/moderate slight COWARTS/DOTHAN (20, 5-10%) slight slight moderate DOROVAN (24, 0-1%) 76.2 severe severe slight DOTHAN (26, 1-5%) slight slight slight ESCAMBIA (28, 0-3%) 4.8 moderate moderate slight ESTO (29, 2-8%) 73.3 slight moderate slight ESTO/DOTHAN/WAGRAM (31, 5-12% 46.0 slight/moderate moderate/slight moderate/severe FLORALA (32, 0-3%) moderate slight slight FUQUAY (34, 0-5%) moderate slight slight LUCY (42, 0-5%) 21.0 moderate slight slight LYNCHBURG (44, 0-2%) 14.9 moderate slight slight ORANGEBURG (47, 2-5%) 64.3 slight slight slight PLUMMER (50, 0-5%) 21.2 severe slight slight POARCH (52, 2-5%) 0.8 slight slight slight PONZER (53, 0-1%) 16.6 severe severe slight RAINS (54, 0-2%) 21.0 severe slight slight TROUP (63, 0-5%) moderate slight slight TROUP (64, 5-15%) moderate slight severe WAGRAM (66, 0-5%) 14.3 moderate slight slight Alternative 1 - No Action There would be no potential for any direct or indirect effects upon soil resources as a result of the implementation of this alternative because none of the proposed actions with potential to affect ~ 42 ~

47 soil productivity would be implemented. Cumulative effects from implementation of prescribed burning, and enhanced invasive species control, and other small scale land practices would continue to occur, maintaining baseline conditions for soil structure and nutrient cycling. Alternative 2 Proposed Action The potential risk for a reduction in soil productivity from this alternative is slight because very few acres with severe erosion or compaction hazard would be directly impacted by soildisturbing actions (timber sales and mechanical site prep) (Fig. 3.7 and Fig. 3.8), and standard mitigation measures included as part of the Proposed Action are effective at minimizing erosion and compaction. Soils in the proposed timber sale areas range from slight in erosion (1,750 acres, 83%), to moderate in erosion (310 acres, 14%), to severe in erosion (64 acres, 3%, Fig. 3.7). Soils with a severe soil erosion hazard rating are located on steep-side slopes. Soils in the proposed treatment area range from slight in compaction (1,930 acres, 91%), to moderate in compaction (120, acres, 6%), to severe in compaction (68 acres, 3%, Fig. 3.8). Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..8 Acres directly affected by soil disturbing activities in each soil erosion hazard rating class for the Boggy Hollow Project under Alternative 1 ( No Action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). ~ 43 ~

48 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..9 Acres directly affected by soil disturbing activities in each soil compaction hazard rating class for the Boggy Hollow Project under Alternative 1 ( No Action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). Monitoring of mechanized harvests and thinnings on the Conecuh National Forest, (2004, 2007, ) has found soil exposure off of roads and skid trails to be minimal and usually results from tire slippage and tree stem dragging. Soil erosion on these areas have been found to occur over short distances where soil is trapped by surface debris. Erosion rates and conditions would return to pre-harvest levels on these sites in less than two growing seasons. Area such as landings, temporary roads, and main skid trails would also be seeded or mulched before sale operations cease and limit erosion potential until native vegetation recovers and occupies these sites more permanently which would take approximately two growing seasons. Soil compaction would be reduced in these sites through proper implementation of stand layout and by performing best management practices during either dry soil moisture periods or dry seasonal periods. A good indicator of soil compaction is rutting from tires or tracks and is determined by the percentage of tire rutting. Monitoring of timber salvage from the effects of Hurricane Opal (1996) found soil compaction to be minimal on off roads and primary skid trails. Tire ruts were observed to compact soil an average of less than 6 inches and occurred over short distances, less than 100 feet. Tire rutting was over short distances as a result of enforcement of sale contract standard and guidelines. Soil compaction has been found to be the most detrimental on roads ~ 44 ~

49 and skid trails (primary and secondary trails). Thinning involves fewer passes with equipment, usually less than two, compared to even-age and uneven-age harvests. Thinning, besides involving fewer passes, uses less skid trails. Implementation of mitigating measures such as ripping/disking, fertilizing and revegetating, can reduce the effects of soil compaction by improving soil bulk density. Site preparation and the release treatments are the next contributing factors for potential soil erosion and compaction. The stands proposed for thinning would not receive a site preparation treatment since trees or direct seeding is not proposed for those sites. The stands proposed for regeneration would mostly likely receive an herbicide site preparation treatment, which would also have little to no direct soil erosion as soil disturbance is minimal. A study conducted in Georgia measured first year sediment yields from a herbicide (hexazinone) preparation treatment (Neary et al 1986). The results from this study showed a slight increase in average sediment yield for hexazinone-treated watersheds (170 kg/ha) compared to the natural sediment yield average for undisturbed forested watersheds in the south (100 kg/ha) (Neary et al 1986). In contrast, mechanical site preparation sediment yields can range from 8,000 to 15,000 kg/ha in similar forest and soil conditions (Neary 1989). The same can be said for the proposed release treatments as no mechanical equipment is proposed for this action and would be accomplished through herbicide use and hand tool operations. Soil compaction would also be negligible as backpack sprayers and hand tools would be the methods used in the site preparation and release treatments. Any rubber tired equipment used in support of these treatments would not be used off roads. Herbicide use may affect soil productivity through biotic impacts, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching (Veg. Mgmt FEIS volume 1, piv-90). Changes in soil organisms from herbicides are due more to physical than chemical effects (Mayack and others 1982). 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 indicating that the application of herbicides in southeastern United States forest management result in adverse effects on site and soil productivity, but when used as a silvicultural tool, it can increase soil productivity. Herbicides do not disturb the soil surface and 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. 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. The potential risk for cumulative effects of soil erosion and compaction on site productivity is slight for acres to be thinned or regenerated. The severe soils are primarily located within thinning sites. Ground disturbance is expected to be minimal. Mechanical site prep using a roller chopper is proposed as an option only on 121 acres for restoration of longleaf pine, where stands may contain high levels of undesirable woody vegetation (see Appendix D for choice of this method in context of other vegetation management ~ 45 ~

50 methods). Direct effects to soil erosion from this treatment would be limited in scope to these acres. Direct effects would be limited in intensity by the abundance of downed woody vegetation that traps moving sediment, and implementing treatments on the topographic contour. Direct effects to soil compaction from this treatment would be limited in scope to these acres. Direct effects on soil compaction would be limited in intensity by only operating under dry soil conditions, using a tracked machine for pulling the roller chopper, and the abundance of the abundance of woody vegetation that cushions soil contact. For road system changes, this alternative does not propose to construct official roads that would be added to the official Motor Vehicle Use Map and would use currently-existing roads. Temporary roads may be constructed, however they would be properly rehabilitated and closed following use. Soil erosion on these roads would be secondary as soil erosion would occur primarily on temporary roads that access stands and from primary and secondary skid trails. Soil productivity is reduced on skid trails primarily from the loss of organic matter and portions of the surface soil horizon. Proper road locations on a landscape, soil interpretations, and design level followed by placement of standards and guidelines for erosion, water control, and revegetation would result in acceptable soil erosion rates and would assist with restoration of site productivity. Use of existing road corridors would not result in increases in acreage taken out of productivity. An average of 10% of the land base is dedicated to transportation for management of resources. Monitoring of timber sale activities on the Conecuh, Oakmulgee, Shoal Creek, and Talladega Districts (1988, 1993, 1994, 2004, 2007, ) has shown that transportation development for silvicultural management is well within the 10% limits. 3.3 Water Quality Affected Environment The proposed management activities are located in three 6 th level HUCs or watersheds and two 5 th level HUCs. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management has designated the use of these watersheds as either: Fish and Wildlife; or Swimming, Fish and Wildlife. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..20 Affected Watersheds Within Project Area 6 th -level (12-digit) HUC 5th Order (10-digit) HUC ACRES FS owned (%) Big Horse Creek Yellow River Middle Yellow River 28, Blackwater Creek Upper Blackwater River 20, ~ 46 ~

51 6 th -level (12-digit) HUC 5th Order (10-digit) HUC ACRES FS owned (%) Middle Creek Upper Blackwater River 19, Activities by 6th order HUCs Acres Big Horse Creek-Yellow River (total) 80 Intermediate Thinning 30 Seed Tree Method 50 Blackwater Creek (total) 800 Clearcut with Reserves 40 Intermediate Thinning 445 Intermediate Thinning: First Thinning 150 Understory Restoration 70 Uneven Aged Thinning: Single Tree Selection 95 Middle Creek (total) 1280 Clearcut with Reserves 85 Intermediate Thinning 965 Intermediate Thinning: First Thinning 180 Seed Tree Method 3 Uneven Aged Thinning: Single Tree Selection 3 Uniform Shelterwood with Reserves 45 Total 2160 Figure Error! No text of specified style in document..10 Boggy Hollow Project Proposed Action Management Activities by 6th Level HUCs Alternative 1 - No Action There would be no potential for any direct or indirect effects upon soil resources as a result of the implementation of this alternative because none of the proposed actions with potential to affect soil productivity would be implemented. Cumulative effects from implementation of prescribed burning, and enhanced invasive species control, and other small scale land practices would continue to occur, maintaining baseline conditions for water yield and water quality. Some opportunities to improve watershed conditions and function through the implementation of watershed and road improvements projects as part of timber harvests would be forfeited. ~ 47 ~

52 Alternative 2 Proposed Action Potential direct effects from the Proposed Action that could affect water quality are: erosion, changes in ground cover condition, and changes in stand composition of streamside forest communities (Golden et al. 1984; Ursic 1991; Belt et al. 1992; Brown & Binkley 1994). Indirect effects could include sedimentation, changes in stream nutrient levels (particularly nitrates), increases in water yield, and changes in stream flow behavior (Golden et al. 1984; Brown & Binkley 1994). Temporary roads associated with the proposed silvicultural activities are also known to potentially affect water quality, water quantity, channel morphology, and downstream designated uses. State Best Management Practices as well as Forest-wide standards would be applied to these roads as mitigation measures. Up to two miles of temporary roads are proposed, with the recovery period being two years. Water pollution from herbicide applications can occur during storage, transportation, application, clean up and/or container disposal. Direct effects of herbicide application are potential chemical contamination of surface and ground waters (Michael and Neary 1993; VM EIS IV-103). Indirect effects are potential increases in sediment and water yield (VM EIS IV-103). Slight increases in stream nutrients, particularly nitrates (Neary et al. 1993), may also occur as an indirect effect. The Clingenpeel Cumulative Effects Model was used to assess effects of alternatives on water quality. This model uses sediment yield as an indicator of potential cumulative impacts to water quality and beneficial uses of streams. This model uses as inputs current land use, which includes agriculture, industrial and private timber production; management actions from Alternative 1 (No Action) and Alternative 2 (Proposed Action); and other influences. The model was run for the three effected 6 th level watersheds that include proposed actions. The results of the model indicate that there would be no significant increases in sediment yield over the current level as a result of the Proposed Action. There would be a period where sediment levels are slightly elevated about 7.5% for the Proposed Action. Sediment levels would begin increasing immediately upon implementation, peaking in 2017 and returning to the current rate by 2020 for the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would have acceptable increase in sedimentation and should fully support the downstream designated uses. The entire soil and water specialist report and modeling data are available by request and located in the project record. ~ 48 ~

53 3.4 Climate Change It is not currently possible to quantify the indirect effects of the Boggy Hollow project on global climate change due to the disparity of scales involved. Determining the significant effects of this project or its alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at this scale. While this project can help to offset or mitigate the effects of climate change by serving as a carbon sink, the ability to quantify this at this scale is not possible as well. With a changing climate this project will help to maintain resiliency of the longleaf pine ecosystem and maintain our priority goals within the context of The Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forests in Alabama. 3.5 Wildlife A full analysis of the Wildlife Resources is in the specialist s report, located in the project file of Appendix F. This section of the document summarizes the finding of that report. Management Indicator Species The Forest Service has collected population data for Management Indicator Species (MIS) as part of the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). To estimate the effects of each alternative, the RLRMP (36 CFR 219(a)(1)) identified certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the area as MIS (LRMP, Table 2-10, pg., 2-48). Population trends for all Forest MIS are monitored at the Forest Plan Level and reported annually in the M&E Report. Annual Forest-wide validation monitoring evaluates the cumulative effects of planned actions combined with past management actions on MIS populations and trends and provides a context for evaluating the effects of management on future MIS trends. The RLRMP states (2-48): MIS indicator species are to be selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities (36 CFR 219 (a) (1)). The MIS are to be used during planning to help compare effects of alternatives (36 CFR (a) (2)), and as a focus for monitoring (36 CFR (a) (6)). Affected Environment The habitats potentially affected by the proposed actions are mostly upland pine forests with varying amounts of shrubby Ilex (yaupon and gallberry) and herbaceous groundcover (composed of bluestems (Andropogon sp. and Schizachyrium scoparum), wiregrass (Aristida sp.) and various forbs and legumes). Bracken fern, wild muscadine and a variety of blueberries occur within the areas also. Part of the project area also includes mixed pine-hardwood forests. The long-term desired future condition for this proposed action is a restored longleaf pine/wiregrass ~ 49 ~

54 associated community on all longleaf sites for the benefit of endangered species and their associates. Species Considered and Evaluated Twelve species are currently listed as Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS). There are 10 MIS identified for the Conecuh National Forest (Table 3.5). Two species (scarlet tanager and brown-headed nuthatch) from the Forest MIS list were not selected because they are considered to be MIS species for the Bankhead, Talladega and Tuskegee National Forests and not the CNF. No aquatic communities or species are on the Forest MIS list. Please refer to the Forest Plan for more detail regarding these topics. Direct impacts to MIS individuals may include immediate consequences of refurbishing roads, temporary road construction, flushing individuals during surveying/marking activities, harvesting activities and/or release activities which could result in the crushing or harming of individuals within activity areas, but all individuals are mobile and no impacts are expected. Indirect impacts to individuals may include the consequences of management activities that could result in the modifications of habitat and ecological conditions that affect food, water, shelter and other life requirements for a species. This effects analysis tiers to the Forest-wide EIS and Forest Management Plan documents which provides detailed context for each species and their habitats across this region. ~ 50 ~

55 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..21 Management Indicator Species (MIS) list for Conecuh National Forest MIS White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) Northern bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) Eastern wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina) Acadian Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) Swainson s Warbler (Limnothlypis swainsonii) Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina) Habitat Altered or Created Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Direct/ Indirect Effects Yes/Yes Yes/Yes Yes/Yes No/Yes Yes/Yes No/Yes No/Yes No/Yes No/Yes No/Yes General Comments To help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species. To help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species. To help indicate management effects on meeting hunting demand for this species. To help indicate management effects to midand Late- successional pine and pine-oak forest. To help indicate management effects on creating and maintaining early successional forest (low elevation) communities and other early successional habitats. To help indicate management effects to snag dependent wildlife species. To help indicate management effects on wildlife species dependent upon mature forest interior conditions. To help indicate management effects within mature riparian forest community. To help indicate management effects within the earlysuccessional riparian forest community. To help indicate management effects on mesic deciduous forest and mesic oak and oak-pine forest communities. ~ 51 ~

56 WHITE-TAILED DEER Implementation of the No Action Alternative would temporarily continue to provide habitat for this species since a more mature and continuous forest would develop in the project area under this alternative. In the short term there would be little change. However, over time the canopy closure would reduce the understory plant diversity. The habitat quality for white-tailed deer would decline due to reduced herbaceous ground cover. The continued growth of the forest would result in fewer or lower quality foraging areas for this species. Therefore, the long term effect would be negative. No direct effects to any adults are expected as a result of activities of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile. There would be timber harvesting, site prep, and other activities that require the use of heavy equipment. There is a very minor chance for direct effects to very young fawns. Because the duration of time that young animals are vulnerable to impacts (not mobile) is very limited it is unlikely that direct effects would occur. However, it is still possible. The effects are considered minor for adults of this species since the proposed treatments would occur in relatively small area at any particular time thus allowing disturbed individuals to flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. Under the Proposed Action, nearly all of the pine forests would continue to mature in the project areas benefiting wildlife that requires this type of habitat. A total of 1,881 acres of pine would be thinned allowing more light to reach the understory improving the diversity and productivity of the understory plant community. This would have a slight positive effect on this species. The 214 acres of cuttings and 69 acres of understory restoration resulting in regeneration would temporarily increase the amount of early successional habitat often used by this species. In the short term, the early successional and early seral habitat created by regeneration would have a slight positive effect on this species. Long term, these areas would grow into part of the mature pine forest and which could still be used by this species. Overall, in the long term, there would be the same amount of habitat as exists currently and there would be no effect on this species. The proposed temporary road construction would not affect this species. The roads would be narrow, wind around trees and would be used for a short period of time. The establishment of these roads would not typically break up the canopy or cause edge or fragmentation of forest habitat. The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would have a short term slight negative effect on the white-tailed deer. This activity would occur as part of the proposed cuttings. The hardwoods are a small component of the forest. However, the total mast produced would be reduced. Therefore, there would be a slight negative effect from reducing hardwood density. In the long term, due to the conversion to fire adapted and fire tolerant hardwoods, the availability of mast should be more ~ 52 ~

57 reliable each year and the trees should be more productive. Therefore, there would be little change in the value of the habitat to the white-tailed deer in the long term. The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would have no effect on this species. These openings would continue to be maintained as they currently are. There would be no additional habitat created or additional benefit provided beyond what is currently available. The proposed changes to the road system would not affect this species. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. Overall, the No Action alternative would have little effect in the short term and a negative effect in the long term. The Proposed Action would have little effect in both the short and long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning and non-native plant control activities would help maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. The cumulative effects on the white-tailed deer would be slightly positive due to the healthy, invasive-free forest conditions. NORTHERN BOBWHITE QUAIL Implementation of the No Action Alternative would temporarily continue to provide habitat for this species since a more mature and continuous forest canopy would develop in the project area under this alternative. In the short term there would be little change. However, over time the canopy closure would reduce the understory plant diversity. The habitat quality for this species would decline due to reduced herbaceous ground cover and closed canopy. The continued growth of the forest would result in lower quality habitat for this species. Therefore, the long term effect would be negative. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected as a result of activities of the proposed Action since this species is mobile. There would be timber harvesting, site prep, and other activities that require the use of heavy equipment. There is a very minor chance for direct effects to baby birds still in the nest. Because the duration of time that nestlings are vulnerable to impacts (not mobile) is very limited it is unlikely that direct effects would occur. However, it is still possible. The effects are considered minor for adults of this species since the proposed treatments would occur in relatively small areas at any particular time thus allowing disturbed individuals to flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. Under the Proposed Action, nearly all of the pine forests would continue to mature in the project areas, benefiting wildlife that requires this type of habitat. A total of 1,881 acres of pine would be thinned allowing more light to reach the understory and improving the diversity and productivity of the understory plant community. This would have a positive effect on this species. The 214 acres of cuttings and 69 acres of understory restoration resulting in regeneration would temporarily increase the amount of early successional habitat often used by ~ 53 ~

58 this species. In the short term, the early seral habitat created by regeneration would have a positive effect on this species. Long term, these areas would grow into part of the mature pine forest which could still be used by this species, but would be of lower quality than early successional habitats. Overall, in the long term, there would be the same amount of habitat as exists currently and there would be no effect on this species. The proposed temporary road construction would not affect this species. The roads would be narrow, wind around trees and would be used for a short period of time. The establishment of these roads would not typically break up the canopy or cause edge or fragmentation of forest habitat. The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would have a slight negative effect on the northern bobwhite quail. This activity would occur as part of the proposed cuttings. The hardwoods are a small component of the forest. However, the total mast produced would be reduced. Therefore, there would be a slight negative effect from reducing hardwood density. In the long term, due to the conversion to fire adapted and fire tolerant hardwoods, the availability of mast should be more reliable each year and the trees should be more productive. Therefore, there would be little change in the value of the habitat to the northern bobwhite quail in the long term. The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would have no effect on this species. These openings would continue to be maintained as they currently are. There would be no additional habitat created or additional benefit provided beyond what is currently available. The proposed changes to the road system would not affect this species. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. Overall, the No Action alternative would have little effect in the short term and a negative effect in the long term. The Proposed Action would have a positive effect in the short term and a little change in the long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning and non-native plant control activities would help maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. The cumulative effects on the northern bobwhite quail would be slightly positive due to the healthy, invasive-free forest conditions. EASTERN WILD TURKEY Implementation of the No Action Alternative would temporarily continue to provide habitat for this species since a more mature and continuous forest canopy would develop in the project area under this alternative. In the short term there would be little change. However, over time the canopy closure would reduce the understory plant diversity. The habitat quality for eastern wild ~ 54 ~

59 turkey would decline due to reduced herbaceous ground cover. The continued growth of the forest would result in fewer or lower quality foraging areas for this species. Therefore, the long term effect would be slightly negative. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected as a result of activities of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile. There would be timber harvesting, site prep, and other activities that require the use of heavy equipment. There is a very minor chance for direct effects to baby birds still in the nest. Because the duration of time that nestlings are vulnerable to impacts (not mobile) is very limited it is unlikely that direct effects would occur. However, it is still possible. The improved quality of habitat resulting from the Proposed Action would benefit the species and offset any potential loss of a small number of individuals. The effects are considered minor for adults of this species since the proposed treatments would occur in relatively small area at any particular time thus allowing disturbed individuals to flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. Under the Proposed Action, nearly all of the pine forests would continue to mature in the project areas, benefiting wildlife that requires this type of habitat. A total of 1,881 acres of pine would be thinned allowing more light to reach the understory improving the diversity and productivity of the understory plant community. This would have a slight positive effect on this species. The 214 acres of cuttings and 69 acres of understory restoration that would result in regeneration would temporarily increase the amount of early seral habitat often used by this species. In the short term, the early seral habitat created by regeneration would have a slight positive effect on this species. Long term, these areas would grow into part of the mature pine forest which could still be used by this species, but would be of lower quality than early successional habitats. Overall, in the long term, there would be the same amount of habitat as exists currently and there would be no effect on this species. The proposed temporary road construction would not affect this species. The roads would be narrow, wind around trees and would be used for a short period of time. The establishment of these roads would not typically break up the canopy or cause edge or fragmentation of forest habitat. The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would have a slight negative effect on the eastern wild turkey. This activity would occur as part of the proposed cuttings. The hardwoods are a small component of the forest. However, the total mast produced would be reduced. Therefore, there would be a slight negative effect from reducing hardwood density. In the long term, due to the conversion to fire adapted and fire tolerant hardwoods, the availability of mast should be more reliable each year and the trees should be more productive. Therefore, there would be little change in the value of the habitat to the eastern wild turkey in the long term. ~ 55 ~

60 The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would have no effect on this species. These openings would continue to be maintained as they currently are. There would be no additional habitat created or additional benefit provided beyond what is currently available. The proposed changes to the road system would not affect this species. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. Overall, the No Action alternative would have little effect in the short term and a slight negative effect in the long term. The Proposed Action would have little change in both the short and long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning and non-native plant control activities would help maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. The cumulative effects on the eastern wild turkey would be slightly positive due to the healthy, invasive-free forest conditions. RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER Under the No Action Alternative, the project areas would continue to mature, temporarily benefiting this species. Over 1,800 acres of longleaf pine within the project area are currently nearly too dense to be high quality foraging or nesting habitat for red-cockaded woodpeckers. In the short term, the habitats are expected to continue to provide for the foraging and nesting needs of this species. However, the quality of this habitat would decline over time as density of the mature pine forest and midstory increases. These dense midstory and closed canopy mature pine forests would become unsuitable for use by the red-cockaded woodpecker and other species dependent on mid to late successional forest habitats. The understory plant community would become less diverse and sparse. The short term effect of the No Action alternative would be no change. The long term effect of the No Action alternative would be negative. No direct effects to this species are expected as a result of activities of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile and nests in cavities high in trees. In addition, the proposed treatments would occur outside of breeding season. Under the Proposed Action, nearly all of the pine forests would continue to mature in the project areas, benefiting wildlife that requires these types of habitat. The proposed action would increase habitat quality for those species that use late successional open pine forests such as the red-cockaded woodpecker. A total of 1,785 acres of pine would be thinned to densities most beneficial to the red-cockaded woodpecker. This habitat would continue to mature and remain in mid or late successional habitat in the short and long term. The 214 acres of preparatory cutting and regeneration would temporarily reduce the amount of mid to late successional habitat in the short term. These areas would eventually mature into mid then late successional longleaf pine ~ 56 ~

61 forests and benefit the red-cockaded woodpecker and other late successional dependent species. The conversion to longleaf forest would be an added benefit. In the short term, a small amount of non-longleaf mid to late successional habitat would be lost resulting in a slight negative effect. However, the effect of the long term conversion to mid to late successional longleaf pine would be positive. The thinning of 96 acres to establish an uneven aged managed forest would have little effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker or other species using mid to late successional habitat. This habitat would be of limited value to the red-cockaded woodpecker in the short and long term. The proposed restoration of 69 acres of understory would have little short term effects on this species. It is currently not mid to late successional habitat. In the short term it would continue to not be useful to the red-cockaded woodpecker. Eventually, the understory would be restored and the longleaf pine would mature into mid then late successional habitat to the benefit of this species. This Proposed Action would have little short term effect and a positive long term effect. The proposed temporary road construction would not affect this species. The roads would be narrow, wind around trees and would be used for a short period of time. The establishment of these roads would not typically break up the canopy or cause edge or fragmentation of mid to late successional forest habitat. The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would benefit red-cockaded woodpeckers. The activities would enhance the quality of mid to late successional habitat. The removal of fire-inhibiting hardwood species would allow fire to more effectively manage the quality of the understory plants and maintain their diversity. It would also prevent woody midstory encroachment and overexpansion of fire inhibiting hardwood inclusions into the longleaf pine forest. The short and long term effects of this would be positive. The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would have no effect on this species. Wildlife openings are early successional habitat. Therefore, this species would not likely use this habitat. The proposed changes to the road system would not affect this species. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. Overall, the No Action alternative would have no effect in the short term and a negative effect in the long term. The Proposed Action would have little effect in the short term and a positive effect in the long term. ~ 57 ~

62 Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning would enhance the effect of forest thinning in improving diversity and productivity of the understory, thereby further increasing habitat quality for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Similarly, non-native plant control activities would help ensure productive native understories are in place. Therefore, cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and other ongoing actions in the project area are expected to be positive. PRAIRIE WARBLER Habitat for this MIS would not be created or enhanced under the No Action Alternative. Prairie warblers use open, early successional habitats. The No Action alternative would allow existing early successional habitats to degrade over time due to the continued progression toward latesuccessional forest. Overall, the No Action alternative would have no effect in the short term and a negative effect in the long term as early successional habitats are lost. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected as a result of activities of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile. There would be timber harvesting, site prep, and other activities that require the use of heavy equipment. There is a very minor chance for direct effects to baby birds still in the nest. Because the duration of time that nestlings are vulnerable to impacts (not mobile) is very limited it is unlikely that direct effects would occur. However, it is still possible. The effects are considered minor for adults of this species since the proposed treatments would occur in relatively small area at any particular time thus allowing disturbed individuals to flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. Implementation of the Proposed Action would provide additional habitat for this species. The 214 acres of cuttings and 69 acres of understory restoration resulting in regeneration would temporarily increase the amount of high quality habitat for prairie warblers. In the short term, the regeneration would have a positive effect on this species. Long term, these areas would grow into part of the mature pine forest and this area would no longer be suitable habitat. Overall, in the long term, there would be the same amount of habitat as exists currently and there would be no effect on this species. The proposed 1,881 acres of thinning cuts have no effect since it would not change early successional habitats. The proposed temporary road construction and reduction of hardwood species density would not affect this species. The activities would not create or destroy early successional habitat. The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would have no effect on prairie warblers. The activities would not create or destroy early successional habitat. ~ 58 ~

63 The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would have no effect on this species. Wildlife openings are early successional habitat. However, they are small in size and occur infrequently throughout the landscape. In addition, prairie warblers tend to avoid forest edges which are present at nearly all wildlife openings. Further, the management of these openings will continue as they currently managed with no increase or decrease in habitat available. The proposed changes to the road system would not affect this species. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. Overall, the No Action alternative would have no effect in the short term and a negative effect in the long term. The Proposed Action would have a positive effect in the short term and little change in the long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning and non-native plant control activities would help maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. The cumulative effects on the prairie warblers would be slightly positive due to the healthy, invasive-free forest conditions. PILEATED WOODPECKER Under the No Action Alternative, the forests in the project areas would continue to mature. Snags would continue to be present and sustaining the current populations levels of pileated woodpeckers. In the short term there would be no change. Long term, the areas of the project with dense young pine would become overly dense and likely their growth would be slowed. Their use by this species would likely become less over time. The long term effect would be slightly negative. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected as a result of activities of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile and nests in cavities high in dead trees. There would be timber harvesting, site prep, and other activities that require the use of heavy equipment. There is a very minor chance for direct effects to baby birds still in the nest cavity. Because the duration of time that nestlings are vulnerable to impacts (not mobile) is very limited it is unlikely that direct effects would occur. However, it is still possible. The effects are considered minor for adults of this species since the proposed treatments would occur in relatively small area at any particular time thus allowing disturbed individuals to flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. Implementation of the Proposed Action would continue to provide foraging habitat for this species. The Proposed 1,881 acres of thinning cuts would allow trees in these pine forests to continue to grow larger which would provide more large trees, a preferred foraging habitat. The coarse woody debris and stumps resulting from these cuttings would also temporarily increase the amount and quality of foraging habitat available to this species. The 214 acres of cuttings ~ 59 ~

64 resulting in regeneration would temporarily reduce the amount of foraging habitat. Long term, these areas would grow into part of the large contiguous mature pine forest within the project area. Overall, the short and long term effects of these proposed activities would be both positive. The proposed restoration of 69 acres of understory would have little short term effects on this species. It is currently low quality pileated woodpecker foraging habitat. Few trees or snags are present in this area. Long term, this area would grow into a mature longleaf pine forest which would include some component of dead standing and down trees. It would at that time provide additional quality habitat for this species as part of the contiguous pine forest in the project area. The proposed temporary road construction would not affect this species. The roads are narrow, wind around trees and are used for a short period of time. The establishment of these roads would not typically break up the canopy or cause edge or fragmentation of the forest habitat. The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would have little effect on the pileated woodpecker. This activity would occur as part of the proposed cuttings. The hardwoods are a small component of the forest and overall tree density would not change where hardwoods are removed. In areas where the harvest of hardwoods is not commercially viable, they would be converted to snags. This would have a short term slight positive effect on the pileated woodpecker as these snags are temporarily available for use. Long term, the reduction of hardwoods would have no effect on the pileated woodpecker. The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would not affect this species. There are no snags within these openings and few near them. There is a possibility that a snag may be removed if it represents a safety hazard to the management of the opening. However, the downed snag would continue to be foraging habitat for the pileated woodpecker. The proposed changes to the road system would not effect this species. There is a possibility that a snag may be removed if it represents a safety hazard to the road traffic. However, the downed snag would continue to be foraging habitat for the pileated woodpecker. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. There would be no effect to this species. Overall, the No Action alternative would have no effect in the short term and a slight negative effect in the long term. The Proposed Action would have a positive effect in both the short and long term. ~ 60 ~

65 Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning and non-native plant control activities would help maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. The cumulative effects on the pileated woodpeckers would be slightly positive due to the healthy, invasive-free forest conditions. WOOD THRUSH Under the No Action Alternative, the forests in the project areas would continue to mature and would provide the wood thrush and other species that require mature forest habitats. Both short and long term effects would be little change since no additional habitat would be created. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected as a result of activities of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile and can flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. There would be timber harvesting, site prep, and other activities that require the use of heavy equipment. There is a very minor chance for direct effects to baby birds still in the nest. Because the duration of time that nestlings are vulnerable to impacts (not mobile) is very limited it is unlikely that direct effects would occur. However, it is still possible. The effects are considered minor for adults of this species since the proposed treatments would occur in relatively small area at any particular time thus allowing disturbed individuals to flee to nearby cover for temporary refuge. This species is sensitive to habitat fragmentation. Large tracts of contiguous forest are as important as the type of habitat for this species. The proposed 1,881 acres of thinning cuts in the pine forest would continue to maintain forest continuity and not reduce habitat availability for this species. The proposed pine regeneration areas would reduce the amount of interior mature forest habitat. However, this involves only 214 acres, most of which occurs along the forest boundary where the adjacent land may not provide suitable habitat. In addition, there would be a temporary benefit to post-fledge dispersing juveniles who prefer the early to mid-successional forests the regeneration sites would provide. These areas would eventually grow into and be managed as mature pine forests. This would result in both positive and negative short term effects due to changes in habitat. There would be positive effects in the long term due to gain of higher quality, contiguous habitat. The proposed restoration of 69 acres of understory would have little short term effects on this species. A small number of juveniles may use this habitat and would benefit in the short term. Long term, this area would grow into a mature longleaf pine forest and provide additional habitat for the wood thrush and other interior forest species. The long term effect is slightly positive. The proposed temporary road construction would not affect this species. The roads are narrow, wind around trees and are used for a short period of time. The establishment of these roads would not typically break up the canopy or cause edge or fragmentation of interior forest habitat. ~ 61 ~

66 The proposed reduction of hardwood density and change in species composition to favor hardwoods that facilitate fire would have little effect on the wood thrush. This activity would occur as part of the proposed cuttings. The hardwoods are a small component of the forest and overall tree density would not change where hardwoods are removed. Therefore, there would be no effect on the wood thrush and other interior forest species. The proposed continued maintenance of wildlife openings would not effect this species. Some juveniles could use these areas. However, they are small in size and occur infrequently throughout the landscape. In addition, no change in the management of these areas would occur. The proposed changes to the road system would not affect this species. No new roads would be created and no habitat loss or fragmentation would occur. Overall, the No Action alternative would have no effect in the short and long term. The Proposed Action would have no change in the short term and a positive effect in the long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning would enhance the effect of forest thinning and help maintain a healthy mature forest. Similarly, non-native plant control activities would help ensure invasive species do not infest the forest. Therefore, cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and other ongoing actions in the project area are expected to be positive due to maintaining contiguous upland pine forests. ACADIAN FLYCATCHER The implementation of the No Action alternative would continue to allow riparian habitats to mature. There is no expected change in the amount of habitat available from the No Action alternative. Therefore, there would be no short and long term effects to this species. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile and inhabits riparian areas. The implementation of the Proposed Action would not affect this species. The Proposed Action would not be occurring in this habitat type. However, there could be some slight increase in early successional riparian habitat creation from the Proposed Actions. Thinnings and clearcuts occurring near the riparian areas could temporarily increase light reaching the edges of the riparian areas which might temporarily increase in the amount or quality of early successional riparian habitat along the edges. This effect would be highly variable depending on site conditions and overall would likely affect only a small area. Disturbance from road traffic near a few riparian areas may be reduced due to road closure or season restrictions. The Riparian forests, in general, would continue to mature under the Proposed Action as it would under the No Action Alternative. ~ 62 ~

67 All ten Proposed Actions would occur outside of riparian habitat. Therefore, except as described above, these actions would have no effect on the Acadian flycatcher or other species associated with riparian habitat and no measurable change in the riparian habitat would result from any of the Proposed Actions. Overall, the No Action alternative and the Proposed Action would have no effect in the short and long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning would enhance the effect of upland forest thinning in improving diversity and productivity of the upland understory. The use of fire would also likely carry from the uplands a small distance into riparian areas helping set back plant succession. This effect is likely small and would be highly variable dependent on weather conditions during burning. The creation or maintenance of these intermittent, small areas of early successional riparian habitat along the edges would not likely be detrimental to this species since it is intermittent in occurrence and would not reduce available mature riparian forest. Non-native plant control activities, although generally occurring outside riparian areas, would help prevent infestation of riparian habitat. Therefore, cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and other ongoing actions in the project area are expected to be slightly positive. SWAINSON S WARBLER The implementation of the No Action alternative would have little or no impact on this species which inhabits early successional riparian forest on CNF. There is no expected change in the amount of habitat available from the No Action alternative in the short or long term. No direct effects to any adults of this species are expected from the implementation of the Proposed Action since this species is mobile and typically nests in or near riparian areas. The implementation of the Proposed Action would not provide much benefit the species that inhabit early successional riparian forest. The Proposed Action would not be occurring in this habitat. However, there could be some slight benefits from the Proposed Actions occurring near riparian habitat. Thinnings and clearcuts occurring near the riparian areas could temporarily increase light reaching the edges of the riparian areas which might temporarily expand the amount of early successional riparian habitat along the edges. This effect would be highly variable depending on site conditions and overall would likely affect only a small area. In the short and long term, this increased habitat would have a slight positive effect on this species. Disturbance from road traffic near a few riparian areas may be reduced due to road closure or season restrictions. The Riparian forests, in general, would continue to mature under the Proposed Action as it would under the No Action Alternative. All ten Proposed Actions would occur outside of riparian habitat. Therefore, except as described above, these actions would have little or no effect on the Swainson s warbler or other species ~ 63 ~

68 associated with riparian habitat and no measurable change in the riparian habitat would result from any of the Proposed Actions. Overall, the No Action alternative would have no effect in the short and long term. The Proposed Action would have a slight positive effect in both the short and long term. Cumulatively, ongoing prescribed burning would enhance the effect of upland forest thinning in improving diversity and productivity of the upland understory. The use of fire would also likely carry from the uplands a small distance into riparian areas helping set back plant succession. This effect is likely small and would be highly variable dependent on weather conditions during burning. The creation or maintenance of these small areas of early successional riparian habitat would benefit Swainson s warbler. Similarly, non-native plant control activities, although generally occurring outside riparian areas, would help prevent infestation of riparian habitat. Therefore, cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and other ongoing actions in the project area are expected to be slightly positive. HOODED WARBLER Based on the analysis in the FEIS supporting the RLRMP and due to the occurrence of this species associated with riparian habitats on the CNF, the effects indicated by this species is duplicative of the two MIS for riparian habitats. Indications of the effects on habitats associated with this species can be found in the Acadian flycatcher and/or Swainson s warbler analyses. ~ 64 ~

69 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..22 Expected Effects of Management Actions to MIS on the Conecuh National Forest. MIS NO ACTION PROPOSED ACTION White-tailed deer Short-term = = Long-term - - = Northern bobwhite quail Short-term = + + Long-term - - = Eastern wild turkey Short-term = = Long-term - = Red-cockaded woodpecker Short-term = = Long-term Prairie warbler Short-term = ++ Long-term - - = Pileated woodpecker Short-term = ++ Long-term - ++ Wood thrush Short-term = = Long-term = ++ Acadian flycatcher Short-term = = Long-term = = Swainson s warbler Short-term = + Long-term = + Hooded warbler Short-term = + Long-term = negative, - slightly negative, = little change, + slightly positive, + + positive Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) Species Several Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) plant and animal species occur throughout the Conecuh NF. Wildlife habitat within the Conecuh NF consists of longleaf pine stands of varying ages, hardwood inclusions, some open habitats and wildlife openings. Several understory species associated with the district are important sources of food and cover for wildlife and also provide nesting habitat for some species. For additional information and ~ 65 ~

70 descriptions of affected environment for PETS species and associated habitats see the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, National Forests of Alabama (Forest Plan). A Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) were prepared to determine whether the Proposed Action is likely to affect any PETS species. These documents are included in the project record. All PETS species designated for the Conecuh National Forest were considered for the BA and BE. These include 16 species that are proposed, Endangered, or threatened (Table X) and 69 sensitive species. Using a step-down process, species and potential habitat in the project area were identified by: evaluating the location and nature of the proposed project, considering the species range, life history, and available habitat information, reviewing district records of known PETS species occurrences, and reviewing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Distribution Records of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern. The BA and BE contain all relevant information regarding determinations made for each species. The USFWS concurred with the determinations in the BA on September 14, In summary, BA and BE determinations were: Proposed, Threatened or Endangered Species: A no effect finding was the determination for all PET species discussed in the BA/BE except for the RCW, and gopher tortoise, because they were either not present in the project area or habitat was not affected. A determination of not likely to adversely affect was made for red-cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise, because proposed actions include protective measures to avoid harming individuals and affects to habitat would be beneficial. Regional Forester s Sensitive Species: A no impact finding was the determination for all aquatic/riparian/wetland species, because these habitats are not affected by proposed actions. A determination of may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability was made for all terrestrial species, because individuals may be directly affected, but scope and scale of this impact is small relative to populations and potential habitat, and, in most cases effects to habitat would be beneficial. ~ 66 ~

71 Table Error! No text of specified style in document..23 Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species considered and evaluated for Boggy Hollow Project environmental analysis. Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species, Conecuh National Forest Common Name Scientific Name Status Taxa Community Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered Bird Upland Pine Wood stork Mycteria americana Endangered Bird Swamps Flatwoods salamander Amybstoma cingulatum Threatened Amphibian Flatwoods w/ponds Gulf sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Threatened Fish Rivers, Large Streams Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon couperi Threatened Reptile Sandhills Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Endangered Plant Bottomland Hardwoods Louisiana quillwort Isoetes louisianensis Endangered Plant Sand bars (streams) Red Hills salamander Phaeognathus hubrichti Threatened Amphibian Tallahatta formation ravines Alabama shad Alosa alabamae Proposed Fish Rivers Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Candidate Reptile Sandhills Southern kidneyshell Ptychobranchus jonesi Endangered Mussel Rivers, Streams Choctaw bean Villosa choctawensis Endangered Mussel Rivers, Streams Tapered pigtoe Fusconaia burkei Threatened Mussel Rivers, Streams Narrow pigtoe Fusconaia escambia Threatened Mussel Rivers, Streams Southern sandshell Hamiota australis Threatened Mussel Rivers, Streams Fuzzy pigtoe Pleurobema strodeanum Threatened Mussel Rivers, Streams ~ 67 ~

72 3.6 Air Alternative 1 - No Action The No Action alternative would not contribute directly or indirectly to effects on air quality because no activities would occur. Cumulatively, ongoing implementation of prescribed burning would impact short-term local air quality due to smoke. This local effect, and dispersion of particulate matter at larger scales, are managed to avoid acute adverse effects through sitespecific burn planning and adherence to prescribed weather parameters that ensure adequate smoke dispersal. Prescribed burning and its impacts were analyzed previously in support of a separate decision. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The Proposed Action would contribute directly to effects on air quality only marginally and locally through exhaust from logging and other equipment used during implementation. As with the No Action alternative, cumulatively, ongoing implementation of prescribed burning in the project area would impact short-term local air quality due to smoke. This local effect, and dispersion of particulate matter at larger scales, are managed to avoid acute adverse effects through site-specific burn planning and adherence to prescribed weather parameters that ensure adequate smoke dispersal. Prescribed burning and its impacts were analyzed previously in support of a separate decision. 3.7 Economics Affected Environment This economic analysis focuses on general economic differences between the Proposed Action and the No Action alternative. The analysis considers only variable costs associated with the alternatives. Fixed costs such as general administration and program management do not change among alternatives; therefore, they are not included in the analysis. Alternative 1 No Action No costs or revenues would be realized under the No Action alternative. Overstocked and over mature pine stands would continue to have high mortality attributed to pine beetles, senescence and competition related mortality. Wood products not harvested and lost growth would be revenue foregone under this alternative. There would be minor impacts on local mills because national forest timber constitutes a small portion of local timber supplies. An indirect effect of the No Action alternative would be the loss of long-term economic potential of pine stands. Pine stands would eventually be replaced with low quality hardwoods that ~ 68 ~

73 generally have low economic value. Cumulatively, impacts of this alternative when added to past, present and foreseeable projects would result in a net positive cumulative economic benefit as past, present and foreseeable projects would offset the losses related to this alternative. Economic opportunities related to employment, contracts, material and supplies on federal and private lands would continue. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, costs considered in the economic analysis include reforestation costs including chemical site preparation, planting, survival and stocking surveys. The revenues considered include the stumpage value of the timber removed (Table 3.8). Based on the past timber sales on the Conecuh National Forest, the revenue generated by the timber harvested within the proposed action will gain a positive net present value for the project. Collections from the timber revenues, will cover required reforestation costs as well as returns to the county and the national treasury (Table 3.9). Additionally, proposed actions will result in economic returns to the local economy via contracts, materials and supplies. Table Error! No text of specified style in document..24 Estimated stumpage value of potential forest products if Proposed Action is implemented. Species Group Product Estimated Volume (CCF) *Estimated Product Value ($/CCF) Estimated Product Revenue Totals Southern Yellow Pine Saw timber 8,500 $79.54 $676, Hardwood Saw timber 150 $49.90 $7, Softwood Pulpwood 3,400 $48.38 $164, Hardwood Pulpwood 325 $36.46 $11, *Estimated product value is based on FY17 1 st Quarter base prices for the Conecuh NF. Total Revenue $859, Table Error! No text of specified style in document..25 Estimated Cost for implementing proposed action. Proposed Action Activity Estimated Cost Reforestation cost for 93 acres of natural regeneration ($300/acre). $27, Reforestation cost for 121 acres of artificial regeneration ($500/acre). $60, Understory restoration cost on 70 acres ($100/acre). $7, Release work on 96 acres of uneven aged management ($125/acre). $12, Total cost* $107, *Cost based on 2016 Conecuh NF service contracts and current reforestation plans on similar projects. Cumulatively, impacts of this alternative when added to past, present and foreseeable projects would result in a net positive cumulative economic benefit. The proceeds from this alternative when added to past, present and foreseeable future actions would generate cumulative returns to the local economy, and the national treasury. 3.8 Transportation and Recreation The transportation system on the Conecuh National Forest serves a variety of resource ~ 69 ~

74 management and recreation access needs. Management of the transportation system is based on a set of Road Management Objectives (RMO s) that establish the specific intended purpose for each road based on management needs and associated design, operation and maintenance criteria and standards. A travel analysis process (TAP) was completed for the Conecuh Ranger District in June of The TAP is science-based and provides guidance for future travel-management decisions that move administrative units toward the minimum road system. This analysis is based on the consideration of ecological, social, and economic impacts. The Conecuh Ranger District is responsible for following agency directives (Forest Service Manual 7700 Travel Management), Forest Plan, Travel Analysis Plan (TAP, 2014), and continuing to implement the 2005 Travel Management Rule on National Forest road systems. An optimum road system to support the management of natural resources on the Conecuh National Forest is critical for meeting objectives. Providing road systems that are safe to the public, responsive to public needs, environmentally sound, affordable, and efficient are agency priorities. Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action Alternative, current management of transportation systems within the Boggy Hollow Project Area would continue as they are currently being managed. This action would move forest system roads into a more critical state due to the reduction of scheduled maintenance. With limited funding to perform multiple road maintenance activities, these roads would experience more resource damage in the future. Safety for visitors may be impaired as they travel across these forest roads. The increase in road washing, gullies, culvert failures and erosion could cause damage to vehicles while traveling along forest roads. Over the long-term, road maintenance needs would continue to exceed normal operating budgets, and un-needed system roads would continue to deteriorate and potentially cause environmental damage. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The Proposed Action would result in an overall reduction in road maintenance costs by moving mileage of roads to lower maintenance classes open year-round roads moved to open seasonally, and open seasonal roads moved to closed all year. Road sections identified for closure were selected because they are redundant with existing roads, ends of existing roads that are not frequently traveled and in poor or not travelable, or historical routes to adjacent private land that are not needed for public access of public land. One historical road was added to the road system to provide motorized access to an area with none available. As a result, of these actions, the entire project area would remain well roaded for motorized recreational access. One of the main recreational activities on the Conecuh Ranger District is hunting. The Boggy Hollow Project Area is utilized for hunting deer, turkey, bobwhite quail, squirrel and other small game. Increase in seasonal road mileage would allow hunters to experience more remote ~ 70 ~

75 locations with limited exposure to vehicular traffic during turkey season with limited impacts to motorized access during deer and most other small game seasons. Habitat disturbance would be reduced, particularly during turkey nesting. 3.9 Heritage Resources The Boggy Hollow heritage survey fieldwork was completed on August 27, Within the survey area, four (4) new heritage resource sites were encountered. The results of this survey were relayed on December 29, 2015, to the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Native American tribes that have a historical interest in that area of Alabama. The SHPO responded favorably to this National Forests in Alabama undertaking on January 29, The Chickasaw Nation responded favorably to this undertaking on January 12, No other Native American tribes mailed this report responded to this solicitation for comments. Alternative 1 - No Action A no action alternative would not have any direct effects on cultural resources within the project area because no ground-disturbing actions would be implemented. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action All known National Register of Historic Places eligible heritage resource sites needing special measures for the protection of cultural resources have been identified on the ground and would be protected during implementation of any activities. Should any new heritage resources be discovered during the course of implementing any activities, operations in that specific area would be suspended until the site is assessed by the Forest Archaeologist. Avoidance of sites and compliance monitoring by the Forest Archaeologist would prevent any loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources as a result of this project. Appropriate coordination with the SHPO and tribes would be done in such occurrences. All activity areas were surveyed and sites identified in compliance with standards accepted by the Alabama SHPO and the archaeological community. Since disturbing activities would be excluded, no direct, indirect, or cumulative loss of the historic record will occur. Discrete information such as site location, further site characteristics, and their connection spatially and temporally to other sites within the Conecuh National Forest is kept at the National Forests in Alabama Supervisor s Office. For more information about these sites please contact the Section 106 Coordinator at the Supervisor s Office in Montgomery, Alabama Health Effects and Herbicides Affected Environment The use of five herbicides is proposed: glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr, hexazinone, and metsulfuron methyl. Commenters expressed support and concern about the use of herbicides and ~ 71 ~

76 their effects on human health and the environment. Staff at CNF performed a literature review and risk analysis of the potential impacts of the five proposed herbicides to people, vegetation, wildlife, soil, and water resources. In addition, staff referred to the extensive Forest Service Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for each herbicide (Durkin 2010; Durkin 2011; Durkin et al 2005; and Klotzbach et al 2005). A summary of our findings is presented here; the full analysis and review can be found in the Boggy Hollow project record. Specific measures proposed to reduce the potential risks posed by herbicides are listed in the design criteria section of this EA. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the 2003 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulate the level of risk that herbicides can cause toxicity to non-target organisms (Shepard, Creighton et al. 2004) and determine what level of risk endangers the environment (Michael 2004). The fact that an herbicide is available for use indicates that it has passed EPA risk characterizations when used at or below the recommended label rate, and therefore does not pose unreasonable risks of adverse effects to humans or the environment (Tatum 2004). The Conecuh National Forest proposes to use each herbicide at rates well below the allowable label rate (Table 3.10). Table Error! No text of specified style in document..26 Comparison of recommended herbicide label application rates versus the proposed Boggy Hollow herbicide application rates herbicide. Active Ingredient (a.i.) Maximum label application rate (a.i. lbs./acre/year) 1 Proposed maximum application rate (a.i. lbs./acre/year) 2 Glyphosate Imazapyr Triclopyr (TEA), 0.65(BEE) Hexazinone Metsulfuron methyl Maximum label application rates are based on the maximum amount recommend per acre per year for forestry applications taken from the product label currently being used or considered for use on the Conecuh National Forest. 2 The maximum forested acreage to be treated per year within the project area is 300 acres; this may be a combination of two or three chemicals, or exclusively one chemical in a given year. The Forest Plan requires that herbicides be applied at the lowest effective rate to meet project objectives (Standard FW-28, p. 2-13). The allowable Hazard Quotient (HQ) of application must be less than 1.0; if this is not possible, additional risk assessment measures must be applied. The HQ is a measure of the dose at which adverse health effects are possible. The application rate proposed (Table 3.10) ensures that the HQ is at acceptable levels for human and wildlife exposure for all likely methods of use for this project. ~ 72 ~

77 FIFRA does not regulate other ingredients included in formulations with the active ingredient. Some of these other ingredients, usually labeled inert, may not be chemically inert. Surfactants are of particular concern, and may be toxic in some applications. Surfactants are chemicals used to enhance spray spreading, wetting, and retention on leaf surfaces, and enhance penetration of the active ingredient (herbicide) into plant tissues (Shepard, Creighton et al. 2004). Surfactants are typically of low toxicity to terrestrial organisms, but may pose risks to aquatic organisms (Tatum 2004). Modern herbicides, particularly those used in forestry applications, are designed to target plant functions such as simulating plant hormones or disrupting photosynthesis; for this reason, they have low toxicity to animals (Tatum 2004). Acute toxicity and teratogenicity (causing fetal malformations) are the main concerns when evaluating herbicide effects for silvicultural uses; these are effects that may occur after a single exposure or exposure for a short period of time (Tatum 2004). After conducting an overview of the literature, Shepard et al. conclude, at recommended rates and normal use scenarios, herbicides used in forest management operations pose little if any acute toxicity hazard to wildlife species, are not mutagenic or oncogenic, and are rapidly eliminated from animal systems once ingested/absorbed (Shepard, Creighton et al. 2004). Since forest herbicides are not reapplied frequently (compared to agricultural uses, where reapplications may occur twice annually), chronic toxicity, reproductive effects, or carcinogenicity are generally not a concern. None of the herbicides considered have any evidence of endocrine disrupting effects (Tatum 2004; Durkin 2010; Durkin 2011). In addition to concerns about direct effects to humans and wildlife, commenters have expressed concern about the effect of herbicides on water and air resources, and how those effects may impact human health. In Alabama, best management practices (BMPs) recommend streamside management zones (SMZs) to be at least 35 feet on each side of perennial and intermittent streams (AFC 2007). Forest Plan Standard (FW-24 pg. 2-12) for herbicide use exceeds this by requiring that no herbicides are ground applied within riparian areas or within 100 horizontal feet of any public or domestic water source. The plan does allow for selective treatments (under added site-specific analysis and use of aquatic-labeled herbicides) within the buffer but only to prevent significant environmental damage such as noxious weed infestations. All Forest Plan standards would be followed when using herbicides on the CNF. Regarding the effect of herbicides on air quality, the proposed use would have spatially and temporally limited impacts. No aerial applications are proposed. Forest Plan standard, (FW-126 pg. 2-55) limit use of prescribed fire to at least 30 days after the application of herbicides in order to minimize volitization of herbicides. Prescribed fires less than 500ºC have been shown to volatilize large amounts of some pesticides into the air; however, this does not increase risk of adverse human health impacts (Neary, Bush et al. 1993). ~ 73 ~

78 Glyphosate Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide used on both food and non-food crops in the U.S. (US Environmental Protection Agency 1993). It is the most used herbicide in the U.S. (Grube, Donaldson et al. 2011). Overall, the EPA classifies it as Toxicity Category III (Category I is the highest degree of acute toxicity, Category IV is lowest), meaning that glyphosate is slightly toxic. Negative effects to animals have been found only at the highest doses used in laboratory testing, at doses much higher than what would be encountered in the environment. Glyphosate is non-carcinogenic, non-volatile, and rapidly eliminated from the body (US Environmental Protection Agency 1993). It is unlikely to cause reproductive or teratogenic effects, it does not bioaccumulate in mammals, and it has very low levels of bioaccumulation in birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates (Durkin 2011). It is classified as practically non-toxic to fish, mammals, aquatic invertebrates, amphibians, and honeybees (US Environmental Protection Agency 1993; USDA Forest Service 1997; Tatum 2004), and is slightly toxic to birds (Tatum 2004). In the environment, glyphosate strongly adsorbs to soil particles, making it unavailable to wash into streams easily. It does not break down easily in water or by sunlight, but soil microbes readily break it down (US Environmental Protection Agency 1993; Durkin 2011). No long-term effects to soil animals or microorganisms have been found after 6 months post-application; however, short-term (<30 days) effects have been noted. The greatest impacts to the environment may be adverse effects to non-target plants, since this herbicide is non-selective and can be used to kill broadleaf plants, grasses, deep-rooted perennial weeds, some broadleaf trees and shrubs, and some conifers (US Environmental Protection Agency 1993). Additionally, some surfactants used with glyphosate may be slightly to moderately toxic to fish, amphibians, and invertebrates, and irritating to skin and eyes of people (Durkin 2011). For this reason, some commercial formulations of glyphosate approved for aquatic use contain no surfactants. A risk assessment for this project was conducted for glyphosate formulations labeled for aquatic use at the rate of 1.0 lb. a.i./acre/year and a surfactant approved for aquatic use at the rate of 0.5% of the total herbicide solution being applied. There is no proposed action for treating aquatic areas in this project. This analysis was done as a proactive decision to ensure any herbicide treatments needed within a proposed treatment area that has a riparian buffer was considered and will utilize formulations labeled for aquatic use. Triclopyr Triclopyr is a selective herbicide used to target woody and broadleaf plants. It is used primarily in forests, rights-of-way, industrial lands, grasslands, and parklands. It is available in two forms: the triethylamine salt (TEA) and the butoxyethyl ester (BEE). The EPA has placed it in Toxicity Category III, slightly toxic. Like glyphosate, negative effects to mammals only occurred during lab tests at the highest doses. Triclopyr has no reproductive toxicity, is not teratogenic, and is unlikely to be mutagenic or carcinogenic. It is rapidly eliminated from the body, and is unlikely to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms (Durkin 2011), although it may be slightly ~ 74 ~

79 bioaccumulating in other organisms (Ganapathy 1997). It has been classified as practically nontoxic to birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates, nontoxic to bees, and slightly toxic to mammals (Tatum 2004). The BEE formulation is more toxic to fish than the TEA formulation (Durkin 2011). Triclopyr has not been extensively tested on amphibians, but generally fish are more sensitive to herbicides than amphibians, so it is unlikely that triclopyr is toxic to amphibians (Durkin 2011; Tatum 2004). In the environment, triclopyr has the potential to move through the soil during storm events that occur after application. It does not bond readily to soil, but is degraded by soil microorganisms (Ganapathy 1997). Its movement into the water supply is limited, however, because it bonds readily to leaf litter and organic matter in the soil, where it is then degraded (Ganapathy 1997). It may remain on foliage (including that which may be consumed by people) for up to six months, but if consumed, it is rapidly eliminated from the human body (Ganapathy 1997). Imazapyr Imazapyr is normally used to control woody vegetation. It can be applied year-round; its use is not restricted to actively growing plants. The EPA has classified it under Toxicity Category IV, practically non-toxic (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2002). Acutely, it is practically non-toxic to mammals, fish, birds, and bees (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2002; Durkin 2011; Tatum 2004). It has not been tested on amphibians, but is likely to be practically non-toxic because that is how it is classified for fish (Durkin 2011; Tatum 2004). Imazapyr does not bioaccumulate (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2002; Tatum 2004). In the environment, imazapyr has the potential to move through soil into groundwater and in soil runoff, but it is not shown to move extensively in field studies (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2002; Tatum 2004). It does not bind to soil particles or organic matter, but it degrades rapidly in water exposed to sunlight (National Institute of Environmental Health Services 2002; Tatum 2004). One study applied up to 100 times the normal prescription rate of imazapyr to a forested wetland; the result was no adverse effects to taxa richness or total abundance of all taxa (Michael 2004), indicating that imazapyr is relatively benign in the environment. Hexazinone Hexazinone is an herbicide used to control a broad spectrum of weeds including undesirable woody plants in alfalfa, rangeland and pasture, woodland, pineapples, sugarcane and blueberries. It is also used on ornamental plants, forest trees and other non-crop areas (US Environmental Protection Agency 1994). Hexazinone is registered for pre-emergent, post-emergence, layby, directed spray and basal soil applications. It is used as a non-selective herbicide in noncropland areas and as a selective herbicide in reforestation practices (US Environmental Protection Agency 1994). Hexazinone generally is of relatively low acute toxicity but is a severe eye irritant ~ 75 ~

80 (Toxicity Category I). It is not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity (Group D carcinogen) and does not cause other toxic effects of concern. (US Environmental Protection Agency 1994). Hexazinone is used in Forest Service programs almost exclusively in conifer release and site preparation in the southeastern United States. Most formulations of hexazinone are granular and only one liquid formulation, Velpar L, is used by the Forest Service. Based on classification schemes developed by the U.S. EPA, hexazinone is practically nontoxic to birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates. The acute toxicity to mammals is also low, with no clear patterns in sensitivity among different species of mammals being apparent (Durkin et al 2005). Relatively little information is available on the toxicity of hexazinone to insects but the US EPA classifies hexazinone as relatively non-toxic to honey bees (US Environmental Protection Agency 1994). Hexazinone is not very toxic to aquatic animals. Aquatic plants are much more sensitive to hexazinone and the variability in this group appears to be much greater than that for fish and aquatic invertebrates (Durkin et al 2005). Hexazinone is a very effective herbicide that inhibits photosynthesis including aquatic plants. Strict adherence to Forest Plan standards, industry standards, label recommendation, and applicator best practices should be taken to ensure hexazinone is applied in a manner that effectively limits contamination of surface water. Metsulfuron methyl Metsulfuron methyl is a selective pre-emergence and post-emergence sulfonyl urea herbicide used primarily to control many annual and perennial weeds and woody plants. Metsulfuron methyl is used in Forest Service programs primarily for the control of noxious weeds. Minor uses include conifer release and rights-of-way management (Klotzbach and Durkin 2005). The EPA has placed it in Toxicity Category III, slightly toxic. There are several formulations of metsulfuron methyl are available in the United States, but only one, Escort XP, is registered specifically for forestry use (C&P Press 2003). The mammalian toxicity of metsulfuron methyl is relatively well characterized in experimental mammals; however, there is relatively little information regarding nontarget wildlife species. It seems reasonable to assume the most sensitive effects in wildlife mammalian species will be the same as those in experimental mammals (i.e., decreased body weight gain). These studies indicate that birds appear to be no more sensitive than experimental mammals to the toxic effects of metsulfuron methyl, with the major effect again being decreased body weight gain. There are also several acute assays on the honey bee that indicate that bees are no more sensitive than either mammals or birds to metsulfuron methyl. Aquatic plants are far more sensitive than aquatic animals to the effects of metsulfuron methyl. Macrophytes appear to be more sensitive than algae (Klotzbach and Durkin 2005). Alternative 1 No Action No herbicides would be used in the project area under this alternative, and so effects to human health would be no more than they are currently. Herbicides would continue to be used in non- ~ 76 ~

81 native invasive plant species (NNIPS) control in the project area and throughout CNF. Effects associated with this use have been evaluated under the 2012 Enhanced Invasive Plant Control EA and subsequent Decision Notice. Alternative 2 Proposed Action Appendix E contains the hazard quotients for the proposed application rates of glyphosate, imazapyr, triclopyr, hexazinone, and metsulfuron methyl. Each herbicide has very limited acute toxicity to humans and all wildlife assessed, including both aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Glyphosate and triclopyr have limited mobility in soils, and are unlikely to move to or contaminate groundwater or surface waters. Imazapyr, hexazinone, and metsulfuron methyl has more soil mobility, but rapidly degrades in water, soil microorganisms, and/or sunlight. Air quality impacts would be minimal, because no herbicide would be sprayed aerially, and the ground spraying proposed would result in only short-term and short-distance aerial exposure. Therefore, the primary adverse effects of these herbicides would be to plants, which may then affect the habitat of animals. Herbicides are proposed to control hardwood trees, shrubs, and vines species that are impeding the maintenance, development, restoration, and sustainability of habitat associated with upland longleaf pine stands, including understory plant assemblages. Herbicide use will allow light to reach the ground and increase the effectiveness of site preparation, prescribe fire, and mechanical treatments described in this document. Short-term losses to overall vegetative coverage of portions of the project area would be offset by the longterm benefit of increasing the diversity of native vegetation that would be realized as a result of herbicide use. If necessary, to treat vegetation that is impeding the maintenance, development, restoration, and sustainability of habitat associated with upland longleaf pine stands, only formulations of glyphosate or imazapyr approved for aquatic use would be used in streamside management zones or sensitive riparian areas found within the stands listed in the proposed action. Herbicides beside those proposed for the Boggy Hollow project would continue to be used in the project area and throughout CNF for the purpose of treating NNIPS. When NNIPS herbicide applications within the project area are considered along with proposed actions, the cumulative total acreage to be treated within the project area would be approximately 300 acres/year maximum during the years surrounding establishment of longleaf pine regeneration. This acreage would most likely decrease over time as reforested sites are established with longleaf pine seedlings that recruit into a higher canopy position and competing vegetation is no longer a concern of overtopping or suppressing the young vigorously growing trees. Most herbicides, when used at the same time, have additive effects, meaning that the combination of two or more is a sum of the effects of each, rather than synergistic effects (toxicity of the combination is greater than additive); synergistic toxicity is rare (Shepard, Creighton et al. 2004; Tatum 2004). The proposed application rate and method, with no retreatment to occur before the previous treatment has had time to degrade and dissipate in the environment, would minimize the effects to soil, water, and biological resources. ~ 77 ~

82 3.11 Civil Rights and Environmental Justice Consideration of effects of proposed actions on civil rights and environmental justice is a component of the environmental analysis process.. During our public comment period no issues or impacts to civil rights or environmental justice were identified. During this time, we scoped a wide range of people including businesses, governments, tribes and landowners through paper mailings as well as the general public through legal advertisements in the Andalusia Star-News, our paper of record. No civil rights issues associated with this project have come to our attention. This project is expected to benefit economic and health conditions for the surrounding populations because it provides natural resources to local businesses, thereby providing jobs through logging, timber processing, and service contracts. Proposed Actions are not expected to have adverse human health or environmental effects on any population because all activities are commonly implemented in the area and effects are well known. Proposed Actions are not expected to have disproportional effects on minority populations and low-income populations because the project area is located in a sparsely populated rural area where such activities are common and regular parts of local livelihoods. 4.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The Forest Service consulted the following individuals; Federal, State, and local agencies; tribes; and non-forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: ~ 78 ~

83 Interdisciplinary Team Members and Contributors Name Title Role Contribution Jaime Hernandez Timber Management Assistant Team Leader Timber, Silviculture, Socioeconomics Chantz Birch Forester Team Member Silviculture, Invasive Plants Steve Johnson Wildlife Biologist Team Member Wildlife Daks Kennedy Natural Resource Specialist Team Member Transportation, Recreation, Aesthetics Mary Owen Fire Management Officer Team Member Fire and Fuels LaToya Soto Program Specialist Team Member Project Record/ Editor Marcus Ridley Forest Archeologist Team Member Heritage Arvind Bhuta Forest Ecologist Extended Team Member Estella Smith Forest Soil Scientist Extended Team Member Shannon Reed Forest Air Quality Specialist Extended Team Member Felecia Humphrey Forest NEPA Planner Extended Team Member Soil and Water, Climate Soil and Water Air Economics/Editor Federal, State, and Local Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Alabama State Historic Preservation Office Tribes Poarch Band of Creek Indians ~ 79 ~

84 Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma Chickasaw Nation ~ 80 ~

85 5.0 REFERENCES CITED Alabama Forestry Commission Alabama s Best Management Practices for Forestry. (Available at: Montgomery, AL. Anders, A., Faaborg, J. and Thompson, F Postfledgling dispersal, habitat use, andhomerange size of juvenile wood thrushes. The Auk 115(2): Belt, G.H., J. O Laughlin and T. Merril 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. Bertin, R Breeding habitats of the wood thrush and veery. In The Condor, 79: The University of California Press, Berkeley CA. Boschung, H. T. and R. L. Mayden Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Washington. 736 p. Books, Boyer, W.D Development of longleaf pine seedlings under parent trees. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-4 5p. Southern Forest Experimental Station New Orleans, LA. Brennan, Leonard A., Fidel Hernandez and Damon Williford Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.397 Brockway, Dale G Longleaf Pine Cone Prospects for 2016 and USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Auburn, Alabama. Page 14. Brockway, Dale G., Kenneth W. Outcalt, and William D. Boyer In Jose, Shibu, Eric J. Jokela, and Deborah L. Miller. The Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Ecology, Silviculture, and Restoration. New York. Springer Science + Business Media, LLC on page 98. Brown, Charles J. and D. Binkley Effect of Management on Water Quality in North American Forests. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-248. Bull, Evelyn L. and Jerome A. Jackson Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.148 Burger, L. W Quail management: issues, concerns, and solutions for public and private lands - a southeastern perspective. Pages in S. J. DeMaso, W. P. Kuvlesky Jr., F. Hernandez, and M. E. Berger, editors. Quail V: Proceedings of the Fifth National Quail Symposium. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, TX. ~ 81 ~

86 Bury, R. B., C. K. Dodd jr., and G. M. Fellers Conservation of the Amphibia of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publ pp. C&P Press (Chemical and Pharmaceutical Press) Greenbook.net. Product Labels, Supplementary Labels, and Material Safety Data Sheets for Ally and Escort. In Klotzbach, Julie, and Patrick Durkin Metsulfuron Methyl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report (Available at: Arlington, VA, USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection: 2-1. Chiver, Ioana, L. J. Ogden and B. J. Stutchbury Hooded Warbler (Setophaga citrina), TheBirds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.110 Coulter, M. C., J. A. Rodgers, J. C. Ogden and F. C. Depkin Wood Stork (Mycteria americana), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.409 Crocker Jr., Thomas C., William D. Boyer Regenerating Longleaf Pine Naturally. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-105. Page 6. Crocker Jr., Thomas C., William D. Boyer Regenerating Longleaf Pine Naturally. USDA Forest Service Research Paper SO-105. Page 6. Durkin, P Appendices to Glyphosate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report (Available at: Atlanta, GA, USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Durkin, P Appendices to Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report (Available at: Atlanta, GA, USDA Forest Service Southern Region. Durkin, P Glyphosate - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - Final Report (Available at: Atlanta, GA, USDA Forest Service Southern Region: 2. Durkin, P Imazapyr - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report (Available at: Atlanta, GA, USDA Forest Service Southern Region: 3, 149. Durkin, P Triclopyr - Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments - Final Report (Available at: Atlanta, GA, USDA Forest Service Southern Region: 2. ~ 82 ~

87 Durkin, P., Cynthia King, and Julie Klotzbach Hexazinone Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report (Available at: Arlington, VA, USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection: 1-1. Evans, Melissa, Elizabeth Gow, R. R. Roth, M. S. Johnson and T. J. Underwood Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.246 Ganapathy, C Environmental Fate of Triclopyr. Sacramento, CA, Department of Pesticide Regulation: Gangloff, Michael Electronic spreadsheet retrieved from T:\FS\NFS\NFinAlabama\Program\2600FishMgmt\aquatic_data\aquatic_data_support_file s\reports_in_aquatic_pts\datasets\mussels_gangloff.xlsx Golden, M.S., C.L. Tuttle, J.S. Hush and J.M. Bradley, III Forest Activities and Water Quality in Alabama. AL Agric. Exp. Stn. Bulletin No p. Grube, Arthur, David Donaldson, et al Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 2006 and 2007 Market Estimates. Biological and Economic Analysis Division; Office of Pesticide Programs; Office of Prevention Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Washington, DC, US Environmental Protection Agency: Guyer, Craig, Mark Bailey, Jimmy Stiles and Sierra Stiles Herpetofaunal Response to Longleaf Pine Ecosystem Restoration, Conecuh National Forest, Alabama, April Report. Hamel, P.B The land manager s guide to the birds of the South. Chapel Hill, NC: TheNature Conservancy, Southeastern Region. Jackson, J. A., M. R. Lennartz, and R. G. Hooper Tree age and cavity initiation by Redcockaded Woodpeckers. Journal of Forestry 77: Jackson, Jerome A Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.85 Jones JC, Dorr B Habitat associations of gopher tortoise burrows on industrial timberlands. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32: Jones, Phillip D., Bronson K. Strickland, Stephen Demarais, Brian J. Rude, Scott L. Edwards, and James P. Muir Soils and forage quality as predictors of white-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus morphometrics. Wildlife Biology 16 (4), ~ 83 ~

88 Klotzbach, Julie, and Patrick Durkin Metsulfuron Methyl Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment Final Report (Available at: Arlington, VA, USDA Forest Service Forest Health Protection: 1-1. Kreiser, B. R., J. Berg, M. Randall, F. Parauka, S. Floyd, B. Young and K. Sulak Documentation of a Gulf Sturgeon Spawning Site on the Yellow River, Alabama, USA. Gulf and Caribbean Research 20 (1): Retrieved from La Sorte, Frank A.; Thompson, Frank R., III; Trani, Margaret K.; Mersmann, Timothy J Population trends and habitat occurrence of forest birds on southern national forests, Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-9. Newton Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 260 p. Lashley, M. A., Colter Chitwood, M., DePerno, C. S., Moorman, C. E., & Harper, C. A VARIABILITY IN FIRE PRESCRIPTIONS TO PROMOTE WILDLIFE FOODS IN THE LONGLEAF PINE ECOSYSTEM. Fire Ecology, 11(3), doi: /fireecology MacDonald,L.A. and Mushinsky, H Foraging Ecology of the Gopher Tortoise, Gopherus polyphemus, in a Sandhill Habitat. Herpetologica, 44(3), Retrieved from Marsh, Graham M., Vanessa R. Lane, Karl V. Miller, Steven B. Castleberry, Darren A. Miller, and T. Bently Wigley. "Responses of White-Tailed Deer and Northern Bobwhite Food Plants to a Gradient of Stand-Establishment Intensities in Pocosin Pine Plantations." Wildlife Society Bulletin (2011-) 36, no. 4 (2012): Mayack, D. T.; Bush, P. B.; Neary, D. G.; Douglas, J. E Impact of hexazinone on invertebrates after application to forested watersheds. Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxical. 11: Mettee, Maurice F., O Neil, Patrick E., Pierson, J. Malcolm Fishes of Alabama. Oxmoor House. Birmingham, Alabama. Michael, J. L "Best management practices for silvicultural chemicals and the science behind them." Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 4: Michael, J.L. and D.G. Neary Herbicide Dissipation Studies in Southern Forest Ecosystems. Enviro. Toxi. Chem. 12: Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Species Abstracts: Dendroica discolor prairie warbler. (Accessed July 15, 2015) ~ 84 ~

89 Mirarchi, R. E., M. A. Bailey, T. M. Haggerty and T. L. Best Alabama Wildlife: Imperiled Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, and Mammals. Volume 3. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. 221 p. Moorman, C. E., D. C. Guynn, and J. C. Kilgo Hooded Warbler nesting success adjacent to group-selection and clearcut edges in a southeastern bottomland forest. Condor 104(2): Moran, John Personal communication. Fisheries Biologist, National Forests in Alabama. Mount, Robert H Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Reptiles and Amphibians, Conecuh National Forest. National Institute of Environmental Health Services Imazapyr Pesticide Fact Sheet: Forestry Use. W. Trevathan, D. Buchwalter, J. Jenkins, P. Kierkvliet and T. P. Portland, OR Oregon State University Agricultural Chemistry Research and Extension, Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology NatureServe NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available (Accessed: July 18, 2016 ). NatureServe NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available (Accessed: July 21, 2016). Neary, D. G., P. B. Bush, et al "Fate, dissipation and environmental effects of pesticides in southern forests: a review of a decade of research progress." Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12: Neary, D. G.; Bush, P. B. Douglass, J. E Offsite movement of hexazinone in stormflow and baseflow from forested watersheds. Weed Sci. 31: Neary, D. G.; Bush, P. B.; and Grant M. A Water quality of ephemeral forest streams after site preparation with herbicide hexazinone. For. Ecol. Manage. 14:23-40 Neary, D.G. and J.L. Michael Appendix C: Effect of herbicide on soil productivity and water quality. In Vegetation Management in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain, Vol. 2. Final Environmental Impact Statement, USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA. Neary, D.G., P.B. Bush and J.L. Michael Fate, Dissipation and Environmental Effects of Pesticides in Southern Forests: A Review of a Decade of Research Progress. Enviro. Toxi. Chem. 12: Nolan Jr., V., E. D. Ketterson and C. A. Buerkle Prairie Warbler (Setophaga discolor),the Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: doi: /bna.455 ~ 85 ~

90 Pike, D.A. 2006, "Movement Patterns, Habitat Use, and Growth of Hatchling Tortoises, Gopherus polyphemus", Copeia, no. 1, pp Pilarczyk, M., Stewart, P., Shelton, D., Blalock-Herod, H., & Williams, J Current and Recent Historical Freshwater Mussel Assemblages in the Gulf Coastal Plains. Southeastern Naturalist, 5(2), Retrieved from Rodewald, A. D., and Vitz, A. C Edge-and area-sensitivity of shrubland birds. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69: Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis Version USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Shepard, J. P., J. Creighton, et al "Forestry herbicides in the United States: An overview." Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): Shurette, G. Ryan Personal communication. Forest Biologist, National Forests in Alabama. Shurette, G. Ryan Personal communication. Forest Biologist, National Forests in Alabama. Southwell, Darci Conservation Assessment for Prairie Warbler (Dendroica discolor). Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest. Spears, G. S., F. S. Guthrie, S. M. Rice, S. J. Demaso, and B. Zaiglin Optimal seral stage for northern bobwhite as influenced by site productivity. J. Wildl. Manage. 57: Stiles, Sierra Seasonal Habitat and Shelter Selection by Reintroduced Eastern Indigo Snakes in Conecuh National Forest, Alabama. Unpublished Master s thesis. Available Tatum, V. L "Toxicity, transport, and fate of forest herbicides." Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery plan for the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis): second revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA 296pp. Ursic, S.J Hydrologic Effects of Clearcutting and Stripcutting Loblolly Pine in the Coastal Plain. Water Resources Bulletin 27(6): US Environmental Protection Agency EPA R.E.D. Facts: Glyphosate. EPA-783-F Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Springfield, VA, National Technical Information Service. US Environmental Protection Agency EPA R.E.D. Facts: Hexazinone. EPA-738-F Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Springfield, VA, National Technical Information Service. ~ 86 ~

91 USDA Forest Service Final environmental impact statement vegetation management in the coastal plain. Volume USDA Forest Service Revised Land and Resource Management Plan for the National Forest in Alabama. USDA Forest Service Biological Assessment Of Potential Effects To Proposed, Endangered, And Threatened Species, Boggy Hollow Longleaf Pine Management Project Compartments 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, Conecuh National Forest FY Report. USDA Forest Service Final environmental impact statement longleaf restoration, Conecuh National Forest USDA Forest Service Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land and Resource Plan. USDA Forest Service Travel Analysis Report for National Forest in Alabama, Conecuh Ranger District. USDA National Forests in Alabama. 1988, 1993, 1994, 2004, 2007, Watershed monitoring reports on file at Supervisor s Office. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Wild Turkey, Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management Leaflet Number 12. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington DC. Vitter, Barry A survey of the Mullusks of Conecuh National forest, Escambia and Covington Counties, in South-Central Alabama, November Report. ~ 87 ~

92 APPENDIX A PROPOSED VEGETATION TREATMENT MAP ~ 88 ~

93 APPENDIX B PROPOSED MAINTENANCE OF WILDLIFE OPENINGS MAP ~ 89 ~

94 APPENDIX C PROPOSED ROAD CHANGES MAP ~ 90 ~