Restoring the Longleaf Ecosystem on the Conecuh …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Strategy: Based upon findings of the EIS,

Restoring the Longleaf Ecosystem on the Conecuh National Forest

Current Status and Actions Needed December 2009

This document also serves to help provide notice of and request comments on the Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration - II Proposed Action.

The Conecuh National Forest contributes a portion of the largest con-

centration of longleaf pine forest that remains in all of its former range.

The Forest Service is committed to a two-fold approach to maintain ex-

isting longleaf in a healthy and productive condition and restore long-

leaf to historically native sites where it is better suited than currently

existing forest types.

This publication provides a brief overview of the progress that has been

achieved thus far and outlines the next phase of work being proposed

to continue the important tasks of maintaining and restoring longleaf

on the Conecuh National Forest... in the heart of „longleaf country.‟

“Culture springs from the actions of people in a

landscape, and what we, especially Southerners, are

watching is a daily erosion of unique folkways as our native ecosystems and all their inhabitants disappear. Our culture is tied to the longleaf pine forest that produced us,

that has sheltered us, that we occupy. The forest keeps disappearing,

disappearing, sold off, stolen.”

~Janisse Ray, Ecology of a Cracker Childhood

Conecuh National Forest

16375 U.S. Highway 29 S

Andalusia, Alabama 36420

Phone: 334-222-2555

Fax: 334-222-6485

E-mail: comments-southern-

[email protected]

USDA FOREST SERVICE

Message from the District Ranger

It is my pleasure to provide this update on our efforts to restore the longleaf eco-system on the Conecuh National Forest! I hope it is evident when you read this that my staff and I are committed to this work and have put a lot of thought and energy into how best to proceed on our long-term strategy.

Last Spring, I assembled an ID (interdisciplinary) Team to develop the site spe-cific proposal that you will learn about in this document. The team has worked hard to insure this proposal addresses specific needs and realizes special op-portunities to move toward desired conditions of the native longleaf pine ecosys-tem. In doing so, they have gone back to the original Longleaf Restoration EIS completed in 1999 that laid the ground work for our long-term strategy. The ID Team has reviewed the previous concerns, treatment methods, and results to date and have sought to incorporate the lessons learned into their development of the next round of treatments being proposed. The intent of this document is to present the resulting Proposed Action within that overall context.

The ID Team has done a fine job of putting together a comprehensive proposal for longleaf ecosystem restoration treatments to be conducted over the next few years. It is ambitious, calling for one or multiple treatments on 162 sites totaling over 6,700 acres. You will find complete details of the proposal in this docu-ment. Please carefully review this proposal and let us know what you think. No decision has been made and we welcome your input. If you do wish to provide comments you may do so at any time; however, to provide for timely considera-tion prior to the effects analysis and to establish standing for appeal of a forth-coming decision please comply with the legal notice published in the Andalusia Star-News and provided for your convenience on page 30 of this document.

Your participation in our planning process is one of the keys to the success of the Conecuh National Forest. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Stephen E. Lee, District Ranger

Table of Contents

Introduction:

The Beginnings 1

The Commitments 2

Background:

The Longleaf Restoration ROD 3

Reviewing Past Issues 4-8

The Current Need for Action 9

The Proposed Action:

Summary Description 10

Individual Treatment Descriptions 11-14

Rare Community Descriptions 15-16

Sites per Treatment Tables 17-20

Treatments by Prescription Map 21-22

Application of Forest Plan Prescriptions 23-26

Preliminary Issues 27-28

Alternatives Considered 29

Request for Comments 30

The Beginnings

1

The Longleaf Pine Forest: Longleaf pine forests were once incredibly vast. From the Atlantic coastal

plain of southeastern Virginia to the West Gulf Coastal Plain of Texas, these forests encompassed more than 90

million acres of the North American landscape, and represented an extraordinary wealth and diversity of cultural,

ecological, and socio-economic values.

Even today, remnants of the longleaf pine

forests are some of the most biologically

diverse ecosystems outside of the tropics.

(from page 1 of America‟s Longleaf Conser-

vation Plan, March 2009)

The Conecuh National Forest:

On July 17, 1936 President Franklin D.

Roosevelt signed a proclamation to estab-

lish the Conecuh National Forest between the Conecuh and Yellow Rivers in south Alabama. FDR was near the end

of the first of his four terms as president. The term began with the introduction of his New Deal policies. The Great

Depression had taken its toll. Germany's new leader, Hitler, was organizing his empire.

By authority of the Weeks Act (1911), the Conecuh was initially composed of cut over, eroding, and abandoned

lands left from the great southern timber boom that decimated the longleaf forest around the turn of the century.

The poor condition of these lands cou-

pled with post depression sunken land

prices made these the lands nobody

wanted.

Forest Service efforts to restore the

forest began immediately. The Civilian

Conservation Corp, another FDR initi-

ated federal program, played a vital

role in the reforestation of the Cone-

cuh and many other forests across the

nation.

“We find ourselves on the entrance of a vast plain which extends west sixty

or seventy miles... This plain is mostly a forest of the great long-leaved pine,

the earth covered with grass, interspersed with an infinite variety of

herbaceous plants, and embellished with extensive savannas, always green,

sparkling with ponds of water...” William Bartram, 1791

“Not a part of this great natural wonder worthy of the name forest

remains intact within the state’s borders. It has been rooted out by

hogs, mutilated by turpentining, cut down in lumbering, or burned

up through negligence. The complete destruction of this forest

constitutes one of the major social crimes of American history.”

B.W. Wells, 1932

From 1936 to 1942, CCC Company 3474 replanted thousands of acres on the

newly established Conecuh National Forest. Work in the ‘Blue Pond Planta-

tion’ (shown) established 576,000 slash and 250,000 longleaf seedlings in 1937.

2

The Commitments

While the demise of the historic vast longleaf pine forest was often lamented and many through the years recog-

nized a need to do something more, it was not until the 1990‟s that interest began to peak and dedicated people

began to focus and organize their efforts to successfully champion the values of the longleaf pine ecosystem.

The Longleaf Alliance was established in 1995 when it became apparent that interest in the longleaf

ecosystem and the tree itself was growing rapidly, but there was no outlet available for ecologists, foresters, wildlife

biologists, landowners and land managers seeking information or a means to distribute informa-

tion they did know. The LLA was created with the express purpose of coordinating a partnership

between private landowners, forest industries, state and federal agencies, conservation groups,

researchers, and other enthusiasts interested in managing and restoring longleaf pine forests

for their ecological and economic benefits. The LLA serves as a clearinghouse for information on

regenerating, restoring and managing longleaf pine; provides networking opportunities for its

supporters to connect with other landowners, managers, and researchers with similar interests

and problems; and coordinates technical meetings and education seminars.

(source www.longleafalliance.org)

The Conecuh National Forest’s Longleaf Restoration Initiative: While Forest Service

managers supported the efforts of neighboring LLA‟s establishment and vision, another idea was born in the mid-

1990‟s to bring together a coalition of very diverse organizations who collectively manage the largest concentration

of remaining longleaf forests. The Conecuh National Forest was a founding partner of

the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership in 1996, whose goal is to conserve and

restore the dwindling longleaf pine ecosystem and unique aquatic resources of north-

west Florida and southern Alabama for which the partners are responsible for manage-

ment - slightly over one million acres of land and water.

At the same time GCPEP was being established, Hurricane Opal delivered a devastating

blow to the region in the Fall of 1995. Significant damages to forest resources were sus-

tained across the area and it took over a year for the initial recovery efforts to be com-

pleted on the Conecuh. It was during this time that Forest Service managers crafted a vision to begin a long-term

concentrated effort to address the problems of off-site species on sites better suited for longleaf pine. While such

work was being done for several years prior, it was done so in piecemeal fashion. The newly energized commitment

was to begin a landscape level assessment and develop a long-term strategy to restore the longleaf ecosystem on

the Conecuh. The initial effort culminated in a Record of Decision for a Longleaf Restoration FEIS in 1999 that out-

lined a 30-year minimum program of work. (see www.gcpeppartners.com)

America’s Longleaf - A Restoration Initiative for the Southern Longleaf Pine Forest: In 2005, a group

of leaders convened by the LLA articulated the need for a focused, range-wide restoration approach. At the same

time, a partnership of several states and federal agencies in the Southeast formed to promote better collaboration

in making resource-use decisions and identified “Sustaining the Land of the Longleaf

Pine” as one of its top conservation priorities. A regional working group was formed

in 2007 to develop America‟s Longleaf and a conservation plan to launch the initia-

tive. The Range-wide Conservation Plan for Longleaf Pine was released in March of

this year and can be found at www.americaslongleaf.org.

The Longleaf Restoration ROD

3

A New Approach: The Forest Service completed an Environmental Impact Statement and issued a Record of

Decision in 1999 that laid the foundation for a long-term strategy to restore the longleaf pine ecosystem on those

sites determined to be better suited for longleaf pine across the entire Conecuh National Forest. The ROD identi-

fied the first 4,000+ acres of priority treatments to be implemented based on a forest-wide landscape level analy-

sis - the first of its kind for the National Forests in Alabama. Previously, the Conecuh‟s restoration work had been

identified primarily through routine compartment inventories designed to review one tenth of the forest each year.

Many of the guiding principles of previous planning efforts were carried into the new approach to restoration plan-

ning, however applying them in a broader perspective enhanced their rewards. The new approach focused on the

following principles:

Place priority on true ecosystem management needs, not timber management needs

Base goals on Desired Future Conditions, not timber sale volume targets

Base the analysis on a landscape-wide perspective, not routine “order of entry”

Assess long-term planning needs, not 10-year order of entry cycles

The Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Strategy: Based upon findings of the EIS, the 84,000-acre

Conecuh National Forest includes about 55,000 acres of true longleaf pine sites. Forest stand inventories at the

time indicated only 77% of that desired acreage was forested in longleaf pine, while 23% of the suitable sites were

dominated by other tree species.

The EIS estimated it would take at least 30 years of

treatments to completely restore longleaf pine on all

of the best suited sites. The Forest Service is com-

mitted to successive multi-year treatment plans to

achieve this goal. Now that the first round of treat-

ments directed by the Longleaf Restoration ROD are

nearing completion, it is time to consider the next

phase of restoration work needed.

Restoration treatments authorized by the Longleaf

Restoration ROD focused on addressing off-site

slash plantations less than 30 years old, with the

intention of restoring the worst sites while minimizing impacts to potential foraging habitat for the endangered red-

cockaded woodpecker. The Conecuh‟s small RCW population has continued to grow and thrive during this 10-year

period. The Forest Service has recently completed development of a proposal for the second phase of restoration

treatments, which is detailed later in this document. The current proposal also attacks the problem of off-site plan-

tations, but considered many of the older stands that have been thinned at least once prior. The „phase II‟ proposal

also incorporates treatments for some young longleaf pine plantations to continue restoration of the desired com-

position, structure, and function of these stands. In addition, restoration treatments for a few unique and special

habitat sites within Conecuh‟s longleaf ecosystem are also being proposed.

Existing forest type on longleaf suitable sites.

(Estimate based on stand inventory data.)

Source: Longleaf Restoration FEIS (1999), Conecuh National Forest

4

Reviewing Past Issues

As detailed by the Longleaf Restoration ROD (1999), the analysis for the first phase of restoration treatments (LER-

I) considered five significant issues. The current ID Team conducted a review of these issues and considered them

while developing the proposal for the next, or second phase, of restoration treatments (LER-II). The ID Teams

evaluation of these issues helped focus attention to areas where new or different treatments should be considered

and where prior treatments and mitigation was successful and should be replicated in the LER-II proposal. Past

issues and a synopsis of the ID Teams evaluation of them is included here to help demonstrate part of the ration-

ale for the current proposal.

What impacts will the release of woody/brushy vegetation, resulting from thinning

treatments, have on the efforts to restore historic longleaf ecosystem understory? 1

IDT Response: The current conditions of the LER-I stands were examined to assess the success of native her-

baceous understory development. Both thinning and restoration treatments were considered in this review. Al-

though many of the thinned stands are on their way to DFC with regards to the diversity and structure of the under-

story, others are not and encroaching vegetation has not been controlled effectively with fire. The timing of fire fol-

lowing the harvest treatment could be a factor in those cases, given recent drought conditions impeded the Dis-

trict‟s burning goals the past few years. Early introduction of fire in recently thinned off-site stands is critical to re-

covery of the desired understory species and structure.

An even greater challenge is being faced regarding the

restoration treatments in LER-I. On several sites, control-

ling encroaching woody vegetation with prescribed fire

alone has been very difficult and ineffective. Gallberry,

yaupon, and various hardwood species have responded

to open conditions and increased light and are now out-

competing and displacing many of the native warm sea-

son grasses and other fine fuels. This situation of sparse

fine fuels and advanced hardwood encroachment has

seriously compromised the natural ability of prescribed

fire to maintain these restoration sites. On some sites,

fuel conditions are so poor fire would only carry under

extreme fire behavior days near or outside of our pre-

scribed burning parameters (weather conditions).

The ROD identified these stands as having a potential

need for herbicide release which, if needed, would be

authorized in a follow-up decision; but this need has yet to be addressed. The need for some type of release treat-

ment on all of the LER-I and II restoration sites experiencing excessive competition should be addressed in the LER-

II proposal. The proposal should include mechanical and/or chemical methods utilizing selective herbicides such

as hexazinone, imazapyr, triclopyr, and sulfometuron methyl. These herbicides have proven to be effective tools in

the restoration of herbaceous understory systems, as well as in longleaf pine release. Their application would im-

prove stand structure and ability to carry fire by reducing encroaching hardwood saplings and releasing fine

grasses like wiregrass and bluestems. Herbicide release treatment would speed recovery of the desired native un-

derstory and eventually allow legumes and other forbs to colonize the stands. Achieving a healthy component of

grasses and perennial fine fuels is key to being able to effectively maintain these sites with prescribed fire in the

future.

Reviewing Past Issues (2)

5

Can the existing longleaf ecosystem understory species be protected and maintained

during implementation of the silviculture treatments (cutting and site preparation)? 2

IDT Response: The stands proposed for treatment in LER-I were selected because they were lacking some

component (either structure or composition) of a healthy longleaf ecosystem. Harvest treatments were necessary

in order to ever reach DFC for these sites. It is not likely that the disturbance from harvest operations had any sig-

nificant residual undesirable impacts on upland understories. The harvest equipment and procedures used were

consistent with those used in similar restoration projects throughout the Southeast, and have been shown to be

effective in creating desirable stand conditions while retaining most of the underground perennial herbaceous bio-

mass of the understory.

However, it appears the site preparation methods employed on some sites may have had some negative residual

effects on the perennial grasses and forbs within those stands. The ID Team reviewed several stands where the

wiregrass and bluestem component (native fine fuel) was lacking. This situation, coupled with a significant amount

of residual hardwood rootstock, creates the problem of not being able to maintain these stands and move them

towards DFC by using prescribed fire alone.

Monitoring suggests that shear and windrow site preparation had the most obvious impact to the perennial grass

covers. It also indicates this site prep method has disturbed the topsoil and native herbaceous root systems and

resulted in a high percentage of bare ground and the development of an annual pioneer plant community in the

stands. The recovery of a desirable understory dominated by perennial grasses and forbs has been difficult to

achieve on these sites. The conditions of these sites impair the District‟s ability to achieve effective burning, there-

fore the ID Team has chosen not to propose shear and windrow site prep treatments for any LER-II restoration

sites. (Note: Non-native bahia grass encroachment was also observed in some of the stands prepared via shear

and windrow.)

6

What short- and long-term impacts will there be on the recreational experience

along the Conecuh Trail? 3


IDT Response: The recreational experience of the Conecuh Trail user as it relates to visual quality being po-

tentially impacted from restoration treatments was considered in the original analysis. The FEIS found having re-

stored native ecosystems consisting of appropriate species and open park-like structured stands would provide

long-term benefits to the recreational experience.

Restored stands of longleaf pine and associated

understory species offer greater natural diversity

and provide habitat for a larger suite of native

wildlife species, including many that are uncom-

mon to rare. Off-site stands are often poorly struc-

tured and display evidence of stress and health

problems. While the views provided by these con-

ditions may be visually appealing to some, the

experienced forest visitor often attains a richer

experience when viewing restored natural commu-

nities.

Short-term impacts to the view do occur during

implementation of treatments and cannot be com-

pletely avoided if long-term goals and desired con-

ditions are to ever be achieved. The use of mitiga-

tion measures were implemented to lessen those

impacts and are believed to have been successful.

Within a few years after harvest treatments, these

sites have a naturally appearing character.

Upon recent monitoring of previous treatments along the Conecuh

Trail, some ID Team members found buffer strips of vegetation

along an opening adjacent to the trail may not be visually pleasing -

especially if a large component of the buffer strip is off-site species.

Additional off-site areas along and near the Conecuh Trail do exist

and will need to be addressed in the next or future phases of resto-

ration treatments. While natural diversity does already exist along

the trail, restoring the composition, structure, and function of the

native longleaf ecosystem will continue to provide long-term benefi-

cial impacts to the visual quality of the area and the recreational

experience of both trail visitors and dispersed recreationists. While

short-term impacts cannot be avoided, the ID Team will continue to

seek methods and mitigation measures to protect the trail itself and

minimize the short-term impacts to visual quality along the trail.

View of a restoration harvest area (clearcut with reserves) implemented as part of the initial longleaf

restoration decision from the Conecuh Trail.


7

Do the long-term benefits of this project to Conecuh National Forest ecosystem

restoration efforts justify the cost of reforestation at this time? 4

IDT Response: The long-term benefits of restoring the longleaf ecosystem are economically viable and ecol-

ogically priceless. The intangible benefits of restoration from the first phase of work remain and include: restoring

historic ecosystem processes, improved habitat for the red-

cockaded woodpecker, multiple game species, gopher tor-

toise, and increased herpetofauna of the Conecuh. Many of

the stands selected to restore in the first round contained

low value products because a priority was placed on restor-

ing sites in the worst condition first. Stewardship contract-

ing was used to cover the cost of reforestation in two of the

eleven timber sales.

The ID Team anticipates that all reforestation work being

proposed in the next phase will be covered from timber

sale revenues collected and set aside for such purposes

under the Knutson-Vandenberg Act.

1213

14 14

1819 19

22 2223

25

2728 28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Nu

mb

er o

f A

cti

ve

Gro

up

s

RCW Population Trends on the Conecuh National Forest

CNF Potential Breeding Groups

5% Yearly Growth Rate from 1999

AchievedPre-Opal Status:

14 Actives

1st New/Natural Start in 15-20 yearsHurricane

Opal

10-4-95

Hurricane

Ivan

9-16-04

8

Can off-site treatments to restore the longleaf ecosystem be implemented to have long

-term (and possible short-term) benefits to the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) while

having no negative impacts to the existing RCW population?

5


IDT Response: The small RCW population on the Conecuh National Forest has continued to exhibit solid

growth trends over the past 15 years in spite of two major hurricane events. Current Recovery Plan (U.S. FWS, 2nd

Rev., 2003) guidelines call for a 5% population growth rate. Since the Conecuh committed to landscape level resto-

ration planning in 1999, the Conecuh population has met or exceeded this rate.

There is no disputing that continued restoration

and maintenance of the longleaf ecosystem

across the Conecuh will provide long-term bene-

fits through improved and increased suitable

habitat conditions. The balancing act for manag-

ers is how to accomplish the restoration work

needed as aggressively as possible (to hasten

availability of habitat) while making sure the

work itself does not cause negative impacts to

existing RCW. During the foraging analysis of

the original 1999 Proposed Action, a few of the

proposed restoration cuts (clearcuts with re-

serves) were found to pose a concern that

enough foraging substrate would be available

for nearby clusters. Mitigation was proposed

and incorporated into the Record of Decision to

modify those treatments to a “thin to 30 BA.”

The rationale was to still be as aggressive as

possible with the off-site removal, but make

sure enough foraging continued to be available.

Ongoing longleaf restoration work is one part of a 3-

faceted management approach for RCW recovery on the

Conecuh. Intensive monitoring and cluster management

(banding, cavity inserts, predator/cavity competition

control) and participation in the translocation program

to augment the Conecuh native population are also im-

portant elements of sustained recovery on this forest.

However, the broad scale habitat management work to

thin overstocked stands, restore longleaf to the best

suited sites, and prescribed burn to mimic natural proc-

esses is also vital to recovery.

The ID Team recognizes the importance of continuing to

restore off-site areas while exercising caution near ac-

tive clusters. The next phase of restoration work will

need to include more of this work and the ID Team will

continue to look for ways to minimize short-term im-

pacts while providing habitat conditions that contribute

to continued positive growth trends on the Conecuh.

Current Need for Action

9

The Forest Service has committed to restoring the longleaf pine ecosystem to those sites better suited for longleaf

pine on the Conecuh National Forest, as established by the Longleaf Restoration FEIS (1999). The longleaf ecosys-

tem is one of the most imperiled systems of the world, with only about 3% remaining. The need for restoration ef-

forts across the entire former range has become widely recognized over the past decade, including efforts of the

Longleaf Alliance, the Gulf Coastal Plain Ecosystem Partnership of which

the Conecuh is a member, and the America‟s Longleaf Initiative.

America‟s Longleaf Conservation Plan, the first ever such range-wide plan

for longleaf pine, established the goal of increasing longleaf from 3.4 to 8

million acres over the next 15 years - to about 9% of its historic range. To

achieve this goal, it calls for a three level management approach including

maintenance, improvement, and restoration.

Natural resource management activities, goals, objectives, and standards

for the Conecuh National Forest are guided by the Forest Plan. The Forest

Plan provides broad program-level direction, which is carried out through

site specific individual projects that undergo environmental analysis. The

following goals and objectives of the Forest Plan provide the purpose of

and need for the current Proposed Action:

Existing forest cover for the 55,000 acres

determined as best suited longleaf sites

Source: GIS analysis, 2009

Source: pg 1, America’s Longleaf Conservation Plan

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

composition, structure and function. (pg 2-9)

Objective 1.2: Restore and maintain approx. 17,000 acres of Upland Longleaf Pine Forests and Woodland Communities on the

Coastal Plain management areas {including the Conecuh}… (pg 2-9)

Objective 1.4: Thin overstocked stands {approx. 24,000 acres on the Conecuh} giving priority to first treatments. Thin stands of

species not native to their site which cannot be immediately restored, to reduce hazards and sustain the stand until restoration

can be accomplished. (pg 2-9)

Objective 1.5: Restore and increase, by 30% as a minimum, areas of each management unit managed as… Upland Longleaf

Pine Forest and Woodland… in woodland and savanna condition, with reduced tree canopy cover and restored native herba-

ceous ground cover... (pg 2-10)

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 Recovery Plan and RCW ROD. (pg 2-30 )

Goal 13: Protect or restore the composition, structure, and function of rare communities found on National Forest land. (pg 2-39)

Obj. 13.1: Inventory/map rare communities and identify and prioritize restoration needs. (pg 2-39)

Prior determinations of longleaf suitable sites were derived from forest

stand inventories and field verification based on soils and topology. Re-

cently, a GIS assessment was conducted to determine the best suited long-

leaf sites based on soil types and topology and results match the original

estimate of 55,000 acres. Although longleaf acreage has increased from

42,000 to 45,000 since the 1999 FEIS, the current GIS analysis shows just

under 38,000 acres (68%) are actually on the best suited sites. Of the re-

maining 32% of longleaf sites currently forested in species other than long-

leaf, only 17% (about 9,000 acres) is identified as off-site within the stand

inventory data. The current Proposed Action was formulated from within the

scope of those sites and did not consider any action on the 15% that is not

currently flagged as off-site in the stands inventory database.

10

The Phase 2 Proposal

Based upon review of the Longleaf Restoration ROD/FEIS (1999), the current Purpose of and Need for Action,

stand inventory and GIS data, and extensive field reviews, the ID Team has developed the following Proposed Ac-

tion to be analyzed for implementation as Phase II of the Conecuh‟s long-term longleaf restoration strategy. This

multi-year landscape level course of action is summarized below and explained in greater detail in the following

pages of this document. Public comments on this proposal are welcomed during the official 30-day Notice and

Comment Period, as described on page 30.

Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration-II Proposed Action

Restore longleaf on 54 sites for 2,332 acres

harvest off-site pine species via clearcut with reserves, plant longleaf seedlings following site prep by

burning or drum chopping & burning, chemically release seedlings and desired understory from sites

where competition is determined to exist during the first year, and mechanically release sites where

conditions are determined insufficient to carry fire or allow for the effective control of competition from

fire alone at the third year

Thin 41 sites for 2,099 acres

all but four of these sites have been determined to be appropriate longleaf sites, some are already for-

ested in longleaf pine, and several are in other pine types (mostly slash pine) and when on longleaf suit-

able sites are considered off-site species

Remove slash pine seed sources on 2 sites for 94 acres

two newly created stands consisting of mixed age classes and species broken out of a large off-site area

(200+ acres) requiring multiple treatments over time to restore; harvest mature seed bearing slash

pines via shelterwood tree removal method and release advanced longleaf regeneration already present

Restore 5 bogs for 43 acres

remove overstory competition and mechanically release desired bog components from competing vege-

tation as needed when prescribed fire is unable to achieve desired conditions

Release prior restoration sites as needed on 60 sites for 2,146 acres

chemically and/or mechanically release longleaf seedlings and desired understory from competition as

needed based upon planting and third year evaluations; applies to sites planted from 2003 to the pre-

sent under authorization of previous decisions

Restore 2 unique sites designated as rare communities

beyond treatments already listed, take measures to move toward DFC for the site around Nellie Pond

(Coastal Plain Pond & Margin) and a newly designated savanna restoration site near Turner Branch

and Yellow River (Pine Savanna and Woodland with embedded bogs)

Restore longleaf on 54 sites

11

HARVEST: Based upon record examination, field review, and GIS analysis these sites are considered most ap-

propriate for longleaf pine and are currently forested in other species – primarily slash pine with varying amounts

of mesic hardwoods - and thus considered off-site species. Although a few longleaf stems do exist in some of these

stands, DFC (Desired Future Condition) cannot be achieved through natural processes alone and targeted conver-

sion of the dominant overstory tree species is required to meet long-term objectives and move toward DFC.

Off-site pine species will be removed using the clearcut with reserves harvest method. Existing longleaf trees (> 5

inch DBH) will be reserved, but will be thinned as needed to 40-60 BA (ft2/acre of basal area). Thinning of reserve

trees will seek to achieve an evenly spaced distribution of the residual trees, favoring retention of older age

classes. All commercial pine trees will be removed from system road clearing limits to facilitate road maintenance.

No hardwoods will be commercially removed.

RESTORE: Longleaf pines will be restored to these sites through artificial regeneration proc-

esses, since no single site has sufficient mature native longleaf available for natural seeding. After

harvest of off-site pine species, each site will be prepared for planting by application of a site prep

burn prescription. On sites where the quantity of hardwoods and mature woody shrubs would im-

pede successful planting even after the site prep burn, the site will also be drum-chopped prior to

the site prep burn. Containerized longleaf seedlings will be planted at a rate sufficient to provide

for an adequately stocked stand of 400 stems per acre within 5 years after harvest.

RELEASE: An adaptive management strategy including chemical and mechanical methods will be employed to

insure longleaf seedlings - and desired native understory - are free from competition that would jeopardize achiev-

ing DFC. The need for release treatment will be evaluated at the time of planting and 3rd year certification exams.

Evaluations will consider whether the level of competition is impeding sufficient numbers of longleaf seedlings from

being free to grow and the recovery of desired understory conditions. The goal of treatment is to provide conditions

that allow: (1) successful root development of the longleaf seedlings to minimize time in the grass stage so that

sufficient height growth and needle cast can be achieved, and (2) successful recovery of the native understory

composition and structure. Achieving these conditions and their associated pyrophytic characteristics are essential

to returning the natural role of fire to maintain and perpetuate these sites.

Year 1: If excessive competition still exists after site preparation and planting, a

chemical release application will be applied during the first growing season, prefera-

bly in March/April. The treatment will consist of directed foliar spray of hexazinone

(trade name Velpar DF or equivalent) and sulfometuron methyl (trade name Oust or

equivalent) or a commercially available mix of these herbicides (trade name Oustar

or equivalent) at recommended label rates for release, primarily in a four foot radius

around each longleaf seedling.

Year 3: The third year certification exams will trigger an interdisciplinary staff as-

sessment to determine if a release treatment is needed (regardless of whether the

site received a chemical treatment during the first growing season). If site conditions

are insufficient to successfully carry a prescribed fire or allow for the effective control

of competition with fire alone, a mechanical release treatment will be applied. Pref-

erence will be given to hand tool treatment using brush saws or chainsaws to re-

move woody shrubs and hardwoods out-competing longleaf seedlings and native

understory species, primarily within a four foot radius of each longleaf seedling. How-

ever, if site conditions and circumstances warrant mechanized equipment such as

brush mowers or mulching machines may be used.

12

Thin 41 sites

The majority of these sites have been verified as appropriate longleaf pine sites. Though four sites are designated

with slightly different management goals, these sites still fit within the overall context of longleaf ecosystem resto-

ration; three of the four are better suited for slash pine and are currently forested in that species, while one is

within a Savanna Restoration area and is designated for management as a mixed pine site. Of those sites deemed

better suited for longleaf pine, many are already forested in longleaf and several are in other pine types (thus off-

site species), predominantly slash pine.

In order to achieve long-term DFC for all of these sites, each needs to be thinned to improve species composition,

structure, and function. Thinning objectives are to favor a maturing, open, evenly spaced stand to improve overall

forest health and vigor and open canopy conditions to favor native pyrophytic understory species, thus facilitating

more effective prescribed burns.

The overall target residual BA is an average of 60-70. A few of these stands are currently below the target thinning

level; however, these stands exhibit an uneven distribution of stems and contain clumps that exceed the desired

BA for this treatment. In those stands, the concentrated clumps will be thinned to the target BA. There are also a

few stands with 140+ BA that will not be thinned to the target BA due to concerns that by doing so, susceptibility to

wind damage will be increased. Stands with BA > 140 will be thinned to an average of 70-80 BA.

All species of pine may be removed to thin the stand to the target BA. On sites with high densities of loblolly pine,

leave basal areas may drop below the target BA. All commercial pine trees will be removed from system road clear-

ing limits to facilitate road maintenance. No hardwoods will be commercially removed.

Leave trees will be selected from the dominant and co-dominant crown classes with preference given to retention

of longleaf pine, however spacing, quality, and diameter will also be considered. Trees of highest importance to

RCWs (red-cockaded woodpeckers) - over 60 years in age, flat-topped, relict, turpentine or lightning scarred - will be

retained.

HARVEST: Two new stands have been created in Compartment 8 (stands 36 and 37) to help break up the large

(200+ ac) off-site stand 12 that will require multiple treatments over time to achieve DFC. The two newly desig-

nated stands are comprised of parts of former stands 12 and 13 and contain various age classes composed pri-

marily of young longleaf and slash pine seedlings & saplings with an overstory of mature longleaf and off-site slash

pine. The primary objective of this treatment is to remove the mature slash trees and thereby reduce natural regen-

eration of slash on these sites.

The harvest method will most closely resemble a shelterwood seed tree removal. Off-site pines will be removed and

existing longleaf > five inches DBH will be thinned to 40-60 BA to enhance development of the existing advanced

pine regeneration. All commercial trees will be removed from system road clearing limits to facilitate road mainte-

nance. No hardwoods will be commercially removed. Concentrations of advanced longleaf reproduction will be pro-

tected during logging operations by minimizing skid trails.

RELEASE: Three years after harvest treatment, an interdisciplinary staff assessment (concurrent with the third

year certification exam) will be conducted to determine if mechanical release of the natural longleaf regeneration is

needed. Preference will be given to hand tool treatment using brush saws or chainsaws to remove competition to

the longleaf seedlings and saplings that will best provide for achieving future DFC. Release will generally be con-

ducted within a four foot radius around each selected longleaf seedling/sapling but may also be used to release

native understory species.

Remove slash seed trees on 2 sites

Restore 5 bog sites

13

Five coastal plain seepage bogs are in close proximity to planned harvest activity and in need of overstory reduc-

tion treatment. Removal of overstory trees will benefit these bogs by opening the surrounding canopy and “day-

lighting” the bogs (reducing shade tolerant species competition) and improving water table conditions necessary to

sustain bog characteristics and species.

An attempt will be made to remove the overstory competition to

these bogs in conjunction with the adjacent timber harvest actions.

Special provisions of contracting authority will be utilized to protect

the integrity of the bogs during implementation of restoration treat-

ments. Methods to prevent soil rutting or excessive compaction may

include (but is not restricted to) dry weather scheduling limitations,

directional felling & winching or cabling, or requirements for low PSI

equipment. Long-term beneficial goals will be balanced against

short-term impacts.

If bog restoration objectives cannot be achieved through typical har-

vest contracting authority, other alternatives to achieve DFC will be

exhausted. These include the possibility of small permit sales, cut

and leave operations, or girdling of the tree trunks. Treatment may

vary by site with the most appropriate method for achieving DFC

considered on a case by case basis and site specific conditions ex-

isting at the time of implementation (drought vs. wet weather pe-

riod, etc). The forest botanist will be consulted on treatment layout and method for each of these sites.

RELEASE: Mechanical release treatments will be utilized as needed to remove vegetation that is not part of the

DFC and is suppressing bog species. It is anticipated that this treatment will only be needed when prescribed fire is

unable to achieve the desired results, but may be implemented multiple times.

14

Release 60 prior restoration sites

Over the past several years, several previously issued Decision documents have authorized nearly 3,000 acres of

longleaf regeneration through clearcut with reserves harvest followed by site prep and planting of longleaf seed-

lings. None of these included provisions for release treatments, but the potential need for future release was docu-

mented and the Forest Service planned to address this in a separate analysis. During development of the current

proposal, this need was considered and the following release-only treatments are included in the current Proposed

Action.

Longleaf Restoration sites planted in 2010 or later - 9 sites for 321 acres:

The release treatment for these areas will be identical to those of the restoration sites in the existing project desig-

nated for a clearcut with reserves harvest treatment. Determinations of need will be assessed at planting and third

year certification exams. If a release treatment is needed, a herbicide treatment will be applied during the first

growing season. If release is needed at the third year exam, a mechanical treatment will be conducted. For a de-

tailed description of these treatments, see the Release section on page 11 of this document.

Longleaf Restoration sites planted from 2007 to 2009 - 36 sites for 1,207 acres:

These sites will be evaluated for release treatment in conjunction with the third year certification exams. An inter-

disciplinary staff assessment will determine whether site conditions are insufficient to successfully carry a pre-

scribed fire or allow for the effective control of competition with fire alone. If needed, a mechanical release treat-

ment will be implemented. Preference will be given to hand tool methods using brush saws or chainsaws. This

treatment will remove woody shrubs and hardwoods out-competing longleaf seedlings and native understory spe-

cies, primarily within a four foot radius of each longleaf seedling.

Longleaf Restoration sites planted from 2003 to 2006 - 15 sites for 618 acres:

Third year certification exams for these and other sites have already been conducted and an interdisciplinary as-

sessment has identified these sites need release treatment. The identified sites currently exhibit conditions that

pose problems for prescribed burning and the existing competing vegetation needs to be targeted for reduction so

that longleaf seedlings can be released and native understory composition recovery can be enhanced. Mechanical

treatment (with preference given but not restricted to brush saws or chainsaws) will be applied as soon as feasible

to release suppressed longleaf seedlings and native understory species, mainly with a four foot radius of each long-

leaf seedling.

Restore 2 unique sites...

15

The following sites are included in the standard treatment method descriptions described on the previous pages,

however a couple of areas exhibit unique opportunities to restore important niches within the longleaf ecosystem

and provide for richer, more ecological diverse habitats. While the Bog Restoration treatment certainly does as well,

the following section provides additional details and clarification of DFC for these areas and the additional steps

proposed to move them toward DFC.

The Nellie Pond Site - 36 acres

(Coastal Plain Pond & Pond Margins )

Nellie Pond, a complex of three small ponds that merge at high water, is about 8 acres at full pool. This naturally

fishless semi-permanent pond dries completely every few years making it a haven for amphibians. The rare gopher

frog has been known to use Nellie Pond as a breeding site, one of only a few in Alabama, as far back as 20+ years

ago. This site is considered one of the two best breeding sites on the forest in terms of reliable annual production.

This unique amphibian also relies upon gopher tortoise burrows for part of the habitat needs that support their life

cycle. Historically, gopher tortoises were well established in the area around Nellie Pond but have now, for the most

part, abandoned this site due to increasing canopy closure and degrading understory conditions.

The 36-acre stand surrounding Nellie Pond

(Compartment 8 stand 20) will be thinned to

50-60 BA favoring retention of longleaf and

slash pines with removal of the small loblolly

pine component. This work will impose equip-

ment restrictions and utilize directional felling

and skidding restrictions where necessary. To

protect Nellie Pond from potential problems

with sedimentation or alteration of its hydrology,

a „no ground disturbance zone‟ will be implemented where habitat improvement work may occur but extreme care

will be exercised to prevent rutting. No hardwood will be commercially removed, however existing hardwood density

does pose problems in achieving DFC for this site so a cut and leave method will be used to improve conditions.

Those species consistent with a fire-maintained landscape will be favored for retention, such as Turkey Oak, Sand

Post Oak, Bluejack Oak, and Live Oak.

16

...Rare Community Emphasis

The Savanna Restoration Area - 4 sites for 113 acres

(Pine Savanna & Woodlands with embedded bogs )

A site south of Covington County Rd 24 and bordered by two private in-holdings, Turner Branch, and Yellow River

was selected for restoration of savanna and woodland conditions, including embedded bogs. Actions will be taken

to move the majority of this area toward the DFC‟s of „Pine Savanna and Woodlands‟ and „Coastal Plain Seepage

Bogs‟ - both identified as Rare Communities by the Forest Plan.

Restore savanna conditions with embedded bogs: Stand 13 (47 ac) has been revised to in-

clude bog suitable soils and a stand previously broken out along Turner Branch. Two large bogs, stands 35 (10 ac)

and 36 (7 ac), are embedded within the bog soils of stand 13 (all 3 stands total 64 ac). Overstory is comprised of

16+ year old longleaf and 38+ year old slash pine with heavy brush midstory encroachment. Stand 13 will be

thinned NTE 30-40 BA favoring retention of mature longleaf pines. Delineated bogs (stands 35 and 36) will be re-

stored following the Bog Restoration treatment description. An

adaptive management release strategy will be implemented to

reduce competition to native understory species and bog associ-

ates. Mechanical release treatments (hand tool emphasis) will be

conducted as needed to restore and maintain DFC. The forest

botanist will assist in designation and monitoring of treatments.

Restore open longleaf woodland conditions :

Stand 8 (49 ac) has been revised to represent longleaf suitable

soils from all or part of 3 former stands and includes off-site slash,

hardwood encroachment, and a small longleaf pine component.

This stand is to be clearcut with reserves of existing mature long-

leaf, site prepared by drum chop + prescribe burn, and planted

with longleaf seedlings at typical planting rates. A chemical re-

lease treatment will be conducted in the first year and a mechani-

cal treatment is anticipated after the third year certification exam.

These treatments are included in the totals for the standard treat-

ment descriptions.

This stand does not meet Plan criteria for a Rare Community des-

ignation, however the long-term DFC for this stand will be fewer

stems and thus more open than the typical longleaf stand of the

same age on this national forest. This should be achieved by removing more stems in future thinning operations.

Lower planting rates were considered, but typical planting rates will be applied to insure a fully stocked stand that

will help suppress the undesirable species composition currently present on site and to facilitate better height

growth and form of longleaf pines than could be achieved at lower planting rates.

Note: While not part of the Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration – II project proposal, the need for frequent fire on

the entire Savanna Restoration area was discussed at length by the ID Team and will need to be implemented

on this site. Prescribe burning of this site will be handled under the district-wide prescribe burning decision.

Plans are to attempt alternating season burns every 18 months, on average.

Proposed Action Tables

17

C# Std Acres Age_Yr Existing Desired Planned

2 9 6 1975 slash pine longleaf 2013













14 16 80 1968 mixed pine longleaf 2012












26 8 49 1971 slash/hdwd longleaf 2013






























Clearcut with reserves (of longleaf pine trees) —

Restore longleaf pine (site prep, plant, release if needed)

54 sites ~ 2,332 acres

See page 11 for the

standard treatment description.

18


Thinning —

off-site pine sites & on-site longleaf & slash pine sites


5 13 67 1983 slash pine slash pine 2012


8 11 55 1988 longleaf longleaf 2011

8 20 36 1953 LL/hdwd longleaf 2011











25 12 48 1982 loblolly pine slash pine 2013

26 13 47 1993 mixed pine mixed pine 2013



29 24 58 1989 slash pine slash pine 2013

























Remove slash pine seed sources (shelterwood tree removal) —

Release advanced longleaf regeneration if needed




See page 12 for both

standard treatment descriptions.

2sites ~ 94 acres


19

Restore coastal plain seepage bogs (release as needed)

5 sites ~ 94 acres

See page 13 for the



26 35 10 1900 bog bog 2013

26 36 7 1900 bog bog 2013

38 2 12 1930 bog bog 2013

41 40 5 1900 bog bog 2013

43 35 9 1934 bog bog 2011

Release prior restoration sites planted 2010 and beyond, if needed

9 sites ~ 321 acres

See page 14 (and 11) for the



37 2 74 1975 cut longleaf 2010





62 19 42 2010 cut longleaf 2010




20



15sites ~ 618 acres

Release prior restoration sites planted from 2007 to 2009, if needed

See page 14 for the


See page 14 for the


Release prior restoration sites planted from 2003 to 2006
























































21

Proposed Action Map...

22

...by Forest Plan Prescriptions

While the primary emphasis of the LER-II Proposed Action is tied to Goal 1 of the Forest Plan, to

“Manage forest and woodland ecosystems in order to restore and/or maintain native communities to

provide the desired composition, structure and function,” the ID Team must also consider these actions

within the context of the corresponding Management Prescriptions established by the Forest Plan.

23

Forest Plan Prescriptions...

Each element of the PA has been evaluated to determine which Forest Plan Management Prescription

applies. The following summarizes the proposed treatments per Plan Prescription along with a synopsis

of each Management Prescriptions primary emphasis and desired condition as it relates to the overall

goal of restoring the composition, structure and function of the native longleaf ecosystem (Plan Goal 1).

7.D. Concentrated Recreation Zone (pgs 3-29 to 3-31, Forest Plan [2004])

Emphasis: to provide a variety of recreational opportunities in a visually appealing and environmentally healthy set-

ting and to serve as “gateways” to the wide diversity of recreation opportunities on the remainder of the forest.

Desired Condition: high quality, well maintained developed or dispersed settings; facilities consistent with the mis-

sion and complimentary to the ecosystem, almost always visually subordinate to the land; provide protection for

rare communities, threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare species; naturally appearing landscape char-

acter; ecosystem vegetation management employed where necessary.

Proposed Action: thinning of one stand (27 acres) in the Concentrated Recreation Zone around Leon Brooks Hines

Lake (Escambia County Public Fishing Lake). Stand is ~30 year old longleaf pine and currently averages 120 BA.

Relevance: The PA will improve the natural appearing character of this stand by making it more open and park-like,

while vastly improving health conditions by reducing stresses associated with excessive density. Overall, an indirect

effect of improved ecological functions will be achieved from the reduction of canopy closure enhancing develop-

ment of native pyrophytic understory species. Endangered red-cockaded woodpeckers already nest and forage

within this concentrated recreation zone, so the PA will immediately provide more suitable foraging habitat and in-

crease the potential for future (+30 years) nesting habitat.

7.E.2. Dispersed Recreation Areas with Vegetation Management (pgs 3-32 to 3-34, Forest Plan)

Emphasis: to provide a variety of dispersed recreation opportunities; improve outdoor recreation settings and en-

hanced visitor experiences while protecting and restoring the forests health and diversity; achieve recreational,

wildlife, ecosystem restoration, or aesthetic values through timber harvesting and vegetative manipulation.

Desired Condition: easily accessed and capable of sustaining a relatively high number of recreationists while pro-

tecting the surrounding water, soil, vegetation, and wildlife; naturally appearing, well-maintained nature-based rec-

reation opportunities; major recreation activities include hunting and wildlife viewing, thus 4-10% should be in early

successional habitat (0-10 age class); supports the settings around Open Pond & Blue Lake Recreation Areas and

the Conecuh Trail and falls within the Blue Spring Wildlife Management Area, further emphasizing hunting and wild-

life viewing opportunities; forest management activities maintain or restore natural characteristics; timber harvest-

ing operations recognize the recreational and aesthetic values of the area; manage and protect rare communities

and associated species.

Proposed Action: restore longleaf pine and associated understory on 4 sites for 228 acres through clearcutting with

reserves, thin three sites for 101 acres (2 longleaf pine/1 off-site slash pine), and release from competition 2 sites

for 77 acres previously restored to longleaf under another decision.

Relevance: The PA will improve forest health conditions and restore natural diversity by restoring longleaf pine and

associated plant and animal species to native sites, and by improving the structure and ecological function of sites

where longleaf already exists. Restored sites provide more aesthetically pleasing vistas for the recreational experi-

ence. Habitat for native game and non-game wildlife will be improved by the PA through the introduction of early

successional habitat and healthier, more open and naturally structured stands.

24

...related to the Proposed Action

8.B. Early Successional Habitat Emphasis (pgs 3-36 to 3-37, Forest Plan)

Emphasis: provide optimal to suitable habitat for plant and animal species associated with early successional habi-

tats, including upland game species; provide open park-like woodlands and savannas with herbaceous ground-

cover; restore native warm season grasses and maintain open, forbs and grass-dominated groundcover; optimize

hard and soft mast production; control access to protect habitat.

Desired Condition: open, park-like stands of southern pine and mixed pine-hardwood community types; herbaceous

ground cover dominates; mixed successional classes exist with even old growth contributing to early successional

conditions through their frequently disturbed herbaceous understory; 4-10% of forested landscape in early succes-

sional habitat conditions (0-10 age class); naturally appearing.

Proposed Action: restore longleaf pine and associated understory on 5 sites for 186 acres, thin four off-site slash

pine sites for 252 acres, and release 8 sites for 351 acres previously restored to longleaf under another decision.

Relevance: The PA will improve the suitability and quality of early successional habitat on eight previously author-

ized restoration sites by releasing them from excessive competition. It will also increase early successional habitat

with restoration (and release, if needed) on five additional sites. Thinning of four off-site slash pine stands will con-

tribute to the DFC of this prescription by enhancing conditions for development of the desired native herbaceous

understory, as well as improving the desired condition of open, park-like stands.

8.D.1. Red-cockaded Woodpecker Management Area (pgs 3-34 to 3-35, Forest Plan)

Emphasis: provide suitable to optimal habitat conditions for the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker;

base management on the RCW FEIS.

Desired Condition: mature pine and pine-hardwood forest maintained with an open, park-like understory; primarily

mid- and late-successional stages, 20+ years old (83%); some fire-dependent species in early successional habitat

conditions (NTE 8.3%); understory conditions support a host of bird species that have declined precipitously in re-

cent years, including the Northern bobwhite quail, Bachman‟s sparrow, and prairie warblers; provide management

and protection to rare communities and associates and threatened, endangered, sensitive, and locally rare spe-

cies; naturally appearing.

Proposed Action: restore longleaf and associated understory on 19 sites for 798 acres, thin 21 sites for 1,139

acres (18 longleaf pine/3 off-site slash pine), and release 20 sites for 767 acres previously restored to longleaf

under another decision.

Relevance: The PA provides both short- and long-term habitat improvements for RCW. Foraging habitat will be im-

mediately improved through the thinning treatments. Existing longleaf pine sites that are too crowded and exceed

the threshold for desired density do not provide suitable habitat conditions. Open, park-like understory structure

and species appropriateness are enhanced by more open overstory canopies and increased sunlight to the forest

floor. Thinning of off-site pine sites provides the same improvements as thinning longleaf, but also vastly increases

forest health by reducing the stress load on off-site species and therefore the related insect and disease threats.

Long-term habitat improvements will be achieved through maintaining healthy stands through thinning treatments

until those stands reach the age and maturity to provide potential nesting habitat, and through restoration of off-

site stands that typically, can never provide optimal habitat conditions. Moving these sites into longleaf and restor-

ing the associated understory will help these sites to provide foraging and nesting habitat in the future. Release of

the previously restored sites will speed restoration efforts by encouraging quicker height growth of the longleaf.

Release treatments will also encourage higher ratios of desired species composition in the overstory and under-

story and will not only be necessary to achieve suitable habitat conditions, but will help move these sites toward

achieving optimal habitat conditions in the future.

25

More Plan Prescriptions...

9.D. Restoration of Coastal Plain Longleaf Pine Forests (pgs 3-38 to 3-39, Forest Plan)

Emphasis: to restore and maintain native longleaf forest communities through intensive silvicultural activities in-

cluding but not limited to prescribed burning, mechanical and chemical vegetation control, even-aged, two-aged,

and uneven-aged silvicultural methods; provides optimal habitats for populations of plant and animal species asso-

ciated with these communities; suitable for timber production.

Desired Condition: open herbaceous understories; primarily in mid- and late-successional conditions with a portion

of old growth; maintained by the use of frequent fires (every 2-4 years - emphasis on growing season); maximum of

8.3 % should be in early succession when greater than 10 acres; mid- to late-successional forest conditions are

suitable for game and non-game species, including wild turkey and white-tailed deer; 40 % of total pine forest

should be late-successional; as a result 4 % to 10 % will be in early succession conditions.

Proposed Action: restore longleaf and associated understory on 25 sites for 1,070 acres, thin 10 sites for 484

acres (4 longleaf pine/5 off-site slash pine /1 off-site loblolly), and release 29 sites for 878 acres previously re-

stored to longleaf under other decision(s).

Relevance: The primary intent of the PA is to restore the longleaf pine forest and is therefore most directly con-

nected to this prescription. Early successional habitat will be increased through reduction of off-site species and

restoration of longleaf pine seedlings. Existing early successional habitat will be improved through the release

treatments. Mid- and late-successional conditions will be improved through thinning treatments aimed to restore

more natural stand structure. The PA in combination with the District‟s ongoing prescribed fire program should help

increase and improve the desired open herbaceous understory conditions. Improving the composition, structure

and function of these sites through proposed treatments will provide enhanced habitat conditions for all native

wildlife.

9.F. Rare Communities (pgs 3-41 to 3-58, Forest Plan)

Emphasis: designate and manage core areas that occupy small portions of the landscape while significantly con-

tributing to plant and animal diversity; ensure endangered and threatened species recovery and species viability;

represent the most significant elements of biological diversity in need of conservation.

Desired Condition: composition, structure, and function of rare communities support vigorous populations of spe-

cies characteristic of the community; ecological disturbances occur at frequencies necessary to maintain desired

composition, structure, and function; management activities to restore or maintain desired conditions may be evi-

dent; human-caused alteration is not evident, except for restoration and maintenance purposes; recreational ac-

cess may be limited; interpretive signs or other information may be made available to promote public knowledge.

Proposed Action: remove overstory trees and reduce competition to five bogs totaling 43 acres, thin one 47-acre

site to restore savanna conditions and one 36-acre site to improve gopher frog and gopher tortoise habitat around

Nellie Pond (one of two consistently reliable gopher frog breeding ponds on the Coneuch NF).

Relevance: While considering the silviculture needs in the development of the Proposed Action, the ID Team sought

opportunities to include additional treatments in those vicinities that would address other ecological needs or im-

prove other components of the longleaf ecosystem. These treatments will take important steps in addressing cur-

rent problems on these sites and moving them toward desired conditions. Enhanced bog sites, improved gopher

frog habitat (including associated gopher tortoises), and designation and development of an open savanna and

woodland area clearly meet the intent of the Rare Community Prescription.

26

...and a Summary Table

10.D. Grazing and Forage Emphasis Areas (pgs 3-59 to 3-60, Forest Plan)

Emphasis: to provide range and forage within managed allotments.

Desired Condition: maintain soil productivity and optimum forage production; manage and protect rare communi-

ties and species associates and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; naturally appearing to pastoral/

agricultural landscape character; may provide a variety of recreational opportunities.

Proposed Action: restore longleaf by clearcutting with reserves on one 50-acre site, thin one 13-acre site, remove

mature slash pine trees (shelterwood tree removal) on two sites for 94 acres, and release one 73-acre site re-

stored to longleaf in a prior decision.

Relevance: The PA will provide additional early successional habitat with the clearcut with reserves treatment and

restoration of longleaf seedlings on that site and enhance existing early successional habitat established under

prior decision by releasing longleaf seedlings and herbaceous understory. Thinning and removal of the slash seed

source open the canopy and allow for better development of the understory on those sites. All of these treatments

will enhance available browse. Overall, treatments will help provide better quality native habitat that more closely

resembles the composition, structure and functions most beneficial to native wildlife species, including those con-

sidered threatened, endangered, and sensitive. The PA will produce more naturally appearing conditions on all

sites proposed for treatment.

CC w/reserves Restore longleaf

Thin S'wood Removal (slash seed trees)

Bog Restoration Release Prior

Restoration Dec Total Treated NFs in Alabama

Forest Plan Management Prescription # Sites # Acres # Sites # Acres # Sites # Acres # Sites # Acres # Sites # Acres # Sites # Acres

7.D.-Concentrated Recreation 1 27 1 27

7.E.2.-Disp Rec w/ Veg Mgt 4 228 3 101 2 77 9 406

8.B.-Early Suc Habitat Emph 5 186 4 252 8 351 17 789

8.D.1.-RCW Habitat Mgt Area 19 798 21 1,139 20 767 60 2,704

9.D.-LL Pine Ecosystem Rest 25 1,070 10 484 29 878 64 2,432

9.F.-Rare Communities 2 83 5 43 7 126

10.D.-Grazing & Foraging Emp 1 50 1 13 2 94 1 73 5 230

Total Sites/Ac to be Treated: 54 2,332 42* 2,099 2 94 5 43 60 2,146 163 6,714

Total Harvest Treatments: 54 2,332 41 2,099 2 94 5 43 102 4,568

Total Release Treatments: 54 2,332 1 47 2 94 5 43 60 2,146 122 4,662

*Note: stand 8-11 (55 ac thin) falls within 2 Plan Prescriptions (7.E.2 @ 42 ac and 10.D @ 13 ac)

27

Preliminary Issues...

An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the projected environmental effects of an activity and

may originate from any source. The following preliminary issues have been identified by the ID team. Other issues

may arise from discussions or comments resulting from the official notice and comment period. However, the final

list of issues will be determined prior to beginning the actual analysis. At that time, those issues recognized as de-

serving of detailed study (significant) will be determined by the ID Team and approved by the Deciding Officer.

No hardwoods have been harvested or made commercially available during longleaf ecosys-

tem restoration work to date, and none is currently proposed. Past mechanical site preparation

practices of chopping and shearing have removed some hardwoods; however, some hard-

woods were selected for retention in all cases. The Forest Service has experienced difficulty in

achieving successful prescribed burns on some of these sites following silvicultural treatments.

Debate continues on how best to achieve conditions that would allow return of natural fire re-

gimes on these sites in the soonest timeframe possible.

(anticipated to be a significant issue)

Many of the off-site areas treated during the first phase (1999 Decision) and included in the current

Proposed Action have very little to no desirable native understory present. Silvicultural treatments

need to be planned in an effort to achieve conditions that would speed recovery and reclamation of

these sites. However on those sites where a component of the desired understory is present, reten-

tion is an important aspect of moving toward each element of the desired future condition

(composition, structure, and function). The mechanical site preparation treatments currently pro-

posed differ from those in the first phase by dropping the use of shearing in hopes to achieve better

results and increase success in returning effective prescribed fire to these sites. The addition of

utilizing release treatments where needed in the current proposal is also hoped to contribute to

faster recovery and restoration of these sites. The ID Team included a herbicide component in the

proposed release treatments based on considerable discussion internally and with experienced res-

toration researchers and practitioners. However, care needs to be taken to insure target species

are effectively controlled and desired species are allowed to remain and prosper.

(anticipated to be a significant issue)

Can fine fuels necessary to support burning regimes be established within the thinning and

restoration harvest treatments if all large (> 10” DBH) hardwoods are retained?

Can existing native understory species composition and diversity be retained during

implementation of the site preparation and herbicide release treatments?

28

… to be Considered

The Conecuh‟s small RCW population has continued to grow through the years with broad habitat

management directed toward thinning, burning, and restoring longleaf. While Forest Service staff is

committed to planning treatments in areas closer to existing RCW nest sites with great care, off-site

treatments do continue to be needed in these areas. The timing, extent, and need for mitigation for

each treatment in these areas remain a concern that needs to be evaluated on a site by site basis.

During implementation of needed restoration treatments, visual quality along the Conecuh Trail

needs to be considered. Some work was conducted along the trail during the first phase of restora-

tion treatments. The ID Team found mitigation incorporated in those treatments to minimize im-

pacts to the recreational experience of the trail user was successful. The 1999 FEIS also found long

-term impacts to visual quality along the trail to be beneficial in having restored ecosystems with

native flora and fauna in place. This current Proposed Action includes additional treatments to be

implemented along the Conecuh Trail. Opportunities to improve mitigation effectiveness and the

overall visual quality of the trail need to be explored.

Impacts to soil and water resources are concerns that are considered when planning any similar

activity on the Conecuh National Forest. While development of the Proposed Action was driven, in

part, by these concerns there may be additional mitigation needed to protect soil and water re-

sources beyond the standards provided by the Forest Plan. The site specific analysis will evaluate

this concern.

What short-term impacts will there be on the visual quality and thus recreational experience

along the Conecuh Trail from proposed treatment activities?

Will the proposed actions cause the degradation/reduction of site productivity through altera-

tion of soil physical, chemical, or biological properties from soil erosion, compaction, and

nutrient movement? Will the proposed actions cause the chemical, physical, or biological

degradation of the water resource?

Can off-site treatments to restore the longleaf ecosystem be implemented to have long-term

(and possible short-term) benefits to the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) while having no

negative impacts to the existing RCW population?

29

Alternatives Considered

The ID Team has considered the following alternatives. Additional alternative may be developed to respond to com-

ments generated by public involvement. Prior to conducting the effects analysis some alternatives will be dropped

from detailed study and not carried through the effects analysis. Only those alternatives approved by the Deciding

Officer will undergo full analysis.

No Action The Forest Service would continue with other routine management activities including

prescribed burning, but no action would be taken to prioritize longleaf restoration efforts on a district-

wide landscape scale. This alternative would serve as a baseline for conditions in comparing any

other alternatives studied.

(anticipated to undergo full analysis)

Proposed Action The Forest Service would implement the actions described in this document.


Chemical Site Prep Modified PA The Forest Service would modify the Proposed Action as

described in this document to substitute a chemical site prep treatment of imazapyr instead of the 1st

year chemical release treatments of the PA. In addition, third year release treatments would be substi-

tuted with arsenal, if needed in the same scenario as the PA.


No Herbicide Modified PA The Forest Service would modify the Proposed Action as de-

scribed in this document to exclude the use of herbicide release. Release treatments would be im-

planted as described in the PA, except where herbicide release was proposed it would be substituted

with a mechanical (preferably hand tool) release method. All other proposed treatments would remain

the same.

Hardwood Removal Modified PA The Forest Service would modify the Proposed Action

as described in this document to include the commercial removal of all merchantable off-site hard-

woods and thinning of all merchantable on-site hardwoods. All other proposed treatments would re-

main the same.

30

Request for Comments

The Forest Service is now seeking comment on the current Longleaf Restoration-II Proposed Action. Anyone wishing

to provide comments on this proposal should comply with the requirements as referenced by this legal notice in

order to have standing to appeal a forthcoming decision. This legal notice is scheduled for publication in the Anda-

lusia Star-News on December 17, 2009; however the actual date of publication is beyond Forest Service control

and will be the control date for determining the conclusion of the comment period.

For Immediate Release (12/17/09) Email: [email protected]

REQUEST FOR COMMENTS

Conecuh National Forest

Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration-II Project

Covington & Escambia Counties

Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.3, District Ranger Stephen Lee requests comments on a Forest Service pro-

posal to implement the second phase of restoration treatments needed on the Conecuh National Forest.

This action is needed to support the long-term restoration strategy established by the Longleaf Restora-

tion EIS (1999). This proposal includes treatments to help restore the composition, structure, and func-

tion of the longleaf ecosystem by reducing overcrowded conditions, removing off-site pines, and rees-

tablishing longleaf pine and conditions favorable for recovery of the associated herbaceous understory.

Proposed treatments would: restore longleaf on 54 suitable sites [2,332 acres] where other species exist

(clearcut with reserves, site-prep, plant, and release), thin 41 over-crowded sites [2,099 acres], remove

slash pine seed sources on 2 sites [94 acres] and release advanced longleaf regeneration present, restore

5 bogs [43 acres] by removing overstory competition and releasing desired species as needed, and re-

lease 60 sites [2,146 acres] of longleaf seedlings being restored under authority of previous decisions.

Included within these treatments are measures designed to restore 2 unique sites designated as rare

communities.

We anticipate the analysis for this action will be documented in an Environmental Assessment in early

2010 and that a Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Notice will be prepared. Comments on

this proposal will be accepted for 30 days following publication of this notice and will be considered

prior to a forthcoming decision. Standing for appeal of the final decision will be based on comments

that comply with the requirements of 36 CFR 215.6. Comments may be mailed or hand delivered to

District Ranger Stephen Lee, 16375 U.S. Highway 29, Andalusia AL 36420; by fax to 334-222-6485;

by electronic mail to [email protected]; or by calling 334-222-2555.

Additional information on this proposal may be obtained by contacting Debbie Russell at the above

address/phone number or at [email protected].

Legal Notice Contact: Debbie Russell

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Restoring the Longleaf Ecosystem on the Conecuh …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The Longleaf Ecosystem Restoration Strategy: Based upon findings of the EIS,