Dunaway Waterfowl Area Expansiona123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 64,000 turkey hunters, 30,000 rabbit hunters, 23,000 squirrel hunters, 32,000 duck hunters

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Dunaway Waterfowl Management Area Expansion

Sumter National Forest

Enoree Ranger District

May 2013

2

Location of Action: Sumter National Forest, Enoree Ranger District Type of Document: Environmental Assessment Lead Agency: US Forest Service Responsible Official: Elizabeth LeMaster, Enoree District Ranger Contact Person: Carrie Miller

3557 Whitmire Hwy Union, SC 29379

(864)427-9858

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color,

national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual

orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an

equal opportunity provider and employer.

3

4

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................... 6

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6

1.2 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................................... 6

1.3 Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................................ 8

1.4 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................... 9

1.5 Decision to be Made .............................................................................................................. 12

1.6 Public Involvement ................................................................................................................. 12

1.7 Issues ...................................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 13 2.1.1 Alternative A (No Action) ............................................................................................................................ 13 2.1.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action) ................................................................................................................. 13

2.2 Monitoring .............................................................................................................................. 17

2.3 Design Criteria ...................................................................................................................... 17

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3 ...................................................................................................................................... 23

Environmental Consequences ..................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Physical Environment ........................................................................................................... 23

3.1.1 Soil Resources ..................................................................................................................... 23

3.1.2 Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 26

3.1.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 30

3.1.4 Climate Change and Carbon Storage .............................................................................. 31

3.2 Biological Environment ........................................................................................................ 33

3.2.1 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................................................ 33

3.2.2 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 42

3.2.3 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Forest Sensitive Species (PETS) ................. 44

3.2.4 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................. 47

5

3.3 Social Environment ............................................................................................................... 50

3.3.1 Human Health and Safety ................................................................................................. 50

3.3.2 Scenery and Recreation ..................................................................................................... 52

3.3.3 Heritage Resources ............................................................................................................ 54

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Civil Rights .......................................................................... 56

3.3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................. 57

Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................................... 58

Consultation .................................................................................................................................. 58

Chapter 5 ....................................................................................................................................... 59

References and Data Sources ....................................................................................................... 59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Dunaway Waterfowl Management Area vicinity map Figure 2: Dunaway Waterfowl Management Area detailed map Figures 3-4: Photos of project area Figure 5: LiDAR map of project area

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation Appendix B – NRCS Consultation letter for Project Mitigating Design Appendix C—ESA Section 7 Consultation Appendix D-- Maps

6

Chapter 1

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action

1.1 Introduction

This document has been prepared to identify and evaluate potential environmental effects of the

proposed Dunaway Waterfowl Management Area (WMA) Expansion project. The Enoree

Ranger District of the Sumter National Forest seeks to expand upon the existing Dunaway

WMA located in Union County, South Carolina (Figures 1 & 2). The Dunaway WMA is under

the stewardship of the US Forest Service (FS), and is located south of Neal Shoals Rd (S-44-

389) in FS compartment 13.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), requires consideration of

the environmental impacts for major federal actions. This Environmental Assessment (EA) has

been prepared to ensure that the environmental consequences of the proposed project are fully

considered and that the EA is provided to the public for their review and comment. This

document has been prepared pursuant to NEPA in accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations as contained in 40 CFR Parts 1500 to 1508, which

directs federal agencies on how to implement the provisions of NEPA.

This EA documents two fundamental NEPA mandated requirements. One is a careful,

complete and analytic study of the impacts of any proposal that has the potential to affect the

environment, and alternatives to that proposal, well before any decisions are made. The

other involves the mandate that agencies be diligent in involving any interested or affected

members of the public in the NEPA process.

1.2 Purpose and Need

The proposed project would meet two primary objectives: (1) creating wetland habitat for game

and nongame wildlife species, and (2) providing enhanced recreational opportunities for the

public.

Most wetlands in the piedmont of South Carolina occur in riparian corridors and bottomland

forests. These habitats have been severely altered by conversion to agriculture, unsustainable

forestry practices and urbanization. Migration corridors of many waterfowl and shorebird

species pass through the piedmont but suitable wetland habitat continues to dwindle at present.

Issues such as invasive species, water demands, environmental contaminants, and global

climate change present new problems that continue to threaten the quantity and quality of

waterfowl habitats (NAWMP 2009). Wetlands in the piedmont provide critical breeding habitat

for species such as wood duck (Aix sponsa), American woodcock (Scolopax minor), bald eagle

7

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and numerous species of neotropical migratory songbirds.

Additionally, piedmont wetlands provide essential habitat for reptiles and amphibians and are

used by post-breeding wood stork (Mycteria americana) migrations. Wood storks routinely

migrate up the major piedmont river corridors from the coast. By expanding the Dunaway

WMA, the Enoree Ranger District would provide additional habitat for species that use

wetlands for breeding, foraging, wintering and migration stop-over areas.

Waterfowl hunting is popular among South Carolina’s sportsmen, and unique waterfowl hunting

opportunities are typically only available to a small percentage of the hunting public. There are

very few public waterfowl opportunities in the piedmont, but the proposed project would offer

additional public hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. The US Forest Service and the

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) cooperatively manage four WMAs

on the Enoree Ranger District. These areas are only open for waterfowl hunting on Saturdays

during the hunting season, and receive a great deal of use by hunters. During the 2012-2013

waterfowl hunting season, 58 hunters from 6 different counties harvested 16 ducks (0.28

ducks/hunter) over the 10 days that hunting was permitted on the Dunaway WMA. The

expansion of the Dunaway WMA would provide a greater opportunity for waterfowl hunting as

well as other outdoor recreational activities (e.g., wildlife viewing).

On August 17, 2007, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order 13443: Facilitation of

Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation. The Order directs federal agencies “to facilitate the

expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and

their habitat.” The Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Plan, as directed by

Executive Order 13443, specifically states: “Authorize federal agencies to retain receipts from

the sale of woody biomass to provide priority funding toward habitat restoration in areas

impacted by harvest. The remaining receipts would be used to fund the Secure Rural Schools

program, additional forest health projects and to provide access for hunting and other wildlife

dependent recreation.” As stated in The Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Plan,

“Hunting and recreational shooting with firearms and archery equipment are important elements

of America’s outdoor heritage, and are uniquely dependent upon public access to federal, state,

and private lands. Constraints on access have been identified as one of the leading impediments

to sustaining and growing participation.” The proposed project is in alignment with Executive

Order 13443 and The Recreational Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Plan.

According to the 2008 Francis Marion-Sumter Visitor Use Report, hunting was the number one

activity selected by respondents as the main purpose of their forest visit (see p. 20 of the report).

For Forest Service Region 8 as a whole, fishing was third most selected activity by respondents,

and hunting was the fourth (see p. 22 of the Region 8 Master Report). Business generated by

hunters is extremely important to rural communities in South Carolina. Nationally, it is estimated

that over a half million jobs in America are supported by hunters. According the USFWS Trends

in Hunting and Fishing 2001-2006 report, there were approximately 161,000 deer hunters,

8

64,000 turkey hunters, 30,000 rabbit hunters, 23,000 squirrel hunters, 32,000 duck hunters and

28,000 dove hunters in South Carolina alone. It is estimated that the total economic impact of

fishing, hunting and wildlife viewing in South Carolina is over $3,793,000,000/year and these

activities are directly responsible for approximately 44,672 jobs in South Carolina.

Of the Enoree Ranger District’s four WMAs, the Dunaway WMA is the smallest, making it a

good candidate for expansion. By increasing the size of this area, more wetland habitat and

outdoor recreation opportunities would be made available in the northeastern part of the ranger

district. The topographic features of the surrounding site are also conducive to wetland

expansion. The area in which the Dunaway WMA would be expanded is a flat, wooded site that

would not impact any streams. Expansion is limited on the other WMAs because of topography

or potential impact to the hydrology of adjacent tributaries.

Creation and maintenance of the expanded Dunaway WMA is anticipated to provide: 1)

enhanced habitat for migratory waterfowl and other wetland associated species; 2) enhanced

public hunting and recreational opportunities; and 3) the opportunity to accomplish goals,

standards and objectives of the Forest Plan. In general, WMAs simulate natural non-forested

and ephemeral wetland conditions via variable hydrologic periods. As such, these areas provide

many of the natural history requirements for various wetland-dependent species.

1.3 Forest Plan Direction

The proposed project provides an opportunity to work toward the forest management goals as

described in the 2004 Sumter National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan

(Forest Plan). Forest Plan guidelines relevant to the Dunaway WMA expansion project are

summarized below:

Goal 9 Provide habitats to sustain the diversity and distribution of resident reptile

and amphibian species as well as breeding, wintering, and migration staging and

stopover habitat for migratory birds in ways that contributes to their long-term

conservation.

Objective 9.01 Construct or restore wetlands on 600 acres in the riparian

corridor on the piedmont over the 10-year planning period.

Standard FW-29 In artificial impoundments used by foraging wood storks, water

levels are managed to provide for and encourage annual use by this species.

Goal 23 Where financially environmentally feasible, enhance the following

opportunities: Hunting, fishing, wildlife, bird, and plant viewing opportunities.

9

1.4 Proposed Action

The proposed action involves expansion of the existing 12-acre Dunaway WMA by building an

earthen embankment (dike) to create a shallow (18-24 inches in depth) impoundment of water to

provide wetland habitat. The dike would be approximately 500 feet long and have a minimum

top width of 10 feet with a 4:1 front slope, 6:1 back slope, and a height less than 3 feet. An

emergency spillway would be located in the Broad River watershed upstream, east of and

perpendicular to the dike. Natural Resource Conservation Service Regional Conservationist prepared a

design specification for the proposed action which is included in Appendix B and was modified and

approved by Forest Service engineers.

A dike with the above specifications and the natural topography of the land would result in the

flooding of approximately 11 acres. Connected actions associated with this proposal would

include an eleven acre timber sale. All trees would be removed within the estimated flooded area

with the exception of scattered mast producing hardwoods. If the scattered mast producers

present a management obstacle, they may be girdled and/or felled. The flooded area would be

adjacent to the existing Dunaway waterfowl impoundment (Figures 1-3).

Material for construction of the dike would come from on site. Topsoil from the footprint of the

site would be stockpiled for later use as the final layer on the dike and to facilitate re-vegetation

of the borrow area. During and after construction activities, the site would be stabilized by

seeding and/or mulching bare soil and using erosion control structures (e.g., fabric fencing).

The expanded WMA would be maintained by controlling water levels, using mechanical

methods (mowing, disking, etc.), prescribed burning, and planting techniques (seedbed

preparation, fertilizing, liming, seeding, etc.). Groundwater dams would be constructed and

placed below and across the existing ditch to block the subsurface movement into the ditch on

adjacent wetlands and additionally create ephemeral wetland habitats separated by shallow pools.

The expanded WMA would be flooded during the dormant season when migratory waterfowl

use is highest, and drawn down during the growing season. When water levels are drawn down,

exposed soil may be mowed or disked with a farm tractor in order to stimulate production of

natural moist-soil emergent vegetation or for preparation prior to the planting of desirable plant

species.

10

11

12

1.5 Decision to be Made

The Responsible Official (i.e., Enoree District Ranger) will make a decision based on the review

of this environmental assessment. The District Ranger will decide whether to implement the

Proposed Action or the “No Action” alternative and whether or not the project will have a

significant impact on the environment. If a determination is made that the impacts are not

significant, then a “Finding of No Significant Impact” [NEPA 1508.13] would be made.

Significant impacts on the quality of human environment would require the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement [NEPA 1504 (C) and (E)]. The decision will be documented in

a Decision Notice [Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, 43.2].

1.6 Public Involvement

Public scoping was conducted to identify potential issues related to the proposed action. On or

about February 9, 2012, a scoping letter was mailed to interested individuals and agencies

requesting their input on the proposed action. No comments were received in response to this

letter. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.3 and 215.5, a legal notice was published in The Newberry

Observer, Newberry, South Carolina on February 14th, 2012. This legal notice requested

comments on the proposed action and notified the public of the 30-day Notice and Comment

Period. No comments were received.

1.7 Issues

No issues were identified.

13

Chapter 2

Alternatives

2.1 Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

This section discusses the proposed action that the USDA Forest Service would take to meet the

purpose and need discussed in the previous section. The No Action alternative is also discussed.

2.1.1 Alternative A (No Action)

The “No Action” alternative involves leaving the Dunaway WMA in its current state by not

expanding the existing waterfowl impoundment. Therefore, this alternative is the continuation of

existing conditions and activities. Waterfowl/wetland habitat would not be created or enhanced,

and the Enoree would not provide additional enhanced recreational opportunities for the public at

the Dunaway WMA. An evaluation of the “No Action” alternative is required by NEPA.

2.1.2 Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposal involves expanding the existing 12-acre Dunaway WMA by building an earthen

embankment (dike) to create a shallow (18-24 inches in depth) impoundment of water to provide

wetland habitat. The dike would be approximately 500 feet long and have a minimum top width

of 10 feet with a 4:1 front slope, 6:1 back slope, and a height less than 3 feet (Figures 2 & 5). An

emergency spillway would be located in the Broad River Watershed upstream, east of, and

perpendicular to the dike.

A dike with the above specifications and the natural topography of the land would result in the

flooding of approximately 11 acres. All trees would be removed within the estimated flooded

area with the exception of scattered mast producing hardwoods. If the scattered mast producers

presented a management obstacle, they may be girdled and/or felled. The flooded area would be

adjacent to the existing Dunaway waterfowl impoundment (Figures 2 & 5).

Material for construction of the dike would come from on site. Topsoil from the footprint of the

site would be stockpiled for later use as the final layer on the dike and to facilitate re-vegetation

of the borrow area. During and after construction activities, the site would be stabilized by

seeding and/or mulching bare soil and using erosion control structures (e.g., fabric fencing).

14

There are no perennial or intermittent streams located within the project area. The expanded

impoundment would be flooded with water pumped from the existing WMA and from normal

runoff and precipitation. A water-control structure (e.g., flashboard riser outlet device) would

be placed in the dike to manipulate water levels and to drain the impoundment as needed.

The expanded WMA would be maintained by controlling water levels, using mechanical

methods (mowing, disking, etc.), prescribed burning, and planting techniques (seedbed

preparation, fertilizing, liming, seeding, etc.). The expanded WMA would be flooded during the

dormant season when migratory waterfowl use is highest, and drawn down during the growing

season. When water levels are drawn down, exposed soil may be mowed or disked with a farm

tractor in order to stimulate production of natural moist-soil emergent vegetation or for

preparation prior to the planting of desirable plant species. Ideally, native moist-soil plants and

shrubs would be planted and encouraged within the project area (e.g., Cephalanthus occidentalis,

Polyganum spp., Scirpus spp., Cyperus spp., Panicum spp., and Peltandra spp.). However, non-

native annuals may be planted, especially if there is an inadequate response from native moist-

soil plants. Actions are designed to establish and maintain plant species beneficial to waterfowl

and other wildlife, as well as to provide enhanced recreational opportunities for the public.

2.1.3 Connected Actions

Connected actions associated with this proposal would include an eleven acre timber sale to

remove merchantable volume. In addition, an adjacent wetland would have groundwater dams

Figure 3. Photo of central area to be flooded. Dominant trees to be removed are sweetgum & maple.

15

constructed with compacted clay soils and placed below and across the existing ditch to block

the subsurface movement of water into the ditch. There are existing ditches on the site that were

created prior to Forest Service acquisition (Figures 4 & 5). These ditches are affecting the

hydrology of the area. As such, ditches may be blocked with a series of groundwater dams that

are separated by shallow pools to create ephemeral wetland habitats.

Figure 4. Photo of former agricultural ditch

16

17

Unmerchantable material within the project area would be harvested by biomass harvest treatment

coinciding with the timber sale. Biomass mechanical treatments would contribute to implementation of

the Sumter National Forest’s plan (RLRMP) by helping achieve vegetation objectives, retaining and

restoring healthy Forest conditions, reducing the risk of insect outbreaks, and reducing fuel loading at

critical locations around vulnerable communities. Additional Unmerchantable material within the project

area would be disposed of by cutting/burning and/or chipping/grinding material on site. Access to

the site would require improving approximately 1,580 feet of temporary road along the existing

Dunaway WMA access road (Figure 2).

Once expansion is completed the dike would be mowed at least once a year to minimize the

growth of woody vegetation, thus maintaining its structural integrity. The dike would not be

utilized for daily or heavy vehicular traffic but only for occasional traffic associated with

maintenance activities. The dike would be evaluated for signs of erosion following heavy or

unusual storm events and repaired expediently.

2.2 Monitoring Activities and effects would be monitored to ensure compliance with Forest Plan standards.

Forest Service personnel would administer integrated resource and timber sale contracts. This

ensures resource protection and adherence to contract clauses including but not limited to

heritage resources, riparian areas and streams and other site-specific design criteria.

Effectiveness of mitigation measures and a determination that Forest Plan and project objectives

are being met would be done periodically on a forest-wide rather than on an individual basis.

However, spot checks of effectiveness of design criteria and compliance with BMPs may occur

on this project.

Other monitoring that would be done on the district would include annual air quality monitoring,

impacts and spread of NNIS, annual bird monitoring surveys including MIS species, aquatic

monitoring and BMP compliance checks.

2.3 Design Criteria

Design Criteria that apply to all action alternatives are incorporated from the following

documents:

The Forest Plan provides specific standards to ensure proper layout of units and during

project implementation.

South Carolina’s Best Management Practices for Forestry (South Carolina Forestry

Commission 1994).

Soil and Water Conservation Practices Guide, Southern Region, (U.S. Department of

Agriculture 2002).

18

1. All applicable state and federal permits would be obtained prior to initiation of

construction activities.

The Enoree Ranger District collaborated with the Natural Resources Conservation

Service to prepare the design specification for the proposed alternative. Charles

Banks, NRCS Regional Conservationist, prepared a design specification for the

proposed alternative which is included in Appendix B and was modified and

approved by Forest Service engineers.

The NRCS specifications list several undesirable non-native plants for soil

stabilization (e.g., serecia lespedeza, bahiagrass and fescue). As such, the

proposed alternative would involve planting desirable native perennial and non-

native annuals to mitigate soil disturbance. The following design criteria are as

follows:

MATERIALS AND APPLICATION RATES

A. Fertilizer rate shall not exceed 400 lbs. per acre 10-10-10.

B. Lime to 1,000 lbs. per acre (May be less, desired soil pH is between 5.5 and 6).

C. To prepare soil: apply fertilizer and lime; rake to form a crumbly seed bed; apply

seed with a drill seeder, hydroseeder, or broadcast spreader; then roll or “cultipac”

to firm the seed bed and lightly cover seed with soil (1/4 inch to ½ inch soil

optimal). PAM-12 may be applied at a rate of 400 lbs. per acre to increase

soil/seed contact and to stabilize soil and would be lightly mulch.

D. The following weed-free seed mixtures shall be used:

September 1 to April 1 is the optimal window for seeding native

species:

1). Nurse Crops

Wheat/Oats/Grain Rye-- 80 lbs. /acre

Crimson Clover-- 10 lbs. /acre

2). Native Perennial Grasses – Seed source SC, NC, or GA Preferred; KY

(Sumter only)

Big Bluestem-- 2 lbs. /acre

Indiangrass-- 3 lbs. /acre

Little Bluestem-- 5 lbs. /acre

3). Native Forbs/Legumes – Seed source SC, NC, or GA Preferred, KY (Sumter

only)

Blackeyed Susan-- 1.0 lb. /acre

False Sunflower-- 1.0 lb. /acre

19

Lance Leaved Tickseed (Coreopsis) -- 1.0 lb. /acre

Partridge Pea-- 1.0 lb. /acre

Roundheaded Lespedeza-- 0.5 lb. /acre

Spiked Blazing Star-- 0.5 lb. /acre

If seeding from April 2 to August 31:

1). Nurse Crop

Brown Top Millet 30 lbs. /acre

2). Native Perennial Grasses/Forbs/Legumes – Same as above

E. Apply silt fencing, hay, straw, and/or wood cellulose fiber mulch immediately

after seeding.

Additional Design Criteria:

2. Soils samples would be taken prior to application to insure the proper amount of either

lime or fertilizers needed to obtain the desired condition.

3. The constructed dike or any other fill material would not be placed on any areas

considered to be wetlands unless a Section 404 permit is obtained from the US Army

Corps of Engineers.

Skid trails and log decks will be seeded, fertilized and mulched at the time each harvest area is

closed. Seed mixtures will include native grasses and legumes or other desired non-native

species beneficial to wildlife and native ecosystems and include local ecotypes and species

native to Union County.

Temporary roads and skid trails will be located in such a manner to roll with the terrain to

reduce water concentrations. Drainage dips and lead-outs will be incorporated in construction of

temporary roads.

The spread of nonnative invasive plant species will be minimized by ensuring equipment

cleaning provisions are met, that no non-native invasive species are planted and that invasive

plant species are treated that have the potential to impact resource management objectives in the

project area.

Streams will be identified on sale area maps and protective measures will be specified in the

timber sale contract.

20

2.4 Comparison of Alternatives The following table summarizes potential impacts of the two alternatives to significant resources.

Table 3.1-1 Comparison of Environmental Impacts by Alternative

Environmental Resource/

Component

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Soils

No anticipated impacts Temporary minor impacts from increased soil erosion in project area

Temporary minor impacts on log landings and skid trails from soil compaction, and increased erosion.

Increased long term water infiltration and organic content

Water Resources

No anticipated impacts Possible temporary impacts from increased water yields

Possible temporary impacts from increased sediment yields

Negligible impacts from nutrient runoff

Air Quality

No impacts on air quality anticipated

Temporary, minimal, localized, adverse impacts on air quality from equipment emissions during treatment activities

Temporary, minimal, localized, adverse impacts on air quality from dust generated by use of roads and ground disturbance

BIOLOGICAL

ENVIRONMENT

Vegetation

No anticipated impacts Beneficial effects on overall health of waterfowl/avian habitat

Increased herbaceous wetland vegetation

Change from forested condition, to herbaceous dominated wetland

21



Component

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Fisheries Resources

No anticipated impacts Minimal impacts, as the project area is a closed system and does not have a direct connection with a permanent waterbody.

Threatened, Endangered,

and Sensitive (TES) Species

No impacts No direct effects on any TES species

Beneficial indirect effects on habitats for Wood Stork

No indirect effects on any other TES species are anticipated to result from the project

No effects on federally listed species, since none occur in the project areas

Migratory Birds

No impact

Less habitat available for migratory waterfowl

Improves habitat for waterfowl

Improves habitat conditions for migratory birds associated with mature pine and mixed hardwoods

Habitat loss for migratory birds associated with mature hardwoods and bottomland forest

SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT

Transportation

Continued lack of permanent access to some stands for land management, law

Short-term adverse impacts from road erosion at and near project area.

Minimal impact on roads;

22



Component

Alternative 1

No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed Action

enforcement, and fire control purposes

temporary roads would be closed and reseeded.

Recreation and Visual

Resources

No impact Less opportunity for

hunting and wildlife

viewing in the area

Temporary/short-term adverse impacts from harvest operations due to the presence and use of equipment, increased truck traffic, and tree removal;

Beneficial effects on visual resources and recreation from significant increases in visibility, access, and addition waterfowl hunting/viewing opportunities.

Promotes hunting, wildlife viewing and other recreational pursuits, thus increasing the number of individuals able to utilize the area.

Socioeconomics No economic benefit Net economic benefit

expected due to increased public use

Environmental Justice/

Protection of Children

No disproportionate, adverse impact on low-income or minority populations or children

No disproportionate, adverse impact on low-income or minority populations or children

Human Health and Safety

No impacts Temporary, minor potential for adverse impacts on worker and public safety during use of heavy equipment given strict adherence to safety measures

Cultural Resources

No Impacts No impacts

23

Chapter 3

Environmental Consequences

This section discloses the environmental consequences to the physical, biological and social

environment relative to the alternatives. It also discusses the scientific and analytical basis for

comparison of alternatives presented in the previous chapter. The action alternative is consistent

with the Forest Plan.

3.1 Physical Environment

The physical environment section consists of the Affected Environment and Effects write-up on

Soil productivity, Water Quality and Air Quality. All disturbances to the proposed site would

comply with Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines, which can be found in the Sumter Forest

Plan.

3.1.1 Soil Resources

3.1.1.1 Affected Environment

Soils at the project area were altered historically for farming. Many of the farming practices in

floodplains included ditching, plowing and smoothing the land. These activities were used to

farm the rich soils of the floodplains, and in the agricultural processes many wetlands were

drained and farmed.

Farming practices in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s lead to excessive erosion of the upland

areas across the piedmont of South Carolina. Upland soil was eventually washed into the

waterways, leading to excessive amounts of sediment that have caused the streams and rivers to

aggrade and some to become braded. Many of the floodplains in this area have risen in elevation

over time due to excessive amounts of sediment being deposited on the floodplain during flood

events. This sediment has also contributed to the filling of wetlands that were once in the

floodplains.

A field examination of the site by US Forest Service personnel confirmed that this site has been

drained filled, and, leveled to facilitate farming prior to National Forest designation. The ditches

dug in the early 1900’s were found to be functioning today. However, this project area

encompasses one small wetland despite the adjacent ditches.

Soil series in this project area include Toccoa, Chenneby, and Shellbluff. Toccoa series have

sandy loam to loam textures, are well drained to moderately well drained, and are found on

floodplains and natural levees. Chenneby soils are silt loam to silty clay loam in texture, are

somewhat poorly drained, and are found on floodplains. Shellbluff series have silt loam to silty

24

clay loam textures, are well drained to moderately well drained soils that formed in fluvial

sediments (NRCS soils survey staff).

3.1.1.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

The “No Action” alternative involves leaving the Dunaway Waterfowl Management Area in its

current state. Therefore, this alternative is the continuation of existing conditions and activities.

The “No Action” Alternative would not involve any construction or soil disturbance, and

therefore, would not have any direct or indirect soil effects.

3.1.1.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

This alternative would not produce any cumulative effects, as the Dunaway WMA would not be

expanded. There are no other activities in the project area that would have impacts on soils.

3.1.1.4 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

This alternative introduces potential soil disturbances to the 15 acre project area and adjacent

trail/unclassified road by creation of the new expanded Dunaway WMA. Such soil disturbances

would result from tree removal, dike construction, hydrological restoration (groundwater dams

in existing ditch) and proposed future management practices. There is minimal potential for soil

erosion due to the fact that the project area has a slope of three percent or less and water can be

impounded and allowed to settle before draining occurs. This would reduce the potential for soil

erosion.

Flooding and drawdown of the impoundment would result in a higher frequency of water

saturation during the winter, and drying of soils in the spring and summer. The small wetland

within the project area would be fully functional once the project is completed since the ditch

lines would be blocked. It is expected that the wetland area would have deeper water during the

winter flooding of the impoundment but, during the rest of the year the wetland would function

normally and water levels would be dependent on the year’s precipitation. The constructed dike

or any other fill material would not be placed on any areas considered to be wetlands unless a

Section 404 permit is obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Construction, operation and maintenance in accordance with the Forest Plan and South

Carolina’s Best Management Practices for Forestry (BMPs) would minimize impacts to soils

by limiting soil erosion, compaction and rutting.

3.1.1.5 Timber Harvesting Effects on Soils

Timber harvesting involves various types and intensities of ground disturbing activities that can

potentially affect the soil resource. Erosion hazard and steepness of slope are the primary soil

concerns that could limit management activities. Soil concerns associated with logging and other

25

connected actions on these soils center around rutting, soil compaction, displacement/erosion,

soil exposure and nutrient reduction. Soil disturbance and compaction during timber harvest

vary depending upon both the type of soil and harvest method (Swank and others 1989). Timber

harvesting can directly affect the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil (Swank

and others 1989). Effects from this action may include immediate changes in soil and/or organic

matter displacement, water infiltration rates and soil compaction.

Displacement of organic matter can result in disruption to nutrient recycling in the soil and

reduced nutrient availability for trees and other plants. Nutrient removal varies with the intensity

of the activities and degree those organic materials that are removed.

Compaction can limit root growth and development in the soil, decreasing tree growth (Swank

and others 1989) and increase risk for blow down or tree stress. Where soil compaction is severe

and unmitigated, soil productivity would be reduced due to loss of soil structure. Compaction is

most likely to occur on those areas where heavy equipment operates repeatedly, especially when

soils are wet. Areas subject to compaction include skid trails, temporary roads and log landings.

While subject to many variables, it is estimated that about ten percent of a given area harvested

by conventional logging equipment (rubber-tired skidders/forwarder) is impacted by skid trails,

temporary roads and log landings. This is within effects described in the Forest Plan.

Water infiltration rates may be reduced due to compacted soils. Soil rutting and erosion can

reduce soil productivity and result in permanent loss of soil. Follow-up treatments including

disking and plowing would eliminate compaction and potential losses in soil productivity.

The potential effects of soil erosion, sediment yield, and compaction have a spatial and temporal

context. The amount produced depends upon the topographic, soil, and climatic characteristics

of the affected area along with the intensity of management practices being implemented.

Erosion that results from timber harvest would be greatly modified through time in that

disturbance would be temporary and generally a single pulse over a long period of time.

Research has repeatedly shown that sediment production during timber harvest may accelerate

temporarily to about 0.05 to 0.50 tons per acre per year (Patric 1976 and 1994).

With proper mitigation applied, all effects of timber harvest on soil loss, sediment yield and

compaction would return to precutting conditions within two to five years. If any areas suffer

severe compaction, however, the effects of the compaction could last much longer. Impacts to

soils would be reduced by following existing Forest Plan standards (USDA 2004a), and

implementing South Carolina BMP’s.

Periodic wildlife management activities can cause excessive erosion and productivity losses.

However, these adverse effects from erosion are normally within acceptable levels by limiting

these activities to slopes less than ten percent in the project area. Annual to periodic disking

26

would be common in the impoundment. When soils are disked regularly soil organic matter can

be reduced because decomposition rates are increased in the surface horizons. Incorporating the

proper amount of lime and fertilizers would improve and maintain the soil productivity in these

areas. Adding too much of either could prevent the desired vegetation from growing and could

increase the amount of nutrients entering into the shallow water table. Soils samples would be

taken prior to application of lime and fertilizer to ensure the proper amount is applied to get the

desired plant growth and to prevent excess nutrients entering the water table..

Additional measures such as no till, contour farming, or vegetative strips can be used to further

reduce soil exposure and/or concentrated flow that can cause soil erosion an sedimentation to

streams.

Potential effects to soils from mowing activities would be compaction from heavy equipment if

mowing is done during high soil moisture. There would be no nutrient removal from mowing.

Overall, there would be minimal effects to soils from mowing activities.

3.1.1.5.1 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

The acreage affected by this alternative in relation to the surrounding landscape is extremely

small. Within the immediate vicinity of the project area, most of landscape is in a forested

condition. The only known projects in the immediate vicinity which have the potential to affect

soil condition include management and maintenance activities of the existing Dunaway WMA

and upcoming timber sales. When combined with past and present land disturbances within and

adjacent to the project area, this project is not expected to produce significant soil compaction,

erosion or displacement. As such, the proposed action is not expected to produce substantial

adverse cumulative effects. Adverse cumulative effects from soil erosion and compaction would

be minimized by following South Carolina Best Management Practices for Forestry (BMPs), use

of construction design measures, and Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

3.1.2 Water Resources


The Enoree Ranger District is within the piedmont (Gulf Atlantic Rolling Plain physiographic

province) of South Carolina. Conversion of forests and repeated cultivation practices caused

most of the land to become eroded to severely eroded, resulting in the loss (typically 6-12

inches) of most surface soil. The sensitivities in the land do not preclude management, but they

require maintaining soil cover on eroded areas. The low to moderate slopes of the project area

make it a good choice for the proposed treatments. The legacy of unstable streams exists and is

expected to continue for extended periods. Some stream sections in the project area are unstable

while other sections have reached bedrock or otherwise have stabilized and the entrenchment is

not as deep as to undercut the roots from the adjacent slopes. In these instances tree roots are

27

typically adding sufficient bank stability to protect them from changes in water yield associated

with project activities.

Storms and storm sequences in the southeastern United States can be severe. From 5 to 8 inches

or more rain can be generated from a severe tropical storm event. It is likely that the area would

be exposed to one or more of these during any treatment recovery period. In addition,

thunderstorms and frontal events are more frequent across the landscape, though typically not as

severe.

Generally, precipitation averages 45 inches per year for the piedmont of the Sumter National

Forest. Water yield averages about 17 inches, so about 28 inches is typically utilized by plants in

transpiration, or evaporates. The highest potential for precipitation and associated runoff and

flooding occurs in the winter and early spring when groundwater levels are higher and soils are

moister. Winter rains are usually widespread and prolonged while much of the summer rains are

localized thunderstorms of short duration. Stream flow behavior is described as “flashy” in

headwater streams, meaning that the channels and their contributing stream networks are capable

of rapidly delivering a high volume of water in response to sustained heavy precipitation events.

Many of the channels are entrenched into the landscape due to gully development or resultant

deposition and degradation due to recovery, down-cutting and entrenching. These headwaters do

not typically have a floodplain where flood flows are partially detained and/or retained. The

extensive networks of gully channels develop to be efficient for the delivery of flow and

sediment. Partially because of this delivery efficiency of surface flow, base flow (or ground

water contribution to surface flow) can be a minimal component of stream flow. As the

watershed recovers, soils are able to absorb and maintain rainfall, bottomland channels cut

through the deep alluvial deposits, and some of the former flow characteristics of base flow

return to the landscape. Some of this return may also be due to better riparian management,

fewer irrigation or other diversions, better watershed management and attention to BMP’s.

However, many of the small channels are typically devoid of surface flow during the hot summer

months (July through September).

Channeled ephemeral streams have a defined channel of flow where surface water converges

with enough energy to remove soil, organic matter and leaf litter. Wetlands are seldom found

along most of the streams because soils are well to moderately-drained.

Roads managed by private landowners or entities, Forest Service, state, county and other federal

agencies are the most prominent feature on the landscape. On private land, roads are mostly

native surface and are designed for periodic to permanent use in such activities as logging,

farming, ranching, recreation and access to home sites. State, county and U.S. roads are mostly

paved, whereas roads managed by the Forest Service are mostly graveled with some native

surfaces depending on the distance from streams and maintenance level designation. Roads can

28

affect water quality and aquatic habitats by causing chronic soil erosion, resulting in

sedimentation into streams.

The project area is within the hydrologic boundaries of the Broad River Basin within the 21,600

acre Hughes Creek-Broad River sixth level watershed. Elevations of potential treatment area

range from about 340 to 350 feet above mean sea level. Snow is a minor component and seldom

accumulates for long periods of time. Private land uses include some agriculture (farming and

cattle). Management practices on national forest system lands consist of

3.1.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 1: No-Action

Normal geological and legacy erosion and sedimentation would continue related to current

conditions. Impacts on water resources under alternative 1 would be limited to the effects of

silvicultural activities covered under already existing project decisions, routine road

maintenance, invasive species control and possible southern pine beetle control efforts. No other

impacts are anticipated under this alternative.

3.1.2.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Existing levels of erosion-based sediment were approximated from land use activities and

delivered to small streams (methods summarized by Hansen et. al, 1994, Roehl, 1962). No

substantial impacts to riparian areas, perennial, intermittent or ephemeral streams would occur

under this alternative since BMPs apply to private land forestry practices as well. For the most

part, prompt treatment of southern pine beetle spots has kept periodic outbreaks small and has

limited overall mortality on both federal and private land. Soil loss and sediment yields would be

associated with existing roads and ongoing land management activities. On private land, this is

primarily associated with farming, livestock grazing and periodic timber harvesting.


The proposed action may produce minimal temporary adverse impacts. Muddy or sediment

laden water generated during and after construction would be allowed to settle prior to discharge

into surface waters. Impacts due to draining of the impoundment in the spring would be

minimal, only possibly affecting water quality by increased input of sediment into the water

column. In some cases, draining the impoundment may not be necessary, as it would dry up

naturally.

The potential for water resource degradation is temporary in duration and moderate on site, with

elevated sediment concentrations for two to three years within the area. Tree removal would

reduce normal water infiltration. However, because the project area is a closed system, soil and

nutrient loss is expected to be minimal. Timber harvesting can cause increases in sedimentation,

nutrient loading and water yield changes. However these effects are minimal due to site-specific

design criteria and the size/location of the project area.

Impacts on water resources from moderate increases in runoff, sediment, and nutrients would be

29

minimal based on forest-wide standards and guidelines and BMP’s implemented during timber

harvesting and construction activities. Changes in water yields would occur in response to other

activities within the watershed or natural processes such as storms or fires that may create

canopy openings.

Planting of the project area in herbaceous vegetation would increase the amount of water uptake

after tree removal and decrease the amount of stormflow. The development of understory

vegetation after the timber harvesting and construction activities are completed would reduce the

amount of stormflow caused by overstory tree removal. Surface water runoff and erosion impacts

during timber harvests are typically short-term, lasting only until understory vegetation in the

affected area reestablishes. Nutrients, including nitrogen and phosphorous can enter water bodies

attached to sediment, dissolved in water runoff, or through the air (USEPA, 2001). Nutrient

losses tend to increase proportionately with sediment losses (Schultz, 1997). Increased nutrient

runoff to streams can have either adverse effects (Lemly, 2000) or potentially beneficial effects,

depending on the level of nutrient runoff, and the current nutrient content of the streams (Tank

and Webster, 1998). Many aquatic systems are nutrient poor, and therefore, small increases in

nutrients can improve their productivity (USFS, 1989b). The potential increase in sediment

yields to the Broad River would be negligible overall.

3.1.2.5 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2:Proposed Action

Other past, present and foreseeable future activities within the project area watershed, which

have a potential to interact cumulatively to affect water resources, include herbicide release, SPB

suppression and control activities, invasive exotic plant control, temporary road construction and

maintenance, prescribed burning and gully restoration/rehabilitation. Due to the size, nature and

location of the project area, cumulative negative effects are expected to be imperceptible.

30

3.1.3 Air Quality


Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended

in 1977 and 1990 (40 CFR 50), the USEPA has

established air quality standards in regard to the types

of air pollutants emitted by internal combustion

engines, such as those in aircraft, vehicles, and other

sources. These National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) are established for six

contaminants, referred to as criteria pollutants, and

apply to the ambient air (the air that the general public

is exposed to every day). These criteria pollutants

include: carbon monoxide, ozone, particulate matter,

nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and lead. The NAAQS

include primary and secondary standards. Primary

Standards establish the level of air quality necessary to

protect public health from any known or anticipated

adverse effects of a pollutant, allowing a margin of

safety to protect sensitive members of the population.

Secondary Standards establish the level of air quality

necessary to protect public welfare by preventing

injury to agricultural crops and livestock, deterioration

of materials and property, and adverse impacts on the

environment, including prevention of reduced visibility

(USEPA, 2002).

Areas where the ambient air quality does not meet the

NAAQS are said to be non-attainment areas. Areas

where the ambient air currently meets the national

standards are said to be in attainment. The entire

Sumter NF is classified as being in attainment for all

six criteria pollutants (USEPA, 2002; USDA, 2001c).

Under the 1977 CAA Amendments, areas designated as Class 1 are provided the highest degree

of regulatory protection from air pollution impacts. Areas Classified as Class II are protected

under the CAA, but are identified for somewhat less stringent protection from air pollution

damage relative to Class I areas. The Enoree Ranger District is considered Class II under the

1977 CAA Amendments.


No adverse impacts on air quality under would be anticipated from the No-action alternative.

The CAA’s Six Criteria Pollutants

Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless, toxic gas produced by the incomplete combustion of organic materials used as fuels. CO is emitted as a by-product of essentially all combustion.

Ozone (O3). A photochemical oxidant and a major constituent of smog. Ozone is formed when two precursor pollutants, hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, react chemically in the presence of sunlight.

Particulate Matter (PM10). Fine particles less than 10 micrometers in diameter. PM10 includes solid and liquid material suspended in the atmosphere and formed as a result of incomplete combustion.

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). A corrosive and poisonous gas produced mainly from the burning of sulfur-containing fuel.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). Poisonous and highly-reactive gases produced when fuel is burned at high temperatures, causing some of the abundant nitrogen in the air to burn, as well.

Lead (Pb). A toxic heavy metal, the most significant emissions of which derive from gasoline additives, iron and steel production, and alkyl lead manufacturing.

31


Effects on air quality from timber harvesting and construction activities would be temporary;

no long-term effects would result. Minor impacts due to vehicles moving on gravel surfaced

roadways and movement of soils during construction would result in potential increased levels

of dust in the air but these impacts would be considered minimal and of short duration. No

changes to air quality are expected to result from implementation of the proposed action.

Impacts from these sources are expected to be minimal under Alternative 2.

The proposed action is in compliance with Section 176 (c) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended. A conformity determination is not required for the following reasons:

40 CFR 93.153 (b) of the CFR states, "For Federal actions not covered by paragraph (a)

of this section, a conformity determination is required for each pollutant where the total

of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a

Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates in paragraphs (b) (1) or (2) of this

section." The area has been designated by the State of North Carolina as an attainment

area.

3.1.3.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Other past, present and foreseeable future activities within the project area watershed, which

have a potential to interact cumulatively to affect water resources, include herbicide release, SPB

suppression and control activities, invasive exotic plant control, temporary road construction and

maintenance, prescribed burning and gully restoration/rehabilitation. Other projects on the

Enoree Ranger District generate emissions from equipment. When emissions from the proposed

action are considered with other on-going work, no exceedance of air quality standards should

occur. Cumulative adverse air impacts from these activities would not be significant.

3.1.4 Climate Change and Carbon Storage


On January 16, 2009 the Chief of the US Forest Service directed the national forests to consider

climate change during project planning. National forests were directed to consider the impacts

that climate change would have on meeting goals and objectives stated in Forest Plans and the

effects that the project contributes to climate change. The US Global Changes Research Program

published a 2009 report (USGCRP 2009) on climate changes on different regions. Predictions for

the Southeast include: air temperature increases; sea level rise; changes in the timing, location

and quantity of precipitation; and increased frequency of extreme weather events such as

hurricanes, heat waves, droughts and floods. These predicted changes would affect renewable

resources, aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and agriculture, with implications for human health.

32

Human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, primarily carbon dioxide emissions (CO2), are the

main source of accelerated climate change on a global scale. The Template for Assessing

Climate Change Impacts and Management Options (TACCIMO) was used to assess differences

among three general circulation models for the Sumter National Forest. TACCIMO (USFS 2012)

was used to create a report that summarizes the resulting climate change impacts. Climate

change, especially climate change variability (droughts and floods), may alter hydrologic

characteristics of watersheds with implications for wildlife, forest productivity and human use.

This climate change variability may result in long-term and seasonal changes in temperature that

Dunaway waterfowl management area could influence ecosystem health and function. These

impacts result from both long-term warming and from shorter term fluctuations in seasonal

temperature that may interrupt or alter temperature dependent ecosystem processes. The

Dunaway waterfowl area expansion is a mixture of forested and water habitat and thus provide a

source for uptake and storage of carbon. At the watershed scale and larger global scale it is not

measureable.

The affected environment for climate change is two-fold. First, climate change may affect the

natural resources on the Enoree RD and the objectives for the project area. Secondly, vegetation

management activities may affect carbon storage ability. In this case the affected environment is

global. Climate change scenarios to predict that increases in temperatures and drought

occurrence in the Southeast could result in increased losses of carbon, possibly exacerbated by

increased wildfire disturbance. The consequences of drought depend on annual and seasonal

climate changes and whether the current drought adaptations of trees offer resistance and

resilience to changing conditions. The seasonal severity of fire hazard is projected to increase

about 10 percent over the next century over much of the US with a 30 percent increase in fire

hazard for the southeast predicted.

3.1.4.2 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 1 would result in no short term change to the current trend for carbon storage or

release in the project area. If climate change occurs, studies on longleaf pine (Pederson, Varner,

and Palik 2007) indicate that drought exacerbates mortality because increased evaporative

demand reduces vigor, which predisposes trees to insect and disease. Peaks in wildlife fire

activity would also add to this mortality. Extensive forests of loblolly pine now exist in areas

once dominated by mixtures of hardwoods, shortleaf pine, and less abundance of loblolly pine

forests. Declines in agriculture as a result of loss of soil productivity, led to the establishment of

more loblolly pine across the piedmont. Past and present projects including periodic prescribed

burning, woodland creation and thinning (pulpwood, and intermediate) have reduced hazardous

fuels, improved growing conditions for trees, and increased diversity of habitat conditions

including development of understory grasses, forbs and shrubs on portions of national forest

system lands. The Canadian and Hadley climate scenarios are referenced in Climate Change

33

Impacts on the United States, The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change,

by the National Assessment Synthesis Team, US Global Change Research Program, 2000.

Dunaway waterfowl management area expansion is currently a mosaic of diverse stands and

habitat conditions. Potential gains and losses of carbon would be subject to changes in land-use,

such as the conversion of forests to agricultural lands. Increase urbanization is occurring on

private lands around the forest. However, national forest system lands provide for the long-term

management of forested areas to offset these other changes in the piedmont.

3.1.4.3 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Eleven acres within the project area would vary throughout the year from being flooded in late

fall through winter to being dry in the summer. Trees being removed from the 11 acres would

temporarily decrease (by a miniscule amount) the amount of carbon being sequestered, however

once the area is flooded it will sequester more carbon than the trees that were removed. When the

Dunaway project area is drained native grasses and crops would be planted which would build

up the amount of carbon sequestered and also increase the amount of soil as the grasses break

down during the fall when it would be flooded.

The waterfowl area would still be able to be flooded annually and grasses and crops could still be

grown in a warmer and drier climate, still meeting the purpose and need established for the

project area.

At a global or national scale, the short-term reduction in carbon stocks and sequestration rates of

the proposed project are imperceptibly small, as are the potential long-term benefits. Other past,

present and future projects on federal and private land, cumulatively would add very small

amounts of carbon dioxide to the air and the effects would not be measurable at a global scale.

3.2 Biological Environment

3.2.1 Aquatic Communities


Watersheds on the Enoree Ranger District contain a warm water aquatic community that

includes fish and macro invertebrates. The warm water aquatic community serves as a

management indicator that is monitored to indicate the effects of management on riparian

resources. Fishes, crayfishes, aquatic insects, and mollusks are all components of the community.

Aquatic species that may occur in the project area watershed are listed in the following tables.

Table 3.2.1-1. Fish species known to occur in the Broad River watershed (Rhode, et al. 1994). Fish species sampled in two tributaries to the Tyger

34

River are denoted with *. Scientific Name Common Name

Aphredoderidae Pirate Perches

Aphredoderus sayanus sayanus Eastern pirate perch

Catostomidae Suckers

Carpiodes cyprinus Quillback

Catostomus commersoni White sucker

Erimyzon oblongus oblongus Creek chubsucker*

Hypentelium nigricans Northern hog sucker

Minytrema melanops Spotted sucker

Moxostoma macrolepidotum macrolepidotum Shorthead redhorse

Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse

Moxostoma rupiscartes Striped jumprock

Centrarchidae Sunfishes

Lepomis auritus Redbreast sunfish*

Lepomis cyanellus Green sunfish

Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed

Lepomis gulosus Warmouth

Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill*

Lepomis marginatus Dollar sunfish

Lepomis microlophus Redear sunfish

Micropterus dolomieu Smallmouth bass

Micropterus salmoides Largemouth bass

Pomoxis annularis White crappie

Pomoxis nigromaculatus Black crappie

Clupeidae Herrings

Alosa sapidissima American shad

Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad

Dorosoma petenese Threadfin shad

Cyprinidae Carps and Minnows

Clinostomus funduloides Rosyside dace

Ctenopharyngodon idella Grass carp

Cyprinella chloristia Greenfin shiner

Cyprinella labrosa Thicklip chub

Cyprinella nivea Whitefin shiner*

Cyprinella pyrrhomelas Fieryblack shiner

Cyprinella zanema Santee chub

Cyprinus carpio Common carp

Hybognathus regius Eastern silvery minnow

Hybopsis hypsinotus Highback chub

Nocomis leptocephalus Bluehead chub*

Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden shiner

Notropis altipinnis Highfin shiner

Notropis cummingsae Dusky shiner

35

Notropis hudsonius Spottail shiner

Notropis lutipinnis Yellowfin shiner*

Notropis petersoni Coastal shiner

Notropis procne Swallowtail shiner

Notropis scepticus Sandbar shiner

Semotilus atromaculatus Creek chub*

Esocidae Pikes

Esox americanus. Redfin pickerel*

Esox niger Chain pickerel

Ictaluridae Bullhead Catfishes

Ameiurus brunneus Snail bullhead

Ameiurus catus White catfish

Ameiurus natalis Yellow bullhead*

Ameiurus nebulosus Brown bullhead

Ameiurus platycephalus Flat bullhead

Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish

Noturus gyrinus Tadpole madtom

Noturus insignis insignus Margined madtom

Pylodictis olivaris Flathead catfish

Lepisosteidea Gars

Lepisosteus osseus Longnose gar

Moronidae Temperate Basses

Morone saxatilis Striped bass

Percidae Perches

Etheostoma collis Carolina darter

Etheostoma olmstedi Tessellated darter*

Etheostoma thalassinum Seagreen darter

Perca flavescens Yellow perch

Percina crassa Piedmont darter

Stizosteddion vitreum Walleye

Poeciliidae Livebearers

Gambusia holbrooki. Eastern mosquitofish*

The robust redhorse is ranked as G1 by NatureServe (2008). This ranking indicates that the

species is at a very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations),

very steep declines, or other factors. It is also listed as endangered by the American Fisheries

Society (Jelks et. al. 2008) which indicates that the species is in danger of extinction throughout

all or a significant portion of its range. The snail bullhead, flat bullhead and Carolina darter are

listed as vulnerable by the American Fisheries Society. This indicates that the species may

become endangered or threatened by relatively minor disturbances to its habitat or that it

deserves careful monitoring of its distribution and abundance in continental waters of the United

States to determine its status. The Carolina darter is also ranked as G3 by NatureServe,

indicating it is at moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations

36

(often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

The SC Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy (Kohlsaat et. al. 2005) includes the

South Carolina’s Priority Species List. These species warrant conservation concern to maintain

diversity in South Carolina waters. The species are ranked in priority as moderate, high and

highest. The quillback, Santee chub, seagreen darter, Piedmont darter and Carolina darter are

ranked with a high priority. The greenfin shiner, thicklip chub, fieryblack shiner, highback chub,

snail bullhead, white catfish, flat bullhead and striped bass are all ranked with a moderate

priority.

During US Forest Service surveys from 2001 to 2005, 22 fish species were captured in Enoree

Ranger District streams. Two of these species are considered nonindigenous or introduced

species to the watershed (Warren et. al. 2000). The green sunfish was captured in two streams

and the yellowfin shiner was captured in 12 streams.

. Table 3.2.1-2. Crayfish species known to occur in the Broad watershed (Eversole and Jones 2004)

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status

NatureServe State AFS

Cambaridae

Cambarus acuminatus Acuminate crayfish G4 S4 CS

Cambarus howardi Chattahoochee crayfish G3 CS

Cambarus latimanus Variable crayfish G5 S4? CS

Cambarus reduncus Sickle crayfish G4G5 S4 CS

Cambarus reflexus Pine savannah crayfish G4 S3 CS

Cambarus spicatus Broad River spiny crayfish G2 S3 V

Cambarus striatus Hay crayfish G5 CS

Distocambarus carlsoni Mimic crayfish G2G3 T

Distocambarus youngineri Newberry burrowing crayfish G1 S1 E

Procambarus acutus Eastern white river crayfish G5 S5 CS

Procambarus clarki Red swamp crayfish G5 CS

Procambarus troglodytes Eastern red swamp crayfish G5 S4S5 CS

The Newberry burrowing crayfish is ranked as G1. The Newberry burrowing crayfish is also

ranked as S1 by the SC Natural Heritage Program. The Broad River spiny crayfish is ranked as

G2 and the mimic crayfish is ranked G2G3. The G2 ranking indicates that the species is at high

risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep

declines or other factors. The Chattahoochee crayfish is ranked as G3. The Broad River spiny

crayfish and Pine savannah crayfish are rated as S3 by the SC Natural Heritage Program.

American Fisheries Society status ranks (Taylor et al 2007) include CS (currently stable), V

(vulnerable), T (threatened), E (endangered) and E* (endangered, possibly extinct). The V rank

indicates that the species mat become endangered or threatened by relatively minor disturbances

to its habitat and deserves careful monitoring of its abundance and distribution. The T rank

indicates that a species is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of

its range. The E rank indicates a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant

37

portion of its range.

The SC Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy ranks the mimic crayfish, pine savannah

crayfish, and Newberry burrowing crayfish as highest priority. The Broad River spiny crayfish is

rated as high priority.

Table 3.2.1-3. Mollusk species known to occur in the Broad River watershed (Alderman 2007).

Scientific Name Common Name Conservation Status

NatureServe State AFS

Corbiculidae

Corbicula fluminea Asiatic clam

Unionidae

Elliptio complanata Eastern elliptio G5 SNR CS

Elliptio angustata Carolina lance G4 SNR SC

Pyganodon cataracta Eastern floater G5 CS

Utterbackia imbecillis Paper pondshell G5 SNR CS

Villosa delumbis Eastern creekshell G4 SNR CS

The majority of mollusk species are unranked by the SC Natural Heritage Program. A non-native

clam species, the Asiatic clam, has widespread occurrence. American Fisheries Society status

ranks are from Williams, et al. 1992.

The Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata complex), Carolina lance and Eastern creekshell are

ranked as moderate priority by the SC Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy.

Aquatic insect surveys have not been conducted, but incidental catch reveals a variety of insect

order classes present.


There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects resulting from this alternative, as the

aquatic community would remain in its present state.


Due to the fact that the project area is essentially a closed system, and there are no perennial or

intermittent streams within the project area, no perceptable impacts on the aquatic community

are expected. Potential impacts from moderate increases in runoff, sediment, and nutrients would

be minimal based on forest-wide standards and guidelines and BMP’s implemented during

timber harvesting and construction activities. Blocking of existing ditches with a series of

groundwater dams that are separated by shallow pools to create ephemeral wetland habitats

would prove beneficial for the aquatic community, especially for macro-invertebrates, larval

amphibians and crayfishes

38

3.2.2 Management Indicator Species


A wide variety of wildlife species occur throughout the Enoree Ranger District of the Sumter

National Forest. Wildlife habitat within and adjacent to the project area consists of loblolly pine

stands of varying ages, hardwood inclusions, some open habitats, and wildlife openings.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are representative of

the diversity of species and associated habitats. MIS can be

used as a tool for identifying specialized habitats and

creating habitat objectives and standards and guidelines.

The MIS concept is to identify a few species that are

representative of many other species, and to evaluate

management direction by the effects of management on

MIS habitats. Both population and habitat data are used to

monitor MIS on National Forests. The 2004 Sumter NF

Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) lists 13 species as MIS; 12 are avian

species and one is a mammal.

Trends in MIS populations are normally assessed relative to trends in their respective habitat.

This section focuses on terrestrial MIS. Aquatic species are addressed in Section 3.3.2. Sumter

NF MIS are listed in Table 3.3.2-1, along with general comments regarding their habitats.

General discussions of these species and their relationship to monitoring can be found in the

Forest Plan.

Table 3.2.2-1. Management Indicator Species for the Sumter National Forest

Species General Comments

Hooded Warbler

Wilsonia citrina

Uses mesic deciduous forest with a shrubby understory; frequents dense thickets; fairly

common in upland and bottomland woodlands

Scarlet Tanager

Piranga olivacea

Uses mature deciduous forest and some mixed conifer-hardwood forests; requires

large areas of forest for breeding

Pine Warbler

Dendroica pinus

Uses middle-aged to mature open pine forest; seldom in hardwoods; overwinters

throughout much of its breeding range

Acadian Flycatcher

Empidonax virescens

Uses mesic sites with a diverse canopy structure; found in heavily wooded deciduous

bottomlands, swamps, riparian thickets, and in the wooded ravines of drier uplands

Brown-headed

Nuthatch

Sitta pusilla

Uses open, mid-late successional pine (age classes over 20 years); not common in

dense stands of pines; would overwinter

Prairie Warbler

Dendroica discolor

Frequents brushy old fields, open pine stands, and other early successional habitats

Field Sparrow

Spizella pusilla

Uses woodland, grassland, and savanna habitats; fairly common in old fields, open

brushy woodlands, and forest edge habitats

American Woodcock

Scolopax minor

Often found in shrub- and seedling-dominated regeneration areas in association with

riparian areas; requires moist soil conditions for feeding

Pileated Woodpecker

Dryocopus pileatus

Uses mature and extensive forests, primarily in deciduous forests; occurs in both deep

woods and swamps as well as in rather open and upland forests; excavates nesting and

roosting cavities

Management Indicator Species

(MIS): A species whose presence in

a certain location or situation at a

given population indicates a

particular environmental condition.

Their population changes are

believed to indicate effects of

management activities on a number

of other species or water quality.

39

Table 3.2.2-1. Management Indicator Species for the Sumter National Forest

Species General Comments

Northern Bobwhite

Colinus virginianus

Uses fields, grasslands, brushy habitats, and open woodlands; significantly declining

over most of its range due to habitat loss and changes in farming practices

Swainson’s Warbler

Limnothlypis

swainsonii

Uses canebrakes and other early-successional riparian habitats

Black Bear

Ursus americanus

Trends in population indices and harvest levels would be used to help evaluate the

results of management activities on this high profile species

Eastern Wild Turkey

Meleagris gallopavo

This species is most common in extensive bottomland forests where the understory is

moderate; also occurs in extensive upland hardwood or mixed forests, less so in pine

forests

Based on habitat within the Dunaway WMA project area and the biological requirements of the

species, nine MIS are considered and analyzed in this EA. The remaining four species are not

discussed in detail. Listed in Table 3.3.2-2 are the species that are excluded from analysis and the

reason why they are not addressed for this project.

Table 3.2.2-2. Management Indicator Species excluded from analysis in the Dunaway Waterfowl

Management Area Expansion project, Enoree Ranger District, Sumter National Forest.

Species Reason for Exclusion from Analysis

Northern Bobwhite

Colinus virginianus

This species is an indicator for trends in frequency of occurrence in fields, grasslands,

brushy habitats, and open woodlands. Proposed management activities would not

occur in this habitat so this species was excluded from analysis.

Field Sparrow

Spizella pusilla

This species is an indicator for trends in frequency of occurrence in woodland,

grassland, and savanna habitats; fairly common in old fields, open brushy woodlands,

and forest edge habitats. Proposed management activities would not take place within

riparian areas so this species was excluded from analysis.

Prairie Warbler

Dendroica discolor

This species is an indicator for presence and trends in frequency of occurrence in

brushy old fields, open pine stands, and other early successional habitats. Proposed

management activities would not take place within preferred habitat so this species

was excluded from analysis.

Black Bear

Ursus americanus

This species does not occur on the Enoree Ranger District so it was exluded from

analysis.

Vegetation manipulation changes the diversity and abundance of wildlife species in a given area.

Planning regulations define diversity as “the distribution and abundance of different plant and

animal communities and species within [an] area…” (36 CFR 219.3(g)). In general, forested

areas that are in various stages of development and include periodic openings support a wide

diversity of species and habitats. Management activities that result in different types of habitats,

including prescribed burning and thinning, tend to increase wildlife diversity. Impacts beneficial

to wildlife are typically greater with a combination of management activities versus any of the

treatments separately. Table 3.3.2-3 lists the MIS that occur or have habitat within the proposed

project area. These are the species that are analyzed in this EA. Following the table are effects to

these MIS by alternative.

40

Table 3.2.2-3. Habitat associations of Management Indicator Species that occur or have habitat within the

project area.

Habitat Association Species

Shrub- and seedling-dominated regeneration areas in

association with riparian areas

American Woodcock, Swainson’s Warbler

Mesic deciduous forests/riparian habitats Pileated Woodpecker, Acadian Flycatcher, Hooded

Warbler, Eastern Wild Turkey, Scarlet Tanager

Middle-aged to mature open pine forest Pine warbler

Mid-late successional pine (age classes over 20

years)

Brown-headed Nuthatch


Under this alternative, the Dunaway WMA would not be expanded and connected actions would

not occur.

3.2.2.2.1 Direct Effects

Direct effects are effects to the species known or assumed to occur in the proposed project area.

They occur at the same time and place as the project activity.

All MIS in Table 3.3.2-3

There would be no direct effects to any of the MIS under this alternative since no activities

would take place.

3.2.2.2.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects include the consequences of management activities that result in the

modifications of habitat and ecological conditions that affect food, water, shelter, and other life

requirements for a species.

All MIS in Table 3.3.2-3

There would be no indirect effects to any of the MIS under this alternative since no activities

would take place.

3.2.2.2.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

There are other projects being implemented and/or planned on the Enoree Ranger District that

would continue under the No Action alternative. Projects include timber harvesting, prescribed

burning for hazard fuel reduction and wildlife habitat improvement, road maintenance, and trail

construction and maintenance.

With the No Action alternative, no additional activities would take place, so there would be no

additional cumulative effects within the project area or across the District.

41


Approximately 11 acres or about .00007% of the forest would be impacted by this project. MIS

species could be directly affected by the proposed action. The pileated woodpecker breeding

season extends from mid-March to late May, with the peak from mid-April to late April. Nests

are nine meters from the ground and are mainly in forests well hidden. Acadian flycatchers breed

from mid-May to mid-July with the peak from early June to mid-June. Nests are built out of

limbs of conifers and hardwoods 4-15 meters from the ground. Hooded warblers breed from late

April to late June with peak activity occurring in early to late May. Nests are typically 1.5 meters

from the ground in shrubs or saplings. Eastern wild turkeys breed from late March to late May,

with a peak from late April to mid-May. The nests are built on the ground in woodlands, well

hidden under shrubs or other vegetation (Hamel, 1992). Scarlet tanagers breed from mid-May to

early August, with a peak from late May to mid-June. Nests are typically 6-15 meters from the

ground in hardwoods. American woodcocks breed from late February to mid-May and nest under

shrubs or saplings in woodlands. Swainson’s warblers breed from early May to early July with a

peak from mid-May to mid-June. Nests are typically 0.6-3 meters from the ground in saplings,

shrubs, or vine tangles. Because of the highly mobile nature of avian species, any disturbance

associated with this project could result in the temporary displacement of individuals to

undisturbed area. It is possible that if project activities occur during the breeding season, nests

and nestlings could be lost.

Habitat for the pileated woodpecker, Acadian flycatcher, hooded warbler, eastern wild turkey,

American woodcock, Swainson’s warbler and scarlet tanager would be lost when the 11 acre

impoundment becomes flooded. These species are highly mobile and would relocate to

undisturbed areas if they were displaced by proposed activities.

The brown-headed nuthatch and pine warbler have habitat within the project area however their

habitat consists of mature pine trees that is not within the 11 acres that will be flooded. This

project would not have any direct or indirect effects to the brown-headed nuthatch or pine

warbler.

3.2.2.3.1Cumulative Effects of the Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Management activities would continue on the Enoree Ranger District. These activities include

prescribed burning, timber thinning and harvesting, recreational activities including maintenance

of trails and trail heads, road maintenance, wildlife opening maintenance, disking, planting, and

establishment of native forbs and grasses.

The proposed action when added to other past, present and future projects on federal and private

land would not result in any detectable effects on populations of American woodcock,

Swainson’s warbler, pileated woodpecker, Acadian flycatcher, hooded warbler, eastern wild

turkey, scarlet tanager, pine warbler, or brown headed nuthatch.

42

3.2.2 Vegetation


Most of the USFS lands surrounding the project area are dominated by even-aged stands of

loblolly pine (70+ percent). Hardwood dominated stands comprise approximately <20 percent of

lands in this area, and are primarily found along perennial stream courses and the Broad River.

Hardwoods can also be found as small inclusions within predominately pine stands and in mixed

stands, which contain a relatively even mix of pine and hardwood species. Major hardwood

species include sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow poplar

(Liriodendron tulipifera L.) and a variety of oaks (Quercus spp.).

Plant communities adjacent to the project area are common to managed loblolly pine forests.

Species composition has been influenced in the past by timber harvest, prescribed fires, and

altered soil conditions. Common shrub-subcanopy vegetation in these areas includes dogwood

(Cornus florida), blackberry (Rubus sp.), sumac (Rhus sp.), hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana),

sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum) and blackgum (Nyssa sp.), as well as seedlings and saplings

of overstory species, including red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),

oak (Quercus spp.), and loblolly and some shortleaf pine (P. echinata). Understory vegetation

varies from location to location depending on soil conditions, frequency of disturbance, and the

level of available moisture. In general, the level of ground cover is most affected by the amount

of light reaching the forest floor, with those sites having the least canopy cover capable of

supporting larger woody plant communities. These conditions are common in areas that once

served as old log landings in past harvests, as well as near roadsides. Understory vegetation in

these areas may include greenbriar (Smilax sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),

honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), blackberry, and beautyberry (Callicarpa americana), as well as a

variety of grasses and legumes. The amount of hardwood seedling development in a given stand

is directly correlated with the amount of crown closure and frequency of prescribed burns.

Understory hardwood seedling development consists primarily of sweetgum and red maple, with

a relatively smaller proportion of oak, depending on available seed sources. Sweetgum is the

most common species, accounting for up to 60 percent of all woody understory production in the

southern Piedmont of Georgia and South Carolina (Kormanik, No date). The majority of woody

understory production in stands consists of soft mast and non-mast producing species.

Due to past land practices and the nature of invasive plants, non-native invasive plants occur

throughout the Enoree District. Within the project area, trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata),

Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicere japonica), and autumn olive

(Elaeagnus umbellata) was encountered throughout.

3.2.3.2 Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

Alternative 1 would allow natural succession to proceed. Communities dominated by shrubs and

then by trees of the species listed above (3.3.3 Vegetation Affected Environment) would

43

eventually develop into bottomland hardwoods comprised of the trees species listed above along

with water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sweetgum (Liguidambar

styraciflua), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and others.

Nonnative invasive (NNIS) plants in the area have been targeted for treatment under an existing

Environmental Assessment, Non-native Invasive Plant Control on the Sumter National Forest

and a Decision Memo, Enoree R-O-W Vegetation Restoration to replace nonnative invasive

species along road rights-of-way with native vegetation. These decisions would specifically

target NNIS that are threatening native habitats and species or would restore native vegetation

once herbicide treatments are completed. Nevertheless, due to the abundance of non-native

invasive plants they are expected to increase, particularly on adjacent private lands.

Cumulative effects associated with Alternative 1 (No Action alternative) may include a decrease

in the productivity of forest stands as a result of competition for light, water, and nutrients.

These effects would increase the potential for insect outbreaks, and the potential for outbreaks to

spread to other NF areas and private lands. Although biodiversity would increase in the

understory as a result of periodic prescribed burn treatments in some stands, diversity in the

canopy and sub-canopy would likely remain at current levels.

3.2.3.2 Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Alternative 2 would result in most of the area being maintained in a grass/forb stage dominated

by Cephalanthus occidentalis, Ployganum spp., Scirpus spp., Cyperus spp., Panicum spp., and

Peltandra spp. Smartweed would continue to dominate the open area that is not disked. Portions

of the area would develop into bottomland hardwoods where an adjacent wetland would have

groundwater dams constructed. The extent of hardwood establishment depends upon the degree

of drying of the soil during draw-down which would favor hardwoods and upon the amount of

disking which would maintain early successional vegetation.

The removal of biomass on these 11 acres would be accomplished using all applicable design

features included in the Dunaway WMA Environmental Assessment, and these units have no

extraordinary circumstances that require additional mitigations.

Non-native invasive plants already present in the stands would be kept in check by existing

decisions that are in place to treat NNIS or to restore native vegetation in areas already treated.

The introduction and spread of non-native invasive plants within the project area would be

monitored and the need for treatments evaluated periodically. A map of invasive plants in the

project area and equipment would be inspected prior to entering or leaving an infested area.

In general, cumulative impacts concerning the overall structure and condition of vegetation

public lands in Dunaway WMA would vary. Vegetation management operations under

Alternatives 2 would generally result in an increase in the health and vegetative diversity of the

stand. Sites with proposed regeneration operations would provide age class diversity in

Dunaway WMA, and promote the development of early successional species and habitats. Past

44

timber sales in the area have opened up stands encouraging the growth of grasses in the

understory. As the sunlight reaches the forest floor, grasses and forbs would respond.

Regeneration addresses the desired conditions in management prescriptions in the 2004 Sumter

LRMP.

3.2.3 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Forest Sensitive Species (PETS)


Several proposed, endangered, threatened and sensitive (PETS) plant and animal species occur

throughout the Enoree Ranger District. Habitat conditions within the project area include mature

mixed hardwoods-pine and mature hardwoods. Giant cane and inland sea oats are found on the

higher sandy sites, along with other shrubs and herbaceous vegetation. The specific areas where

the wetland would be expanded is primarily smart weed and buttonbush where there is minimal

overstory. Based on the clay soils prevalent across the area, it is likely wetland habitats once

occurred in pockets in the project area prior to it being drained for cultivation. The soils in this

area are silty clay in texture, and the ditches from past agricultural practices are functioning.

A Biological Assessment/Evaluation (BA/BE) was prepared to determine whether the Dunaway

WMA is likely to affect any PETS species(Appendix A). This BA/BE is included in this

Environmental Assessment as an appendix item and includes the list of PETS species for the

SNF. All species on this list were considered for this BA/BE. Using a step-down process and

best available science, species and potential habitat in the project area were identified by:

1) Evaluating the location and nature of the proposed project,

2) Considering the species’ range, life history, and available habitat information,

3) Reviewing District records of known PETS species occurrences,

4) Reviewing the USFWS Distribution Records of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate

and Species of Concern (2011), and

5) Reviewing the South Carolina Heritage Trust Geographic Database of Rare,

Threatened, and Endangered Species (2011).

45

The species determined to occur, or assumed to occur due to the presence of potential habitat in

this project are listed in Table 3.2.4-1.

Table 3.2.4-1. Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) species that occur or are assumed to occur in the Indian Creek Project Area,

Enoree Ranger District, Sumter National Forest, South Carolina

Species Ranking

Wood stork - Mycteria Americana Federally Endangered

Bald Eagle - Haliaeetus leucoocephalus Sensitive

Georgia aster - Symphyotrichum georgianus Sensitive; Federal candidate

Piedmont aster - Eurybia mirabilis Sensitive

There are no other PETS species or associated habitats that are known to occur or have the

potential to occur in the proposed project area.


Under this alternative, additional management actions in this proposal would not be

implemented. PETS species would not be affected since no management actions are proposed.


See the attached BA/BE for the analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed

action on PETS species.

Bald eagles are not known to nest in the proposed project area; however, individuals could use

the adjacent Broad River for foraging and roost in trees located within the project boundary.

Because bald eagles are highly mobile avian species, any disturbance associated with the project

could temporarily displace them to undisturbed areas. The proposed action is not likely to have

adverse direct effects on bald eagles.

The removal of trees within the 11-acre expansion area could result in the loss of potential bald

eagle roost or nest sites. Considering the availability of suitable trees adjacent to the project area

and taking into account that proposed activities would occur on a very small percentage of the

total available habitat on the District, the project is not likely to adversely affect bald eagle

habitat. Harvesting of biomass material from the 11 acre timber sale does not change the

determination of effect for PETS species in the BA/E and would have no direct, indirect, or

cumulative effect on MIS.

46

Ephemeral wetlands area located adjacent to the proposed impoundment. Project activities would

most likely occur during the dry season (June through September). It is possible that post-

breeding wood storks could use these wetland habitats at that time. Wood storks are highly

mobile avian species, so if they were present during project implementation they would simply

relocate to undisturbed areas. Wood storks would likely return once the disturbance is over.

Direct effects are not likely to occur to this species.

Project activities are expected to improve habitat for wood storks by restoring the function of the

drained ephemeral wetland. Improved wetland hydrology and increased hydroperiod would

improve habitat suitability for this species.

No known Georgia aster sites occur in the project area; however, potential habitat does occur

along the woods road that would be used as an access road. If this species did occur along the

access road, individuals could potentially be run over during road construction activities and

logging operations. The old woods road is shaded with dense amounts of invasive species and

other woody vegetation, therefore it is highly unlikely Georgia aster would be present.

Habitat for Georgia aster would be expected to improve with the implementation of this project.

Clearing the temporary road would improve habitat for this species by increasing the amount of

sunlight within the road prism, providing the conditions necessary for the growth and

reproduction of this species.

Piedmont aster is not known to occur within the project area; however, potential habitat may

exist, although this is unlikely considering the historic level of disturbance that has taken place

within the project area. If this species were to occur, individuals could be damaged or destroyed

during project activities.

Floodplain habitat would be altered with the implementation of this project. Proposed activities

could result in less potential habitat for piedmont aster.

Other management activities that have taken place on the Enoree Ranger District include

prescribed burning, timber sales, precommercial thinning and release of timber, southern pine

beetle control, drum chopping for site preparation and tree planting, recreation trail

reconstruction and maintenance, seedling of roads, skid trails, firelines, and log decks, additional

road maintenance (grading, brushing, and mowing) and road decommissioning. Most of these

activities are expected to continue in the near future at approximately the same levels. Private

lands within or adjacent to the proposed project areas are made up of timberland, home sites,

pastures, and farmland. Intensive timber management activities on private lands, including

thinning, regeneration cuts, and road building, have occurred heavily over the past 10 years

within some of these areas.

47

3.2.4.4 Determination of Effects for the Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Analysis in the BA/BE determined that the action alternative “may impact individuals but not

likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for bald eagle, Georgia aster and

piedmont aster.

Analysis in the BA/BE determined that the proposed action was “not likely to adversely affect”

wood stork or their habitats. There was an ESA Section 7 consultation with USFWS and it is

attached in Appendix C.

3.2.4 Migratory Birds


The Dunaway project occurs within a geographic area known as the Piedmont in South Carolina.

This area is associated with Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 29-Southern Piedmont. The

following sources, along with an analysis of available habitats, were reviewed to identify priority

migratory birds that are likely to occur in the project area: (1) Partners in Flight list of priority

species and habitats for BCR 29, (2) US Fish and Wildlife Service list of Birds of Conservation

Concern for BCR 29, (3) South Carolina Breeding Bird Atlas, and (4) “Status and Distribution of

South Carolina Birds” (Post and Gauthreaux 1989). The results of this review produced the

following table of priority migratory birds that are associated with and potentially affected by the

Dunaway WMA Expansion Project.

48


Under this alternative, the Dunaway WMA would not be expanded and connected actions would

not occur.

3.2.5.2.1 Direct Effects

Direct effects are effects to the species known or assumed to occur in the proposed project area.

They occur at the same time and place as the project activity.

All migratory birds in Table 3.3.5-1

There would be no direct effects to any of the migratory birds under this alternative since no

activities would take place.

3.2.5.2.2 Indirect Effects

Indirect effects include the consequences of management activities that result in the

modifications of habitat and ecological conditions that affect food, water, shelter, and other life

requirements for a species.

Yellow-throated warbler N NMixed pine-hardwood forest

Northern parula Mixed pine-hardwood Forest N N

Red-eyed vireo Mature hardwoods Y N

N

Red-shouldered hawk Bottomland Hardwoods Y

Louisiana waterthrush Mixed pine-hardwood Forest near river or stream NN

Mallard Flooded bottomlands N Y

Mixed pine-hardwood Forest N N

Kentucky warbler Mixed pine-hardwood Forest N N

Hooded warbler

Hairy woodpecker

Acadian flycatcher Bottomland Hardwoods Y

Canada goose

Black-and-white warbler

Mixed pine-hardwood Forest N

Blue-gray gnatcatcher

brown-headed nuthatch

N

Y

Bottomland Hardwoods

Mature pine forest

Flooded bottomlands

Y

N

N

N

N

N

Mature hardwoods Y

American redstart Bottomland Hardwoods Y N

N

Table 3.3.5-1 Migratory birds Associated with the Dunaway Waterfowl Project, Sumter National Forest, Enoree Ranger

District, South Carolina

Species Habitat Association

Habitat Altered?

Y/N

Habitat Created?

Y/N

Y

Scarlet tanager Mature hardwoods Y Y

Yellow-billed cuckoo Mesic deciduous forests Y N

Wood duck Flooded bottomlands N Y

Wood thrush Mixed pine-hardwood Forest N N

yellow throated vireo Mature hardwoods Y N

White-breasted nuthatch Mature hardwoods Y N

Swainson's warbler Bottomland Hardwoods with cane breaks N N

Whip-poor-will Mixed pine-hardwood Forest N

49

All migratory birds in Table 3.3.5-1

There would be no indirect effects to any of the migratory birds under this alternative since no

activities would take place.

3.2.5.2.3 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1: No Action

There are other projects being implemented and/or planned on the Enoree Ranger District that

would continue under the No Action alternative. Projects include timber harvesting, prescribed

burning for hazard fuel reduction and wildlife habitat improvement, road maintenance, and trail

construction and maintenance. Activities on private land consist of farming, ranching timber

harvesting and homesites.Eisting levels of use are expected in the future.

With the No Action alternative, no additional activities would take place, so there would be no

additional cumulative effects to species or habitat for migratory birds listed in Table 3.3.5-1

within the project area or across the District.


Direct effects are not expected to occur to migratory birds. These highly mobile avian species

that would relocate to undisturbed areas if they were displaced by proposed activities. However,

it is possible that if any of these species are nesting during logging activities or connected

actions, nests and nestlings could be lost due to the activities. These effects are considered minor

since only 11 acres would be harvested. In addition, timber harvesting and connected actions

would have to occur at the exact time when species are most vulnerable and also occur over

successive years to have substantial impacts. This is unlikely given past management practices.

In addition, avian species would re-nest multiple times throughout the nesting season. Bird

monitoring is done on an annual basis to assess the presence/absence and frequency of

occurrence of bird species by habitat conditions across the Sumter National Forest.

Migratory birds associated with mixed pine-hardwood forests (hairy woodpecker, hooded

warbler, Kentucky warbler, northern parula, whip-poor-will, wood thrush and yellow-throated

warbler) and mature pine (brown-headed nuthatch)

Mixed pine-hardwood associated species and mature pine species have habitat within the project

area; however their habitat consists of mixed pine-hardwood and mature pine trees that is not

within the 11 acres that would be harvested and flooded. This project would not have any

indirect effects to these migratory bird species.

Migratory birds associated with bottomland hardwood forests (Acadian flycatcher, American

redstart, blue-gray gnatcatcher, mallard, red-shouldered hawk, Swainson’s warbler, and yellow-

billed cuckoo) and mature hardwood forests (black-and-white warbler, red-eyed vireo, scarlet

tanager, white-breasted nuthatch and yellow-throated vireo)

Habitat for bottomland hardwood and mature hardwood forests associated species would be lost

50

when the 11 acre impoundment becomes flooded. These species are highly mobile and would

relocate to undisturbed areas if they were displaced by proposed activities. Eleven acres would

not be a substantial amount of habitat lost considering this type of habitat is common along the

river bottoms across the district.

Migratory birds associated with mixed pine-hardwood forest near river or stream (Louisiana

waterthrush)

Louisiana waterthrush could lose habitat from the expansion of the WMA with the removal of 11

acres of hardwoods. However expansion may increase the foraging area for Louisiana

waterthrush. This species is highly mobile and would relocate to undisturbed areas if it were

displaced by proposed activities. Eleven acres would not be a substantial amount of habitat lost

considering this type of habitat is common along the river bottoms across the district.

Migratory birds associated with flooded bottomland hardwoods (Canada goose, mallard and

wood duck)

The Dunaway WMA expansion project is expected to improve the habitat, foraging and nesting

for species that use flooded bottomland hardwoods. A larger habitat would create better food

sources, better nesting sites, and reduced distances to similar habitat on the landscape which

translates into a greater likelihood of nesting success, greater reproductive rates, and better

condition of individuals when they begin their migration.

3.2.5.4 Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Management activities would continue on the Enoree Ranger District. These activities include

prescribed burning, timber thinning and harvesting, recreational activities including maintenance

of trails and trail heads, road maintenance, wildlife opening maintenance, disking, planting, and

establishment of native forbs and grasses.

The proposed action when added to other past, present and future projects on federal and private

land would not result in any detectable effects on populations of migratory birds.

3.3 Social Environment

3.3.1 Human Health and Safety



The Forest Service Handbook (FSH), Forest Service Manual (FSM), and the Revised Land and

Resource Management Plan, Sumter National Forest (Forest Plan) all provide guidance and

51

establish required measures to protect human health and safety during forest management

activities. The Sumter National Forest also has a spill response program in place to contain and

remove contaminants, such as herbicides.

This alternative would have no effect on human health and safety beyond current management

actions in the area. Past, present and current activities in the area that have the potential to impact

human health and safety include prescribed burning, road maintenance and herbicide

applications for non-native invasive plants. All of these activities would comply with Forest Plan

direction to protect public health and safety and also include project-specific design criteria.

Adverse cumulative effects are not expected to human health and safety.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Timber harvesting activities, construction of the dike, periodic mowing and other associated

activities to improve the waterfowl area would require the use of heavy equipment (such as

dozers, skidders, log loaders, bush-hogs, tractors and trucks). The use of heavy equipment and

the movement of trees and logs present the highest potential for safety risks during harvest

activities. There is a risk of injury to contract workers, Forest Service personnel and

recreationists. In accordance with Forest Service Health and Safety Code Handbook (FSH

6709.11), these management activities require all Forest Service workers to wear safety

equipment, including hard hats, eye and ear protection, chaps, and fire retardant clothes.

Monitoring of compliance with the Forest safety code would be accomplished through on-site

inspections and reviews of accident reports (USDA, 1989b).

For all mechanical treatments, equipment operators must demonstrate proficiency with the

equipment and be licensed to operate it. In addition, a helper must direct the operator where

safety is compromised by terrain or limited sight distances (USDA, 1989b).

The private timber sale contractor conducting the harvest would be responsible for adhering to

safety specifications during the entire harvest process.

These requirements include the:

Installation of temporary traffic control devices on roads and trails open to public travel

to warn users of hazardous or potentially hazardous conditions;

Removal of logging slash from all trails open to the public;

Development of a specific traffic control plan; and

Installation of road closure devices, such as but not limited to barricades to control entry

to the activity site (USDA, 2000a).

Any risks to workers or the public would be minor and temporary. Strict adherence to safety

measures would minimize or eliminate adverse human health and safety effects. As stated on

52

page 10 of the VEG EIS, “With all mitigation in force, worker health risks from herbicides

would be well below published health and safety standards.”

Road maintenance would improve safety conditions for Forest personnel and users during project

activities. While this would have a beneficial effect on human health and safety, this effect

would not be significant.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Past, present, and future actions in and adjacent to the project area would be required to comply

with established standards in the Forest Plan. The implementation of other management actions

would not increase the potential for cumulative adverse safety impacts. With adherence to

required safety measures, no significant, cumulative impacts on human health and safety would

occur.

The USFS conducts prescribed fire within and adjacent to the project area as part of its normal

maintenance and general management of the Sumter National Forest. Threats to human health

and safety during a prescribed fire are smoke inhalation and injury from the fire itself in the

event that a controlled burn escapes the area. Various safety measures are in place to protect

workers and the public from adverse effects during prescribed fires. A prescribed fire plan is

required for each managed burn, which includes a smoke mitigation plan in the event that

planned conditions change. Roads and highways are closed if the smoke impairs visibility

enough to threaten public safety (USDA, 2000b). The public is notified through signs and closed

roads, if necessary, and nearby residents adjacent to the Forest are notified prior to a prescribed

burn. In addition, standards and guidelines and mitigation measures provided in the Forest Plan

are adhered to during prescribed fires, which minimize or eliminate public human health and

safety concerns resulting from smoke exposure and fire injuries. All burns are conducted by

trained staff, supervised by an experienced burn boss, and monitored through review of burn

plans, on-site inspections, and post-burn evaluations (USDA, 1989b).

There would be no impact to human health with Alternative 1. There may be temporary, minor

potential for adverse impacts on worker and public safety during use of heavy equipment given

strict adherence to safety measures.

3.3.2 Scenery and Recreation


Scenery Resources

The Enoree Ranger District (District) can be seen from many vantage points, from roads, trails,

rivers and recreation areas. The more scenic landscapes are generally associated with or occur

adjacent to bodies of water (rivers and streams and include the numerous waterfalls), rock

formations and outcrops and hardwoods that produce spectacular fall foliage. Many areas of the

District are viewed from the immediate foreground, meaning it is nearest to the viewer. Views

53

beyond the immediate foreground are influenced by terrain as well as vegetation type and

density. The District is rolling piedmont and covered with an almost-continuous canopy of

deciduous and coniferous vegetation creating a natural-appearing landscape character.

The scenic resource management direction is determined by the Landscape Aesthetics, A

Handbook for Scenery Management (USDA, 1995). From that handbook, Scenic Integrity

Objectives (SIO’s) were established for all lands in the Sumter National Forest (Sumter NF) in

the Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, Sumter National Forest (Forest Plan). SIO’s

include: “low”, where management activities may dominate the landscape; “moderate”, where

management practices are visually subordinate in the landscape; and “high”, where management

activities are not evident to the casual observer and “very high” where ecological changes only

are allowed. The SIO of the entire 11 acre project is moderate.

Vegetation management has the potential to significantly alter the landscape and impact the

scenic resource. Vegetation management practices can cause long-term effects on scenery by

altering landscapes through species conversion by reduction or increase in species diversity,

forest structure, and alteration of opening size, location, and frequency. The potential effects may

be positive or negative, depending on their consistency with the desired condition of the

landscape.

Recreation Resources

Visitors come to the District to participate in a wide variety of recreation opportunities and

experiences in outdoor settings. The recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classifies the types

of recreation experiences available and can specify desired recreation experience in certain areas.

The classes range from Primitive, where areas are essentially unmodified natural environments

of fairly large size to Urban, where areas are the most modified urban environments.

The entire project area is within the Rural ROS class. In the more rural setting the areas are more

modified to enhance recreation activities and to maintain vegetative cover and soil but harmonize

with the natural environment and there will be facilities designed for larger numbers of people.


The No-action alternative is not expected to have any adverse impacts on scenery or recreation.

However, waterfowl and recreational use of the project area is expected to be lower than that

produced by the proposed action.


The proposed action would not result in permanent adverse impacts to scenery or recreation. Use

of appropriate sustainable techniques would minimize temporary aesthetic impacts associated

with construction and associated equipment. Sediment removal and alteration that may hinder

the aesthetics of the area would also be reduced by applying appropriate erosion control

techniques that are sequenced to minimize the exposure time of graded or denuded areas.

Impoundment borders would be seeded with native mixtures that are attractive to wildlife. The

54

techniques used during the impoundment construction would reduce the aesthetic impacts. These

impacts are considered negligible and temporary.

In some cases, the aesthetics of the project area would be enhanced by the presence of the

waterfowl impoundment and the fauna that will utilize it. There would be an increase in

biodiversity and fauna throughout the area, most notably when the impoundment would be

flooded. Increases in noise may occur during construction of the waterfowl impoundment;

however these increases would be minor and temporary. Impacts to noise may also be impacted

in the winter by hunters in the area during certain hunting seasons, such as deer and duck

seasons. During these times there may be increased noises associated with potentially higher

numbers of individuals hunting. However, these impacts are considered minor and only during

certain specific times of the year.

The project is surrounded by national forest system lands. Periodic prescribed burning is the only

other activity immediately adjacent to the project area and is unlikely to cumulatively impact

scenery or recreation in the area in the long term.

The Forest Plan SIO would continue to be met once vegetation is restored in the project area

which is expected in less than a year. There would be minor short term impacts to recreation

until the project is completed. In the long term, recreation activities would be enhanced with the

project and would meet the Rural ROS.

3.3.3 Heritage Resources


Heritage resources include historic properties as defined

in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),

cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),

archaeological resources as defined in the Archaeological

Resources Protection Act (ARPA), sacred sites as defined

in Executive Order 13007, Protection and

Accommodation of Access to “Indian Sacred Sites,” to

which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and

collections. As defined by the NHPA, a historic property or historic resource is any prehistoric or

historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), including any artifacts, records, and remains that

are related to and allocated in such properties. The term also includes properties of traditional

religious and cultural importance (traditional cultural properties), which are eligible for inclusion

in the NRHP as a result of their association with the cultural practices or beliefs of an Indian

tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. Archaeological resources include any material of human

life or activities that is at least 100 years old, and that is of archaeological interest.

Archaeological Resources

Protection Act (ARPA): Statute that

provides for criminal and civil

penalties for the excavation or

damage of archaeological materials

without a permit.

55

Section 106 of the NHPA (PL 89-655) provides the

framework for Federal review and consideration of

cultural resources during Federal project planning and

execution. The Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation (ACHP) has promulgated the

implementing regulations for the Section 106 process

(36 CFR Part 800). The Secretary of the Interior

maintains the NRHP and sets forth significance criteria

(36 CFR Part 60) for inclusion in the register. Cultural

resources may be considered “historic properties” for the purpose of consideration by a Federal

undertaking if they meet NRHP criteria. The implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800.16(v)

define an undertaking as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the

direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a

Federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; those requiring a Federal

permit, license or approval; and those subject to state or local regulation administered pursuant to

a delegation or approval by a Federal agency.” Historic properties are those that are formally

placed on the NRHP by the Secretary of the Interior, and those that meet the criteria and are

determined eligible for inclusion.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed between the Advisory Council on

Historic Preservation, The South Carolina Department of Archives and History and the Francis

Marion and Sumter National Forests (November 14, 2000). It was developed to comply with the

terms of the Programmatic Agreement concerning the management of historic properties on

national forest lands in the Southern Region, which was executed on November 19, 1992 and to

satisfy the National Forest’s responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act (NHPA). The MOU establishes Categorical Exclusions for routine and

recurrent activities that are unlikely to affect heritage properties, including prescribed burns and

new fireline construction.

Heritage surveys were conducted for the project area, and a report was prepared and sent to the

South Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) by the District Archaeologist.

Concurrence from SHPO was received via letter dated October 6, 2009. The proposed action will

have no effect on any National Register or eligible property.

3.3.3.1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of Alternative 1

This alternative would have no effect on heritage resources.

3.3.3.2 Direct and Indirect Effects of Alternative 2

This alternative would avoid impacts to known Class 1 and Class 2 archaeological sites. Log

landings, decks, log piles and temporary roads would not pass through or impact these sites.

Concurrence from SHPO was received via letter dated October 6, 2009. The concurrence letter,

National Register of Historic Places

(NRHP): A nation-wide listing of

districts, sites, buildings, structures,

and objects of national, state, or

local significance in American

history, architecture, or culture that

is maintained by the Secretary of

the Interior, National Park Service.

56

stated: “Based on the description of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and the identification of

historic properties within the APE, our office concurs with the assessment that no properties

listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this

project.

3.3.3.3Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2

Avoidance of known sites combined with surveys of project areas and consultation with SHPO

would avoid cumulative adverse impacts to heritage resources. Past pulpwood thinning sales

and other site disturbing activities require heritage surveys prior to the start-up of activities.

Activities categorically excluded under the MOU between the Forest Service and SHPO

establish activities including pre-commercial thinning, mechanized chipping and fireline

construction and reconstruction as not needing surveys prior to the activity taking place.

3.3.4 Environmental Justice and Civil Rights


Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority

Populations and Low Income Populations, requires Federal agencies to identify and address any

disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of its projects on minority or

low-income populations. According to this Executive Order, each Federal agency must conduct

its programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in

a manner that ensures that such programs, policies, and activities do not have the effect of

excluding persons or populations from participation in, denying persons or populations the

benefits of, or subjecting persons or populations to discrimination under, such programs policies,

and activities because of their race, color, national origin, or income level.

An examination of environmental justice issues sets the stage for whether the action alternatives

or the No Action alternative would pose disproportionate environmental, health, or safety risks to

children or minority or low income populations.

Table 3.3.4-1 Percentage of Minority and Low Income Individuals/Families in Union

County Compared to South Carolina

Category

Minority % Low Income %

South Carolina 33.9 14.1

Union 33.1 14.3



The above data (census report from 2010) does not indicate that Union County qualifies as

57

environmental justice area. Therefore, no further analysis is required.

Since there are no disproportionate, adverse impacts regarding environmental justice or

protection of children issues, neither one of the action alternatives would contribute to any

cumulative effects in or around the project area.

3.3.5 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those resources that have been destroyed, removed or

deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at a great

expense. Examples of this include the loss of a species endemic to a certain site or mineral

extraction.

Irretrievable commitments represent resource opportunities that are foregone or cannot be

realized during the planning period. These decisions are reversible, but the production

opportunities foregone are irretrievable. Power line rights-of-way or a road that is kept clear of

trees and other vegetation are examples of irretrievable commitments of resources.

Following design criteria disclosed in this EA, adherence to Forest Plan standards and

guidelines, including use of BMPS, would minimize impacts to natural resources.

58

Chapter 4

Consultation

Federal, State, local agencies were contacted during the development of this environmental

assessment. In addition, individuals were contacted based on the District-wide mailing list. This

list is located in the project file.

4.1 Interdisciplinary Team

Jeff Magniez.................................... Zone Wildlife Biologist

Jason Jennings .................................................. Soil Scientist

Hector Socias ............................................... District Planner

Carrie Miller............................. District Wildlife Technician

Chris Smith .......................... Timber Management Assistant

Chris Evans ................................. Other Resources Assistant

Tarri McKinney ....................... District Wildlife Technician

Mike Harmon .................................................. Archaeologist

Larue Bryant ................................................ Forest Engineer

Jeanne Riley ................................. Forest Fisheries Biologist

Robin Mackie ................................ Forest Ecologist/Botanist

Robbin Cooper ...........................Forest Landscape Architect

4.2 Other Agencies Consulted

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

US Fish and Wildlife Service

South Carolina History and Archives, State Historic Preservation Office

No public comments were received during Scoping and the 30 day notice and comment period

59

Chapter 5

References and Data Sources

Adjuvants. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html

Alderman, J.M. 2007. Freshwater Mussel Surveys within the Broad River Basin for the US

Forest Service, Enoree Ranger District. Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Pittsboro, NC.

66pp.

Glyphosate, imazapic, imazapyr, triclopyr, adjuvants. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html

Glyphosate. http://extoxnet.orst.edu

Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager’s Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,

Chapel Hill, NC.

Imazapyr. http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html

Imazapyr. http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/imazapyr_red.pdf

Jelks, H.L, S.J. Walsh, N.M. Burkhead, S. Contreras-Balderas, E. Diaz-Pardo, D.A. Hendrickson,

J. Lyons, N.E. Mandrak, F. McCormick, J.S. Nelson, S.P. Platania, B.A. Porter, C.B. Renaud, J.J.

Schmitter-Soto, E.B. Taylor and M.L. Warren, Jr. 2008. Conservation status of imperiled North

American freshwater and diadromous fishes. Fisheries 33 (8):372-407.

Kohlsaat T, L. Quattro, and J. Rinehart. 2005 South Carolina comprehensive wildlife

conservation strategy 2005-2010. 2005. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

Columbia, SC. 278 pp.

NatureServe. 2008. Nature Serve Explore: An online encyclopedia of life (web application).

Version 6.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Newton, M.F., A. Roberts, B. Allen, B. Kelpsas, D. White, and P. Boyd. Deposition and

Dissipation of Three Herbicides in Foliage, Litter, and Soil Brushfields of Southwest Oregon. J.

Agric. Good Chem., 38; 574-583.

Non-native Invasive Plant Control on the Sumter National Forest Environmental Assessment,

South Carolina. 2004 US Forest Service, Columbia, SC. 39pp.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan. 2009.

http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/index.shtm

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/handbook.html


http://extoxnet.orst.edu/


http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/REDs/imazapyr_red.pdf

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

http://www.fws.gov/birdhabitat/NAWMP/index.shtm

60

Patric, J.H. October, 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry. Pages 671-

677.

Patric, James. 1994. Water, Woods, and People: A Primer.

Pederson, Neil, J.M. Varner, and B.J. Palik. 2008. Canopy disturbance and tree recruitment over

two centuries in a managed longleaf pine landscape. Forest Ecology and Management, Volume

254, Issue 1, 15 January 2008, Pages 85–95.

Porcher, R.D. and D.A. Rayner. 2001. A Guide to the Wildflowers of South Carolina University

of South Carolina Press.

Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, J.W. Foltz, and J.M. Quattro. 2009. Freshwater Fishes of South

Carolina. The University of South Carolina Press. Columbia, SC. 430pp.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of

Agriculture. Official Soil Series Descriptions. Available online at

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html. Accessed [04/02/2013].

South Carolina Heritage Trust Geographic Database of Rare and Endangered Species. 2010.

Online reference https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/species.login

Swank, Wayne, and DeBano, Leonard, and Nelson, Devon. 1989. Effects of Timber

Management Practices on Soil and Water. Pages 79-106. From the Scientific Basis for

Silvicultural and Management Decisions in National Forest System. General Technical Report

WO-55.

Taylor, C.A., G.A. Schuster, J.E Cooper, R.J. Distefano, A.G. Eversole. P. Hamr, H.H. Hobbs

III, H.W. Robison, C.E. Skelton and R.F. Thomas. 2007. A reassessment of the conservation

status of crayfishes of the United States and Canada after 10+ years of increased awareness.

Fisheries 32(8):372-389.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. South Carolina Distribution Records of Endangered,

Threatened, Candidate and Species of Concern.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Candidate and Listing Priority Assignment Form (Aster

georgianus). Online reference http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/pdf/ga.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2007. Summary of Georgia Aster Monitoring,

Sumter National Forest.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2001. Management Indicator Species Population

and Trends. Francis Marion and Sumter National Forests.

http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/osd/index.html

https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pls/heritage/species.login

http://www.fws.gov/southeast/es/pdf/ga.pdf

61

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2004. Revised Land and Resource Management

Plan, Sumter National Forest. Management Bulletin R8-MB-116A.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Francis Marion-Sumter National Forest. 2009. National Visitor

Use Monitoring Results.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1989. Vegetation Management in the Coastal

Plain/Piedmont Final Environmental Impact Statement. Southern Region.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001.

http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/riskassess/ecolbul.html

Warren, M.L, M.B. Brooks, S.J. Walsh, H.L. Bart, R.C. Cashner, D.A. Etnier, B.J. Freeman,

B.R. Kuhajda, R.L. Mayden, H.W. Robison, S.T. Ross, and W.C. Starnes. 000. Diversity,

distribution, and conservation status of the native freshwater fisheries of the Southern United

States. Fisheries 25 (10); 7-29.

http://www.epa.gov/region4/superfund/programs/riskassess/ecolbul.html

62

APPENDIX A

Biological Assessment/Evaluation

(Please See Appendix_A.pdf)

63

APPENDIX B

NRCS Consultation letter for Project Mitigating Design

(Please see Appendix_B.pdf)

64

APPENDIX C

ESA Section 7 Consultation

(Please See Appendix_C.pdf)

65

APPENDIX D

Maps

(Please see Appendix_D.pdf)

Vicinity Map

Aerial Photo View Project Map

Topographic View Project Map

Soils Type Layout Project Map

Documents

Dunaway Waterfowl Area Expansiona123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 64,000 turkey hunters, 30,000 rabbit hunters, 23,000 squirrel hunters, 32,000 duck hunters